CHAPTER TWO
Dr. Abdel Aziz Chahbar

 

The Language of Jesus, Son of Maryam  (Peace and Blessings be upon Him)

Section One : Information Regarding the Original Message and its Composition

Section Two : The Documents Available to Contemporary People, Allowing them to Appreciate the Main Features of the (Prophetic) Mission

 ____________________________________________________________________

Section I

Information Regarding the Original Message and its Composition Of the Language Widespread During the Era of Jesus:

That the divine message should be conveyed in the language that is commonly used and understood by the people for whom it is intended is a rationally taken-for-granted matter. As to the reception of the same message, directly from Allah Himself, by the messenger, it is an extraordinary feat which has nothing to do with the ordinary order of things. Allah reveals His Message to the Apostle through angels. Some of the messengers, however, did not need such intervention on the part of the angels, for they received their divine message directly, from behind a veil. In all cases, it is a generally accepted fact that the divine message is designed to guide people to the straight path. It is essential, therefore, that it be conveyed to them in a language that they perfectly understand(1).

As an apostle, Jesus was required not only to transmit the divine message, but also to do so in a language with which people were conversant. What was the language of Jesus, then? Did he address his flock in Aramaic ? Did he master Greek, and did he know Latin?

Many Christian researchers raised these questions, notably during the first half of the Twentieth Century, which coincided with considerable advances made in the field of Biblical Studies. By posing such questions, researchers sought to assess the impact that Jesus had on the Palestinian population of the epoch, and to determine whether or not the sacred Scriptures could be attributed to him. How could the researchers not raise these questions regarding the New Testament written in Greek, when Jesus preached in Aramaic? And how could we consent to the idea that the New Testament was written in Greek, when we do know that the mission of Jesus was not “to undermine the Law, but rather to complete it and bring it to fruition.” More explicitly, Jesus was sent to follow in the footsteps of Israelite Prophets, within a specific context, that of the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew, while it drew heavily on Aramaic. How can we deal with all of these questions when we know, through history books, that during the times of Jesus (PBBUH), Palestine was under Roman control which was to continue for a long time still, and that Latin was bound to be the language spoken by the majority of people?

Researchers are agreed that during the era of Jesus (PBBUH), Palestine was cosmopolitan. It constituted a real mosaic of peoples who, to varying degrees, excelled in the use of Hebrew, Aramaic (in its diverse dialects), Greek, and Latin. Nevertheless, when it comes to setting the geographical limits of each of these languages, along with their specific features and  the extent of their mutual influences, the same researchers do not seem to come to any agreement.

The thesis which postulates that Jesus (PBBUH) actually spoke Greek, and that he undoubtedly conveyed his message to people in that language is not new. It was defended by Vossius in the 17th Century, Diolati in the 18th Century, Paul Heinrich and Hug in the 19th Century. The fact that Palestine was then under Greek domination lent further support to the claims made by these authors. However, in a book devoted to the issue of the language utilized by Jesus, Diez Macho has invalidated their thesis.

The controversy over this point was resumed when W. Argyle asserted that Jesus spoke Greek while the people around him were conversant with Aramaic(2). Researchers, such as J.K. Russel, seconded such a view; others, (namely, Draper, Wilson, and R. Mel), rejected it on various grounds(3). However, all researchers, without exception, recognize that the Hellenic influence on Palestine during the era of Jesus was considerable. The consensus among scholars regarding this point stems from the fact that a great number of documents and graffiti in Greek were unearthed. Likewise, fragments of documents recovered in the region of the Dead Sea were originally written in Greek. Such Hellenic influence may also be observed in Rabbinical literature, and in Greek translations of the Torah, notably those undertaken during the 2nd Century of the Christian era.

Furthermore, the studies undertaken by S. Lieberman, G. Zuntz, J.J. Milik, E.R Goodenough, Gundry, J.N Sevenster, and D. Sperber have pointed out the various aspects of Hellenic influence on Palestine during that epoch, and have, thereby, contributed to determining the extent of its expansion in the region. It should be noted here that Judaism did combat the predominance of the Hellenic culture in some regions of Palestine, and that urban areas were more Hellenistic, as it were, than rural areas. The situation was to change after the Bar Kocheba uprising (in the year 135 of the Christian era) when Hellenic and Roman influences became threatening(4).

As has been often stated, Latin was the language of the dominant colonizers: the administration officially made use of Roman,(5) as evidenced by the traces found on some scripts, by the capital of the columns of public buildings, and by the papyrus manuscripts discovered in the region of the Dead Sea. The influence of Latin on Hebrew was evident, above all, in questions of primordial importance. As to Aramaic, nobody questions its propagation throughout the Syrian-Palestinian region, starting from the first half of the First Millenium before Jesus Christ. Its expansion as a Lingua Franca continued up until the 7th Century of the Christian era.

