A
adrift
Guest
I also am interested
How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Could be a fun and interesting thread…
J
jrtrent
Guest
It is an interesting topic, but I find myself confused right from the beginning. One source said, “The Gospel of Barnabas is an apocryphal gospel. That is, it is a life of Jesus purportedly written by a first-hand observer that is at variance with the picture(s) presented in the Bible. However, it is unique among apocrypha in that it is a Muslim gospel; that is, it presents Jesus as a human prophet, not the son of God, and as a forerunner of Muhammad.” sacred-texts.com/isl/gbar/index.htm
A Wikipedia entry cautioned, “This work should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, nor with the surviving Acts of Barnabas.”
So for starters, is it the Muslim gospel that we’re talking about or one of the other Barnabas writings?
A Wikipedia entry cautioned, “This work should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, nor with the surviving Acts of Barnabas.”
So for starters, is it the Muslim gospel that we’re talking about or one of the other Barnabas writings?
J
joe370
Guest
OK. How about the letter to the Hebrews? How can a sola scritpura advocate know that this book was written by Saint Paul and is therefore part of the inspired word of God? I explained to my sister long ago (or tried to) that the author is in fact not named in the letter as is the case with the four Gospels. However, she insists that I am wrong, as per her church leadership. Do you agree? Does it even matter?
J
jrtrent
Guest
Are we getting off the topic of the Gospel of Barnabas, or is the topic really the more general one of how we determine the canon of scripture? I can say, drawing on Lutheran teaching, that Hebrews is considered part of the antilegomena, seven NT writings about which the witness of the early church is not unanimous as to their authenticity. The Lutherans have, at least in the past, “left it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena.” (Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, Holy Scripture chapter II). I think I will wait for adrift and Radical to weigh in before possibly getting further off topic (plus I know that line about the witness of the early church is really weak . . .
).
J
joe370
Guest
I believe that Barnabas was just an example…
I think so…
Agreed.
OK.The Lutherans have, at least in the past, “left it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena.” (Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, Holy Scripture chapter II). I think I will wait for adrift and Radical to weigh in before possibly getting further off topic (plus I know that line about the witness of the early church is really weak . . .
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?
I’m not sure just what the question is supposed to mean, exactly, but lots of writings are “inspired” or even partially inspired and there might be somethings in this that were.
But it’s not canonical. The Canon of Scriptures was in existence for a thousand years before this was written, as far as I know. It was certainly not written by an apostle. It also contradicts Church teaching that precedes the Canon of Scripture.
I’m not sure just what the question is supposed to mean, exactly, but lots of writings are “inspired” or even partially inspired and there might be somethings in this that were.
But it’s not canonical. The Canon of Scriptures was in existence for a thousand years before this was written, as far as I know. It was certainly not written by an apostle. It also contradicts Church teaching that precedes the Canon of Scripture.
R
R_C
Guest
Original question:
First, because I read that “this work clearly contradicts the New Testament biblical accounts of Jesus and his ministry but has strong parallels with the Islamic faith.” That’s enough, based on Sacred Tradition, to be able to declare it a false gospel.
Second, have you read it??
Two excellent reasons.
First, because I read that “this work clearly contradicts the New Testament biblical accounts of Jesus and his ministry but has strong parallels with the Islamic faith.” That’s enough, based on Sacred Tradition, to be able to declare it a false gospel.
Second, have you read it??
How can this be a true gospel, inspired by the Holy Spirit, when it clearly contradicts the very words of Christ found on the other gospels and the basic beliefs of Christian faith? No, it’s so gravely erroneous that no argument will ever be possible in favor of its validity as a Christian gospel.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Was there only one Barnabas in all of Israel, ever? 
I know that it is not inspired, because the Church has said so.
I know that it is not inspired, because the Church has said so.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
I believe most scholars place the writing of the document within the Middle Ages (even some adamant Muslims I’ve spoken to admit this), long after the time anyone in the New Testament church lived. Certainly the earliest manuscripts don’t exist until the Middle Ages, and there is no record of it before then. These are some tell-tale signs that a work was not written by someone in the apostolic church and hence one can logically conclude the work is not inspired.
A
adrift
Guest
The topic is really how do you know what scriptures are inspired and which ones were not?Are we getting off the topic of the Gospel of Barnabas, or is the topic really the more general one of how we determine the canon of scripture? I can say, drawing on Lutheran teaching, that Hebrews is considered part of the antilegomena, seven NT writings about which the witness of the early church is not unanimous as to their authenticity. The Lutherans have, at least in the past, “left it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena.” (Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, Holy Scripture chapter II). I think I will wait for adrift and Radical to weigh in before possibly getting further off topic (plus I know that line about the witness of the early church is really weak . . .
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
There are various ways, which include mostly internal and external evidence. For example, if, through internal evidence, we find something portrays a form of theology that did not exist until much later than the time of the apostles (ie., Valentinian Gnosticism), then clearly it did not come from an inspired source. Also, if through external evidence, we find that early Christians outside the apostolic church identified the writings as part of a later teaching or a source outside of inspired sources (ie., Valentinian Gnostics), then clearly it is not inspired. The Gospel of Barnabas, for reasons I explained earlier, is one other example of this application. These certainly aren’t the only applications, but they are part of the identification.
