format_quote Originally Posted by
chitownmuslim
Im sorry let me rephrase that:
So why is this gospel not "holy" or "genuine"?
i think i'll repeat: "The Gospel is considered by the majority of academics (including Christians and some Muslims) to be late, pseudepigraphical and a pious fraud"
or...
"Some students of the work argue for an Italian origin, noting phrases in Barnabas which are very similar to phrases used by Dante and suggesting that the author of Barnabas borrowed from Dante's works; they take the Spanish version's preface to support this conclusion. Other students have noted a range of textual similarities between passages in the Gospel of Barnabas, and variously the texts of a series of late mediaeval vernacular harmonies of the four canonical gospels (in Middle English and Middle Dutch, but especially in Middle Italian); which are all speculated as deriving from a lost Old Latin version of the Diatessaron of Tatian (Jan Joosten, "The Gospel of Barnabas and the Diatessaron," Harvard Theological Review 95.1 (2002): 73-96). This would also support an Italian origin.
Other students argue that the Spanish version came first, regarding the Spanish preface's claims of an Italian source as intended to boost the work's credibility by linking it to the Papal libraries. These scholars note parallels with a series of Morisco forgeries, the Sacromonte tablets of Granada, dating from the 1590s; or otherwise with Morisco reworkings of Christian and Islamic traditions, produced following their expulsion from Spain (G.A.Wiegers, "Muhammad as the Messiah: A comparison of the polemical works of Juan Alonso with the Gospel of Barnabas", Leiden, Bibliotheca Orientalis, LII, no 3/4, April-Juni 1995, pp.245-292)."
or ....
"Consequently most students would concur with a stratification of the surviving text into at least three distinct layers of composition:
* an editorial layer dating from the 1590s; and comprising, at the least, the Spanish preface and the Arabic annotations,
* a layer of vernacular narrative composition, either in Spanish or Italian, and dating from no earlier than the mid 14th century,
* a layer derived from earlier source materials, almost certainly transmitted to the vernacular author/translator in Latin; and comprising, at the least, those extensive passages in the Gospel of Barnabas that closely parallel pericopes in the canonical gospels; but whose underlying text appears markedly distinct from that of the late medieval Latin Vulgate (as for instance in the alternative version of the Lord's Prayer in chapter 37, which includes a concluding doxology, contrary to the Vulgate text, but in accordance with the Diatessaron and many other early variant traditions)"
it says 14th century, right? First Council of Nicaea - 325. Do You see that i would be highly difficult to "anulle" it?
And there is nothing about "anulling" on Council of Nicaea, because there was no "anulling".
"Da Vinci Code" - and You think that's a "historic book"? there are planty of books by historians (christian and non) prooving were did D.Brown make mistake. but in fact thats just silly - "Da Vinci Code" is a book you can read in train to school but it not a book in which you find history of Christianty, Bible, creation of Bible canon, early movments in (and "outside") Church. although some do treat it like that. and that's why we have this "discussion"
n.