Between 720 and 500 BC, the inhabitants of Palestine substituted Aramaic to Hebrew. The fact that Jesus knew Aramaic, that his contemporaries communicated in Aramaic, and that Christianity was disseminated throughout Palestine, in Syria, and in Mesopotamia in Aramaic, were well-known facts among the Teachers of the (Mosaic) Law, or, at least, common among them.

According to A. Meyer, Aramaic was indeed the language used by Jesus. In fact, a considerable portion of the works relative to his mission were written, first, in that language, and, thereafter, translated into other languages(6).

There are researchers who contend that Aramaic was spread among the popular classes during the time of Jesus, and that the latter, as did other messengers,(7) actually utilized this language throughout his life. Other researchers argue that Aramaic was being substituted for Hebrew, as early as the beginning of the Hellenic era(8) Still other researchers postulate that Aramaic was disintegrating into numerous dialects. As a result of this process, distinction may be made between primitive Aramaic, which, according to G.Y Kutscher, was used in some writings discovered in Jerusalem and the region of the Dead Sea, and the belated Aramaic, which was subdivided into Sumerian Aramaic and Palestinian-Christian Aramaic.

The Aramaic of Galilee assumes particular significance among the belated Aramaic dialects. It is in this dialect that the Aramaic parts of the Palestinian Talmud were written. The Torah was translated into this dialect which was also the linguistic medium utilized in the composition of the “Midrashim”. Broadly speaking, the Palestinian Aramaic may be considered as being the closest linguistic medium to the one used to record the “Good News Text”, which was conveyed to Jesus (PBBUH) by Allah.

Other researchers, like H. Birkeland, believe that, during the times of Jesus, popular circles in Palestine spoke Hebrew, but this Hebrew was not necessarily the variety used by the Rabbis. It was rather a popular dialect which had evolved in contact with the Hebrew of the Torah. This view, however, was severely criticized by many authors(9). As to Rabbinical Hebrew, it first spread as a literary language during the 1st and the 2nd centuries of the Christian era, and thereafter developed, within the framework of the panorama of the languages spoken in Palestine, after the Exodus, and at the advent of the Christian era.

In conclusion, it is possible to postulate that the three languages - to wit, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek- were spoken by large segments of the Palestinian population, but the areas of their expansion was not precise, for linguistic entanglements were common. Beside these three languages, Latin was widely spread.

In order to glean information about the language used by Jesus and his disciples, we have resorted to the Gospels of the New Testament, and this is what we have found:

In the Gospel of John(10), we read:       

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down and looked down into the sepulchre.

And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

And when she thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekesth thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

And in the Gospel of Mark(11) (which recounts the story of Jesus with the daughter of Jairus, the ruler of a synagogue), we find:

And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. Ant straightaway the damsel arose, and walked.

In the Gospel of John(12) we read:

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS

This title then read many of the Jews; for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, the King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

In the Book of Luke(13), we find:

And a subscription also was written over him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

In the Gospel of Mark(14) we also read: “And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head (…) And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS

In the Gospel of Luke, we can read: “It was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS(15).

In the Gospel of Matthew, we find:

And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias(16).

And in the Acts of the Apostles, we find:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven

Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak his language

And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

And how hear we every man in our tongue wherein we were born?

Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappodocia, in Pontus, and Asia.

Phygria, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in all the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes.

Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, what meaneth this?(17)

In the Acts of the Apostle, also, we read the statement relative to a request made by Paul to the Chief Guardian of the Castle of Jerusalem. Approached with a request to speak to the population, the Chief Captain asks him if he knows Greek. Paul asserts that he is a Jew and a Roman citizen of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia. Granted leave, he addressed the people in Hebrew, according to the Arabic Text of “The Acts of the Apostles,” but in Aramaic, according to the French, English, and Spanish versions of the same.(18) Likewise, the Acts of the Apostle suggest that Saul prepared his speeches to the Jews in Greek and conversed with them in that language, And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians; but they went about to slay him.

What has been presented above is a series of texts pertaining to the New Testament where mention is made of the languages spoken in Palestine during the mission revealed to Jesus. When we read the biography of this Prophet in the four Gospels, we notice that he has had discussions with the dwellers of different urban and rural centers in Palestine, and conversed with the members of the High Council, with the Teachers of the Law, and the officials charged with running the Temple and taking care of Jewish religious affairs. He also had discussions with the Roman Governor of Palestine, who spoke Latin. It is this very governor who, according to the Gospel of John, inscribed on the cross the phrase, “This is the King of the Jews,” in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

Jesus also spoke to a woman from Canaan who had beseeched him to cure her son. And to the daughter of the Ruler of the Synagogue, he said in Aramaic: “Tiltha quaum,” which means: “O daughter of my people!” according to some translations. “Tiltha” also means “a sickly girl.”(20) Jesus made use of parables(21) when he addressed people. And parables , as we well know, are figures of speech which require a great deal of precision in the choice of words, and thorough knowledge of the language not only on the part of the speaker, but also on the part of the addressee.