J
Jala
Guest
J
joe370
Guest
Who was there from the 1st century to the 16th century to hold the CC accountable…to ensure that the CC properly safeguarded sacred scripture i.e. ensuring that the CC did not include something into the canon that should not have been included, such as the 6 disputed NT books (in certain areas) or exclude something that should have been included. After all I am told that this was the case with certain catholic doctrines.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Let’s first ask the question: what defines canon? Canon itself is simply the list of works an author has created. Let me ask you: when Machiavelli wrote The Prince, when did that book become part of the Machiavelli canon? Did it become part of his canon soon afterward, when some group of Italian readers said it was? Did it become part of his canon hundreds of years later, when a group of scholars gathered together and made a list of what consisted of “the Machiavelli canon”? Or, was it part of the canon as soon as it was finished, in the same manner that even unpublished works of authors such as JRR Tolkien are still considered part of his canon.
The question “who was there from the first century to the sixteenth century to hold the Roman Catholic Church accountable” presupposes the idea that for there to be canon, an institutional body is needed. You don’t need such a body for canon any more than Machiavelli needed a body of scholars or publishers to tell him that The Prince was part of his canon. One might argue, “What if one was uncertain Machiavelli wrote The Prince?” certainly a body of scholars would be important, but they would not be the sole source of authority on the matter. As I wrote before, internal evidence (does this comply with the tone of his other work, is the language similar, etc.) is helpful, as is other external evidence (are there any early eyewitnesses to the existence of The Prince around Machiavelli’s time, etc.). It would also not deny that The Prince was still part of the Machiavelli canon.
As I said in my previous post, there is such a thing as external evidence, and the church councils and such that were held hundreds of years after the first manuscripts of the New Testament books - and almost thousands of years after the Old Testament books - are fine external evidence of what might be considered canon, or what was considered by some to be canon in the early church. However, this is not the only evidence, and the fault with many is that they take a single source of external authority and ignore all the rest. When Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets spoke from God, there was no debate, and no council was immediately held to decide whether or not what they said was canon - what came from God was from God, and what didn’t come from God was not from God.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Because the gospel is so late it cannot be considered apostolic, and since it was forged it cannot be considered apostolic, and therefore it cannot be considered inspired.
Not only that but there are internal inconsistencies with the text which shows its late date.
Jesus confessed, and said the truth: ‘I am not the Messiah.’ Chapter 42, gospel of Barnabas.
Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Christ, to all them that dwell upon the earth desireth peace and consolation. Prologue Gospel of Barnabas
The author confused the term Messiah and Christ
Not only that but there are internal inconsistencies with the text which shows its late date.
Jesus confessed, and said the truth: ‘I am not the Messiah.’ Chapter 42, gospel of Barnabas.
Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Christ, to all them that dwell upon the earth desireth peace and consolation. Prologue Gospel of Barnabas
The author confused the term Messiah and Christ
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The answer can be summed up in one word, Tradition.
If the Scriptural text is consistent with Christian tradition, then we know it is inspired. Attributing certain saints as writers to certain books and epistles sometimes is just merely an act of piety, or part of the tradition that the letter originated from such author. But given that we even acknowledge that some works have later additions to them (such as the Gospel of Mark), we accept such traditions not because they were penned by the hand of the Apostle, but rather because whatever was added was consistent with our faith anyway and thus can be accepted. The value of Scripture is not in “who wrote it”, but rather what is written. That is how worthiness was judged.
If the Scriptural text is consistent with Christian tradition, then we know it is inspired. Attributing certain saints as writers to certain books and epistles sometimes is just merely an act of piety, or part of the tradition that the letter originated from such author. But given that we even acknowledge that some works have later additions to them (such as the Gospel of Mark), we accept such traditions not because they were penned by the hand of the Apostle, but rather because whatever was added was consistent with our faith anyway and thus can be accepted. The value of Scripture is not in “who wrote it”, but rather what is written. That is how worthiness was judged.
J
joe370
Guest
Sorry not familiar with the man or his work.
So an institutional body (the church) was not needed?
So the Canon was self-authenticating?
Did any one church in the world today assist in the determination of the NT canon for example?
J
joe370
Guest
So, sacred tradition was the benchmark by which sacred scripture was identified. That is how I see too. I also agree with the rest of your post.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Joe; I think you may be misunderstanding my points, but it might be my fault, so I apologize if I am not being clear.
Regarding the first point, I referenced Machiavelli simply as an example of canon - knowledge of his work or the author himself isn’t an issue.
Regarding the second point, I in no way argued “an institutional body is not needed” - I even said it is helpful and that it is part of the external witness of a document. What I was saying was that it was not the sole authenticator of a document’s canonical status. One does not say “This book is inspired simply because Church Body A says it is” - that’s an exercise in circular reasoning.
As for the canon being self-authenticating, yes it is, especially when internal evidence is weighed. The Biblical histories, for example, refer to one another, and state that they are sourced to prophets and seers, that is, men who spoke directly from God and under His inspiration, and hence this is one example of internal evidence that the books go together, and can be considered part of the inspired canon. Internal evidence is obviously an umbrella of examples, but that is only one I bring forward to discuss the point.
As for the question “did any one church in the world today assist in the determination of the NT canon,” the church of God as a whole served as an affirmation to the inspired status of New Testament books, but the books were already inspired. Again, as I said, Machiavelli’s book The Prince was part of his canon before any group of literary scholars designed their personal canon of what made up Machiavelli’s work. One might as well ask “did any one scholarly body in the world today assist in the determination of the Machiavelli canon.” Institutional bodies, as I’ve explained, serve as an affirmation and a form of external evidence to a work’s status as part of any canon, but they are not the sole authority. They “assist,” absolutely, but canonical status does not rise and fall upon their assistance, nor does their canonical status completely rely upon the institutional body’s assistance. Institutional bodies can only affirm what already exists. The planet earth did not magically become round only when astronomers discovered it was round - it was already round, astronomers merely affirmed it.
- Status