Talk:Gospel of Barnabas
|
|
| Contents |
Section "Muslim perspectives"
Very interesting, this is a new one on me. I would wonder, though, how neutral it is, if indeed there are some (however biased and unreasonable) Muslims who are publishing it as genuine. We can convey the fact that most researchers believe it's fraudulent without committing Wikipedia to probability estimates ("almost certaintly") with which earnest, well-meaning (but almost certainly wrong, it seems) religionists would disagree. --LMS
- These concerns have since been addressed by the section "Muslim perspectives." The neutral POV is that of the dispassionate textual analsysis of a non-partisan historical approach, as with any manuscript. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, some of the people who republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion may think it reports on an actual meeting of 19th century people, but it's been proved to be a fabrication. If it is (a) claiming to be an authentic and (b) provably Islamic, then it's not even in the same boat as the 2nd century C.E. gospels. Maybe 'fraudulent' is less neutral than 'fabrication'? --MichaelTinkler
It's very easy to say exactly that, though, or that sort of thing, in the relevant articles, from the neutral point of view. If there is not even any minority dissent on the point, you can simply say it's been proven. If there is only a few wacko nuts, then you can say, "It has been proven that such-and-such, according to virtually all researchers. [insert details]" Then you add, as an afterthought in a sentence or two, something to the effect that there is a small minority of people who believe that the fabrication, or whatever, is genuine. What's wrong with that? It's completely fact-stating. --LMS
That's true. --MichaelTinkler
Omigosh. I decided I wouldn't wait to go by the library this afternoon and get my interlibrary loan books to look in the reference section. Do a google search on Gospel of Barnabas and you poke a hornet's nest. Not fun.--MichaelTinkler
The hyperlink in the article is broken. Darn. --Branden
Hyperlink now restored - now incorporates a speculative theory of the origins of the surviving manuscripts, in the bitter internal rivalries within the Papal Curia in the late 16th century. TomHennell 26 Apr 2005
In the light of the above, I have added a para pointing to the published views of David Sox regarding the possibility of the manuscripts representing a forensic falsification. TomHennell 2nd Jun 2005
Merbúb ibn Javed, I have moved your useful observation that some Muslim scholars regard the inconsistencies between GOB and the Qur'an as an argument for the work's being genuinely early, into the section on "Islamic Perspectives"; as this bears on the evaluation of the themes of the Gospel, not on the themes themselves. TomHennell 10th May 2005.
Doesn't appear very neutral. Reads like anti-Islamic propaganda. Most external links are from Anti-Islam site.--Xed 10:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Spurious "confrontation" of Paul and Barnabas
This text sets up a spurious controntation between Paul and this document that has no basis in reality:
- "As previously mentioned, the Gospel of Barnabas strongly attacks Paul, as introducing heretical innovations. This has a natural counterpart in Paul's own attacks on Barnabas regarding the reality of Jesus (being God or Prophet) [Paul Message to people of Galatia:1:10]; he also referred to Barnabas as "a hypocrite" who was trying to satisfy the Jews by sticking to their laws especially the law of circumcision [Galatia:2:11-14]." There is no "natural counterpart" operating between 1st century Paul and whatever this document may be. It does attack Paul, but Paul does not attack it, as this anonymous Mohammedan "contributor" would have a reader think. Wikipedia cannot take a stand supporting the historic value of this work. --Wetman 04:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- First, "Mohammedan" is an insult, and has no place here. Second, the section doesn't set up a "spurious controntation between Paul and this document", as you misleadingly claim; rather, it sets up a rather plausible explanation for why Barnabas might have been picked as the author of an anti-Pauline gospel. - Mustafaa 10:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It isn't plausible at all - Galatians does not attack Barnabas, and it does not call him a hypocrite. I quote: 13The other Jews joined him [Peter] in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. It is an attack on Peter, not on Barnabas, who was Paul's buddy in any case. Note "even Barnabas", signifying Paul's respect for him. Graft 19:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Dear Graft We didn't say that Paul call Barnabas a hypocrite but we said "he refers to him as a hypocrite". What seems to happen is that Paul was a friend with the disciples like Barnabas but later on, differences started to appear between them according to whether to stick to the law of the Jews or notaaboelela
- Well, in any case, Paul does NOT refer to Barnabas as a hypocrite. He refers to the hypocrisy of Peter, and says it caused Barnabas to be "led astray". This passage is meager demonstration of a falling-out between Paul and Barnabas, since the text is obviously respectful and the dispute did not lead to a schism amongst the apostles - it had already been resolved in Paul's favor before this incident. See Acts 11, where Peter describes his reasons for rejecting the covenants of the Old Testament and the new doctrine which was the basis for Paul calling his actions hypocrisy. Graft 20:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "..it sets up an explanation for why Barnabas might have been picked as the author of an anti-Pauline gospel." Now that would be quite a different thought, if one could honestly derive this reading from the existing text. This is more sensible. Perhaps Mustapha will make the clarifying edit for us all. And now here's a classic Mohammedan thought: "We didn't say that Paul call Barnabas a hypocrite but we said "he refers to him as a hypocrite." Astonishing! --Wetman 22:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wetman, Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a rule, not an optional extra. If you are unaware of the offensive nature of the word, I suggest you examine a dictionary (http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/mohammedan). As to the argument, if Barnabas had already accepted Paul's point, then that of course puts a rather different complexion on the matter. - Mustafaa 22:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (In English "Mohammedan" means simply "follower of Mohammed." nothing more, nothing less. Nothing about worshipping anything, not even a stone or the moon. Nothing personal about this linguistic fact, which is most certainly not an attack.) --Wetman 07:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And "nigger", etymologically, merely means "black" (Latin niger). The literal meaning of a word has no bearing on its offensiveness. - Mustafaa 03:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "Nigger" has absolutely nothing to do with "Mohammedan", as this person is cynically aware. A Red herring is a cheap rhetorical trick. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I thought I had remembered seeing the Paul issue in non-Muslim sources, and I was right. - Mustafaa 01:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "In this case the name Barnabas may have been added at the same time on the basis of the Epistle of Galatian's portrayal of Barnabas and Paul at odds over the issues of circumcision and unclean meats."[1] (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html)
- Presumably this reference is to the Epistle to the Galatians —and to the historical Barnabas of the 1st century CE. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with Mustafaa - on both counts. To call someone Mohammedan is considered an insult and one should not do it. Wetman, you are out of order. WRT Barnabas - Islamic apologetics towards Christianity have a tendency of searching out real or perceived splits in the early church in order to justify the theory that Christians do not follow the true gospel. SO if - as I presume - the "Gospel of Barnabas" is a medieval muslimic fake, by an author reasonably aware of the New Testament, then to search for a perceived or real spat between the apostles would be a good starting point. It is obviously nonsense to insinuate any continuity between the real Barnabas and a fake several hundreds of years later. But I do not think Mustafaa tried to do thisRefdoc 10:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever. Please see that Wikipedia doesn't make this falsified connection. --Wetman 19:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The original term "Mohammadan" came about because christians first assumed that Muslims worshipped Muhammad, which we don't. You and everyone else knows that the word is insulting, and dancing around with semantics is sorry indeed...--Venerable Bede 02:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hajj Sayed?
And to Aabolela: can you provide more detail on "Also Hajj Sayed (Senior Member in CIMS (http://www.islamic-message.net)), in Egypt in his new book", like the name of the book and the full name of the author? - Mustafaa 23:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maronite mention?
What, if anything, does the Kitab al-Huda say about the Gospel of Barnabas? Does anyone have a copy?[2] (http://www.answering-christianity.com/answersamgreen.htm) - Mustafaa 01:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)