According to the Gospel, Jesus addressed God in Aramaic whilst he was on the Cross(22). “Eli, Eli, lama Sabachthani ? That is to say, My God, my God, Why hast thou forsaken me ?”  And Mary Magdalene addressed him in Hebrew.

All of the above instances indicate that the majority of speeches of Jesus were in Aramaic, the most widespread language in the era. Next come the discussions and speeches in which he utilized  Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament. As Jesus himself stated, “I have not come to undermine the Law, but rather to complete it and bring it to fruition.”(23) We should also note that in the four Gospels, we find numerous allusions made by Jesus to the speeches of previous Prophets, notably to Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Incidentally, it seems that Jesus had a double culture, Latin and Greek, which was a common attribute of the people of the epoch. This is actually substantiated by the story of the phrase, “This is the King,” which Pilate insisted that it be pronounced in Greek (or in Aramaic, according to some translations).

As to the claim that the Holy Spirit teaches Messengers and their Disciples so that they might transmit the Divine Message to people in their own languages, it is more of a myth than anything else. For if we were to acknowledge its veracity, then we should have to accept the fact that the preaching of Jesus (the original Gospel of Jesus) had been written in seventeen languages.

Certainly, the region which served as the cradle of the Revelation did undergo the Hellenic influence, under the prompting of Herod the Great, but Jesus was sent to a specific population. To this effect, he asserted, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”(24) We may then conclude that his mission was carried out in the language of his own people, which was also his own mother tongue.

The Epoch of the Revelation

The Most High so willed that Jesus be His Messenger who brought Glad Tidings and warned the people of Israel, who were then divided into two rival sects. The Israelites of the era of Jesus had transgressed the Law and distorted the words of Allah. The Rabbis had shamelessly exploited religious scholarship in order to enrich themselves illegitimately.

The Revelation took place then in Palestine which was coveted by mighty empires. As a result, Palestine lost its political independence: in the 2nd century BC, thus, Palestine came under Egyptian domination, then in the year 63 BC, it was under Roman jurisdiction, following the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey.

Under the Roman administration, a Jewish kingdom, which depended on the Roman Governor in Caesarea, on the Mediterranean Sea, was set up. The King was, nevertheless, authorized to manage the religious affairs of his kingdom.(25) When Caesar insisted that a statue of himself be erected within the Temple, along with an effigy of the eagle on its portico, the Jewish population, offended by Roman interference with religion, rose in protest. The King, who had no actual political power, contented himself with calming the insurgents.(26)

The documents of the epoch depict Herod the Great, King of the Jews at the times of Jesus, as a great admirer of Hellenic culture. Being an accomplished fighter, no one could  measure up to him in duels. Emperor Augustus, who had high esteem for him, granted him numerous provinces. Herod became mighty and set out to establish his kingdom, following the Roman model, but endowing it with a Hellenic culture and style of life. He made of the Temple the most important religious institution of his kingdom and surrounded himself by Rabbis and Jewish theologians. But his infatuation with a foreign mode of life, and his negligence of Jewish culture, which was upheld only by modest people in the countryside, served only to arouse the hatred of his own people. Attempts on his life proliferated, and so did the intrigues within his own palace.

After his demise, his sons began to kill one another. But the Roman emperor soon gathered them and divided the kingdom among them, in accordance with the will of their late father. Antipas thus entered into possession of Mont, where Nazareth is located, of Tiberiade, of Azdaralla, as well as of the lands situated near the Jordan river. Philip was granted the Natanya province; Judea, where the city of Jerusalem is located, along with Bethlehem, Gaza, Caesarea, and Jaffa, was allotted to Archeolas.

The struggle between the societies in the provinces governed by Herod’s sons grew intense. This was so because their adherence to Jewish religion, the extent of their attachment to Hellenic culture, and the degree of their loyalty to the Roman governor, were not the same everywhere. The province awarded to Archeolas, it seems, was the most important of these provinces for the Romans who continued to conduct its administrative affairs from the City of Caesarea. The Temple on whose decoration Herod had spent huge sums of money made of the province a commercial center which drained the monies of the Israelites. This was of great significance to Rome.

The Temple was managed by a High Council consisting of seventy one members who represented the Jewish religious authority, but such authority was limited in as much as the rulings emanating from the Council could not be enforced without the authorization of the Roman administration.

In the meantime, divergences among the Jewish theological schools widened. For one, the Sadducees rejected the Talmud, and would not admit of the ideas of the resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgement. Reward and chastisement were matters pertaining to this worldly life, according to the them.

As Matthew states in his Gospel(28): “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him [a question, to which] Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”.

In “The Acts of the Apostle,”(29) likewise, it is stated the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, nor do they believe in the existence of angels and of spirits. In short, the sect of the Sadducees showed very little interest in religious matters. What concerned it above all was its influential material affluence within Jewish society.

As to the Pharisees (or, the Separatists), they were, according to Flavius Josephe, a Jewish religious order which considered itself closer to the Law (of Moses) than any other Jewish order, and that, by virtue of this, its members were the most apt to undertake the exegesis thereof. They believed in the Talmud, in the infallibility of the Rabbis, and in the resurrection of the dead, but they rejected the rite of offerings made on the altar, and the belief in previous prophets. Jesus had numerous contentions with them. In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, we read(30):

And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.

And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, why doth this generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, there shall no sign be given unto this generation

And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.

Of all the Jewish sects, the Pharisees’ was the closest to the people, whose members it instructed in religion, and whose steps it led. The sect thus managed to acquire an important standing amidst the Jewish middle class. In the year 70 of the Christian era, after the destruction of the Temple by Titus, the Pharisees undertook the education of the Jewish people in its exile, and they tarried there expecting the Coming of the Messiah.

The sect of the Hassidim played but a limited role during the era of Jesus. The members of the sect interdicted sacrifices, cared for the chastity of their members, employed themselves in farming, and combated slavery.

The Essenian sect, which attracted the attention of such historians as Pliny, Philosn and Josephe Flavius, adhered to the written Torah and to the Oral Tradition (the Talmud), and succeeded in the process of allotting goods to its members. Among the latter, the traditional rites assumed their uttermost sense within the ardent solitude of their private lives. 

According to Matthew, it was to the Sadducees and to the Pharisees that John the Baptist addressed himself thus(31):

… O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Bring forth therefore fruits needed for repentance:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for O say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.

On the basis of these facts, we may say that the era of the mission which Jesus, the Son of Mary, carried out vis-à-vis the Israelites was one that really warranted such a mission, for people were really in need of spiritual guidance. God thus revealed the Scriptures to Jesus, after He had given the Jews a miraculous sign: that of a birth conceived without a father. 

Jesus lived in Palestine at a time when the Sacred Land was under Roman jurisdiction. Despite the upheavals that his mission created in the religious life of the Middle East during that particular era, particulars on his life, excepting his miraculous birth and his prophetic mission, remain scarce in the writings of his contemporaries. Christian sources hardly show any interest in his youth, and content themselves with brief allusions to the fact that he was by trade a carpenter in Nazareth(32)

Although there have been numerous writings on Jesus, his life does raise highly controversial issues of historicity, and many aspects of that life remain unknown. In most of the biographies devoted to him, biographers have shown much more interest in cultural matters (notably, in their confirmation or their rejection) than in the personality of Jesus(33). It should be noted here that some of the writings on Jesus have seriously questioned everything, his mission included(34).

There exist two categories of sources relative to the life of Jesus:

1. Christian Sources:

These consist principally of the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and Mark. These sources recount the story of Jesus, starting with the announcement of the Glad Tidings and finishing with the Revelation. They briefly mention his miraculous birth, but they remain virtually silent about his life in Egypt, and his return from that country, after the death of Herod. What is said in these Gospels would eventually be reviewed to make it concord with the beliefs of the Early Church, and the successive councils which elaborated the canon of the Christian Faith, and created narratives that traced the evolution of the Christians’ belief in Jesus.

2. Non-Christian Sources:

These sources are of two sorts:

2.1. Non-Christian Roman Sources:

These sources present Jesus as being an influential figure of his epoch, or as a person partaking in the events that Palestine underwent during the reign of Roman Emperor Tiberius and Governor Pilate. Such sources would give a brief survey of the life of Jesus, whenever they take up the question of Christianity, or relate the actions of the disciples of Jesus.

Pliny the Younger (in the year 110 of the Christian Era) reports, in his “Tenth Epistle,” that Christians gathered together every day at dawn in order to intone chants honoring Christ as though he were a God. They would also remind themselves that they would die one day(35).

The above is part of Pliny’s comments on the practices of Christians, in response to a request made by Trajan who was trying to form an idea on how to deal with Christians, the disciples of Jesus.

In his “Annals,” Tacitus recounts the pursuits undertaken by Neron against the Christians, and points out, in the same context, that the tracked Christians were the very disciples of Jesus, who was himself ruthlessly persecuted by Pilate of Tiberias(36).

These sources hardly ever showed any interest in the intricacies of the religion preached by Jesus, and granted very little significance to the reforms that he sought to introduce in the Mosaic religion. They considered that the mission of Jesus as a novel political fact, likely to upset the order of things in a region deemed vital to the Roman Empire. But they never raised the Prophet to the rank of revolutionaries who exhorted the crowds to rebel against the Roman authorities or to show disobedience to Caesar, in the fashion of Jugurtha, for instance. By contrast, they all highlighted the ever growing numbers of Christians, and their dispersion throughout the cities of the Empire, noting that they seemed to be forming a new class within the Roman society.

It seems that the attitudes of the Roman emperors and their provincial governors were ambivalent towards Jesus and his mission. The canonical Gospels relate the attitude of Pilate vis-à-vis Jesus. The Governor was hesitant in his judgement of the man who insisted on giving to Caesar what was Caesar’s and to God what was God’s. Although his wife attempted to dissuade him from judging a peaceful man severely, Pilate once again proved to be irresolute. He ended up by leaving the destiny of Jesus in the hands of the Jews, after a popular vote which the Gospels reported. Pilate was unable to face up to the discontent of those whom Jesus once described as “the erring sheep”. Yet, this quasi neutral attitude towards Jesus, son of Mary, was to change when Christianity developed into a movement that comprised political trends, which led to further persecution of the followers of Christianity, and of the Christian doctrines(37).

The dearth of Roman writings on Jesus and his times may be accounted for by the fact that the Roman Emperor, who resided in Caesarea on the Mediterranean Sea, used to govern Judea and Sumeria, while Jesus --at least at the beginning of his mission—used to preach his message in Galilee. Moreover, the long-term objectives of Jesus were not fully assimilated by the Romans until he entered Jerusalem, and set out to oppose the Teachers of the Jewish Law, from among the custodians of the Temple. In fact, the Romans started to be interested in Jesus only when they realized that his preaching was bound to fascinate the population of Palestine, and that the latter was going to erect political opposition to them, and to the Jewish Governor who was under their authority.

2.2 Jewish Sources:

Jewish sources depict Jesus in different ways. According to some of these sources, Jesus was no more than a bastard, for he was born out of the wedlock. What he claimed to have accomplished in terms of miracles was, in fact, a mere offshoot of what he had learnt to practice in Egypt, namely, witchcraft, sorcery, and magic lore. The condemnation of Jesus was general in these sources, and so was the Gospel which was viewed as a mere tissue of lies and imposture.

His mother, Mary used to plait the hair of other women. And Jesus was not the expected Messiah, if only because the coming of the latter would be preceded by such signs as the following: (a) the production of grain of wheat having the size of a bull’s kidneys. (b) The genuine Messiah would be obeyed by everybody, and the rule of non-Israelites would come to an end.

Incidentally, the Talmud of Babylon (Sanhadrin, 43), informs us that Jesus practiced witchery, and that he had led the people of Israel away from the straight path. In the Book of Damages (Sedarim nezikin), which deals with Jewish penal laws, mention is made of the attitude of Jews towards Jesus. The book as a whole denigrates Jesus (May Peace be upon him).

Historian Josephe Flavius, a Hellenic culture admirer and Roman sympathizer, devoted some brief passages to Jesus which indicate the influence that the Roman attitude towards the Messiah had on him. In his writings we find no instance showing the attitude of Jews, his religious fellows. This is probably what led many researchers to assume that Flavius Josephe was not the author of The Jewish War, and that the latter must have been penned by a Christian writer who had preceded him. We do believe that Flavius Josephe, while giving the impression of having sided with the Romans, still retained a measure of nostalgia for the epoch preceding the glorification of the Temple. More than that, Flavius really wished that Jesus were the veritable Messiah. This is what Flavius actually said: “In that epoch, there lived a good man, called Jesus. He is a man of good, if we may say so. He accomplished extraordinary deeds and received the truth with elation. He had numerous followers from among the Jews and the Gentiles. It was he the Messiah.”(38)

The Gospels sketch a portrait of the life of Jesus along these lines:

1. The Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

2. The emigration of Joseph, the carpenter, and Mary to Egypt, fleeing the tyranny of Herod. Jesus accompanies them.

3. The return to Palestine after the death of Herod and settlement in Nazareth, away from the tyranny of Archelaos.

4. The beginning of the Revelation and the emergence of Jesus, “the Master”. He was thirty, according to Luke. In the Gospel of Matthew, it is stated that “Jesus was traveling throughout Galilee, teaching in the synagogues, and proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom (of God), curing people of their illnesses and of all their infirmities.”

5. The baptism of Jesus by John, the Baptist.

6. The teachings of Jesus continued in Galilee and in Capharnaum.

7. The renown of Jesus is universal all over Palestine. “Many inhabitants of Galilee, of Jerusalem, of Judea, of the region of the Jordan (river), and of ten other cities, believed in him and followed him.”

8. The stand of Jesus vis-à-vis the (Mosaic) Law: his declaration to the effect that “he has come to complete the Law, and to guide‘the erring sheep’, the Israelites.”

9. The meeting and mutual consultation of Jesus with his adepts.

10. Instructions given by Jesus to his Apostles: to proclaim the imminence of the Kingdom of God in all communities.

11. The preaching process continues in Galilee, Nazareth, Capharnaum, Bethsaida, Jericho, Jerusalem, and in all of the other towns and the countryside.

12. Details pertaining to the miracles (performed by Jesus), and the controversies among the Jewish sects and the rulers of the Synagogue.

13. The Trial.

The above are the essential facts of the life of Jesus and of his mission. As to his attitudes towards the events of his epoch, they are identical to those of all the Prophets. Jesus knew how to convey his message and to carry out his mission according to well-conceived and proven methods. In this respect, it is stated in the Gospel of Luke That(39):

The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

It is reported in Matthew (21:12-13) that after the entry of Jesus into the Temple,(40)“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seat of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it the den of thieves.”

In his response to some members of Herod’s party, who, prompted by the Pharisees, asked him the following question, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” Jesus said: Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?-- Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.   And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?”-- They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”(41)

Section II

The Documents Available to Contemporary People, Allowing them to Appreciate the Main Features of the (Prophetic) Mission

The Writing of The Gospels:

In the Gospel of Mark, we read the following(42):

“Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and saying, the time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye and believe in the gospel.”

In “The Romans,”, we read the following(43):

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For there is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The Just shall live by faith.”

In his book, Al-Fisal fi al-Ahwa’ wal Milal wa Nihal, Ibn Hazm states:

“We need not have recourse to arguments to prove the fact that the gospels, and all the books of the Christians were not revealed by Almighty Allah, and not even by Jesus (PBBUH). As to the Christians themselves, they have spared us all this trouble, for they have never claimed that the Gospels were revealed to Jesus by Allah, nor that they were revealed to the Christians by Jesus. They all, without any exception whatsoever -(Arians, Nestorians, Maronites, Jacobites, …)-agree  that the Gospels are four books written by four people at different periods of time.”(44)

Before dealing in some detail with these four Gospels, we should recall that, throughout their history, they have been subjected to scrutiny, from the vantage point of five types of criticism(45).

1. Historical Criticism:

Researchers have analyzed and compared the events reported in the Gospels. The results of their studies show that the contents of these texts reflect the limited nature of the mentality and the conceptions of the authors of the Gospels. Their knowledge of the science of history was, indeed, scant.

2. Philological Criticism:

This school adopted a specific methodology in understanding the language of the authors of the Gospels, and comparing this language with the data provided by the philology of the dominant language in the era during which these Gospels were actually written.

This type of criticism focused on inquiring into the language of Jesus, and the capability of the Greek language to convey the meanings of the Aramaic discourse. Most of the studies carried out in this particular field reveal that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that he learned Latin at a time when the Hellenic language and culture were predominant.

This type of criticism made it possible to compare the language of the evangelic texts with the languages of those who compiled them in former times, especially that the meaning of certain words, pertaining to the same language, changed from one region to another.

3. Rational Criticism:

This school has shown the existence of some truths which the exegesis is incapable of rendering compatible with reason. It has relied on historical data, the history of Greek and Aramaic languages, and the cultural heritage of the ancient Orient, as well as on that of the Hellenic and Roman worlds.

4. Standard Criticism:

This type of criticism has relied on external data in order to establish the compatibility or non-compatibility of these evangelic texts with the spiritual and moral convictions adopted by Christian sects.

5. Criticism Contributed by Muslim Scholars:

If the aforementioned types of Biblical criticism have relied on evangelic texts in an attempt to make them yield to reason, to confirm the data they report, or to justify their contents when necessary; it is worth mentioning that Muslim scholars --such as Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziya, Al-Jâhidh, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Hazm, Al-Ansary, Afuqay Al-Hajiry, and many others-- have accorded particular attention to these texts.

These scholars have analyzed the Scriptures within the framework of their conviction that Islam is the True Religion of Allah, from the time of Adam to that of Muhammad (PBBUH). Thus, they have identified the ecclesiastical ideas which developed after Jesus and which the Evangelists inserted in their Gospels. Then, they examined these texts with reference to the Original Gospel revealed to Jesus (PBBUH), and came to the conclusion that the four Gospels are apocryphal. They identified the falsehoods therein, and dwelt on their causes and origins. Furthermore, they put under scrutiny the beliefs on which these Gospels were based, notably the idea of Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the claim that he was the Son of God, and so forth.

Muslim scholars have written a large number of books in order to show to the Christians the false ideas and myths contained in their Holy Books. They adopted diverse methods in their study of Christianity. Some of them examined the phraseology of the Gospels so as to point out the contradictions contained in them. Other researchers took to task the very sources of these texts. A third group combined these two methods. Here are the titles of some well-known books in this respect:

-  Imam Al-Ghazali, Ar-Raddu Al-Jamîl li-Ilâhiyati `Isâ bi Sarîh Al-Injîl.(46)

- Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyah, Ajwibat Al-Hayâra fî Ar-Raddi ‘alâ Al-Yahûd wa An-Nasâra(47).

-  Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi Al-Ahwâ’ wa Al-Milal wa An-Nihâl.

- Abû ‘Uthmân Al-Jâhidh, Ar-Risâla Al-Mukhtâra fi Ar-Raddi ‘ala An-Nassara.(48)

- Abû Al-Walîd Al-Bâjî, Al-Jawâb ‘alâ Risâlat Rahîb Faransâ ila Al-Muslimîn.(49)

- Abdullah Al-Khatîb, Christianus.(50)

There is no evidence of the existence of a whole original Gospel; that is a Gospel in which the very words of Jesus Christ (PBBUH) were actually recorded. All the authors of the Gospels state that their books are biographies of Jesus (PBBUH) -which report the Good News emanating from God. They are accounts of the life of this Messenger whom the Lord of the Universe sent to the Israelites so as to teach them religion. These authors do not claim that their Gospels contain the complete text of the Divine Message as it was conveyed by Jesus (PBBUH).

In Timothy II(51), we read the following:

“And from a child thou hast the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

This is part of a letter from Saint Paul to his son Timothy, concerning the Holy Scriptures, which the latter had known since his early childhood. It seems that the Scriptures mentioned here refer to the Old Testament (the Torah and the Books of the ancient Prophets), but a literal interpretation of the text suggests that the Gospel is also alluded to here, precisely the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly, the statement: “all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction …” means that the discussion is about the Revealed Book –that is, the one compiled from the very words of Jesus during his preaching in order to distinguish it from the other books which were not revealed by God, books which did not contain the coherent and authentic message delivered by Jesus (PBBUH).

However, the above statement was translated in a way that gives it a completely different meaning, as it is the case with the translation published by the French Biblical Alliance in 1996: “Toute écriture inspirée de bien est utile pour enseigner la vérité, refuter l’erreur, corriger les fautes et former une juste manière de vivre …” If the Gospel of John contains an allusion which may suggest that Jesus was able to write, there is no clear indication anywhere else that he actually wrote the Gospel himself, or that he instructed any of his disciples to do so.

Jesus (PBBUH) may have contented himself with addressing his audience orally, since ancient societies relied more on oral communication than on the written one. It is also well-known that the time of Jesus was a period during which eloquent orators abounded. The following passage from the Gospel of John(52) is to the point here:

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

In the Gospel of Luke(53), it is reported that when Jesus (PBBUH) met two of his disciples, who were on their way to Emmans, he preached them the word of God: “And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Later on, in the same Chapter, Luke reports: “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.” (Ibid., 45). Jesus delivered his message to his Disciples orally; there is no evidence that the Gospel was recorded during his life. His Disciples carried out the order he gave them: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.”(54)

However, after a period of time, the conditions necessitated the recording of the Scriptures; the Gospels were thus written by known authors, but none of them gives any attention to the Gospel revealed to Jesus. When reading the New Testament, we have the impression that the Gospel of Jesus was considered as “Good News,” rather than an inspired book.(55)

Actually the term “Gospel” was used to refer to the Mission that Jesus was entrusted with, rather than to a “Revealed Book”. This is what is clearly stated in the preface to the copy of The Bible published by the Holy Book(56)

The term Gospel was first used to denote the Mission of Jesus which consisted in firmly establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. Thus, it is a term which is so intrinsic to the Mission of Jesus that it might be said that Jesus himself is the Gospel, that is “the Good News” which was announced to all Humanity.

This point further corroborates the relevant judgement formed by Ibn Hazm in his analysis of the Gospels. His statement illustrates the case here:

They [the Gospels] are four historical accounts composed by four famous people at different periods of time. The first account was written by Matthew of Levitus, a disciple of Jesus. He composed it in Hebrew, in Judea, nine years after the Ascension. It consists of twenty eight chapters. The second account was written by Mark, a disciple of Simeon –the son of Thomas who was surnamed “Batra”. He wrote it in Greek in Antioch, twenty two years after the Ascension of Jesus. It is said that it was Simeon who wrote it, and then attributed it to his disciple Mark. It consists of twenty four chapters. The third account was composed in Greek, (after the book of Mark) by the physician of Antioch, another disciple of Simeon Batra, namely, Luke. The fourth book was written by John, a disciple of Jesus, in Greek, some sixty years after the Ascension of Jesus. It consists of twenty four chapters(57).

Ibn Hazm’s treatment of the Gospels as four “historical accounts,” is highly relevant; for his view has later been confirmed by some Christian researchers.

Starting from 70 A.D, the composition and compilation of religious texts flourished. The Gospels, the Epistles and the twenty seven books which went into the making of the New Testament were brought forth. According to the Christians, these writings describe the life and the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Acts of the Apostles relate the history of Christianity both in Palestine and elsewhere. As to the Epistles, they were sent by Paul to Christian communities outside Palestine. It is worth noting that the authors of the Gospels claimed to have recorded all the teachings of Jesus, or all his deeds. Their writings were, according to them, no more than succinct biographies.(58) This is highlighted in the Gospel of John(59): “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” What all of this shows is that these Gospels can, in no way, be equated with the Message revealed to Jesus (PBBUH).

In the second century A.D, the four Orthodox Gospels were considered as: “a proclamation of the Message of Jesus, carried out by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who composed their works thanks to inspiration from the Holy Spirit. As a result, these books became ‘the Written Word of God,”(60) a fact which points out the truth of Jesus –the ‘Living Word of God”. This statement means that God modified His Message. He had recourse to omissions and additions in an attempt to reveal it, anew, in a more refined form –not to Jesus Christ, but to other people. Such attitude cannot be attributed to God, Who Knows the Truth of His Message, how to reveal it fully, and whom He would entrust it with. Therefore, if one claims that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John received Revelation –each on his own, it can only mean that this (or these) new message(s) has/have nothing to do with the Christian religion attributed to Jesus.

Our analysis here deals, of course, with the Divine Message, as Jesus had received and delivered it himself to people. Moreover, if we really believe that these Apostles actually received the Revelation, or that God spoke to them through some means, why should the Revelation be conveyed in four Gospels, which though appearing during the same period, still displayed many discrepancies? Such inconsistencies could not have emanated from God. If Moses and Aaron were two Prophets who shared the same Divine Mission, no one has ever claimed that both of them received the same Message. God never delivers His Message in a double manner, for such an act would be useless and pointless.

It must be said that a small part of the original Gospel had been translated orally until the period during which the texts commonly referred to as the “Good News” were composed. This resulted in the tampering of the reporters with the original Gospel which they modified through additions and omissions. Then came the period of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) which Christian sects had adopted as canonical. These four Gospels were a compilation of the religious teachings which were transmitted orally with all the distortions they had undergone.

In addition to these four orthodox Gospels, there were other Gospels which were finally destroyed because they advocated monotheism: they rejected the idea of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. If its source is authentic, then the Gospel of Barnabas belongs to the latter category.

Christian scholars do not all agree on the date of the publication of the first three Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) and the Gospel of John. Some scholars think that the latter’s text was the last one to be composed, and that the first three were written around 70 A.D. However, other researchers argue that some Gospels were compiled in 70 AD, while others were composed after this date. They also claim that there were two versions of Matthew’s Gospel, one in Aramaic (this was lost), and the second in Greek. Other scholars assert that the Gospel of Mark was written before 70 AD. , that the other three Gospels came after it, and that only the Greek version of Matthew’s text existed. Another group of scholars claim that all these Gospels were composed after the destruction of the Temple.

For Christian researchers, the canon of the New Testament, as we have it today, was fixed in the year 367 AD., and included twenty seven books. However, other data suggests that this canon was formed in 150 AD., the date on which the four orthodox Gospels were received as canonical. Controversy arose only over some Epistles among which is “the Epistle to the Hebrews”. Some Epistles are mentioned in the New Testament, but there is no trace of them. The following statement quoted from “Epistle to the Colossians,” exemplifies this: “salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. And when this Epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”(61)

Similarly, in the year 110 A.D.,  Marciano, the Gnostic, asked the Christians to abandon the use of the Old Testament, and to remove all that is related to the Jews, and to Judaism from the Christian Scriptures. He was tried and excommunicated. Then the priests decreed that the Old Testament was a revealed Text. Furthermore, the canon of Muratori (the list of the Books named after the historian who discovered them in the fragments of an eight-century manuscript in Milan in 1740) provides a list of the Holy Books of the New Testament adopted by the Church of Rome before 180 AD. However, this list has been the subject of a major controversy among scholars.(62)

In the year 393 A.D., the canon of the New Testament was fixed in a way which is almost similar to its present form in Hyponia. It was revised for the first time in the Council of Carthage in 397 AD., and a second time, in Carthage in 419 AD. The reason for the delay in determining the list of canonical texts in the New Testament, according to Christian researchers, resides in the persecution that the church endured. When Emperor Constantine I granted the church his protection, it set out to perform this task. These twenty seven Books were, thus, adopted by the Greek Church, and then by the Latin Church, thanks to the translation of the Bible into Latin by Saint Jerome –a translation which is commonly known as “The Vulgate”. Likewise, the North African Church adopted this Latin version of the New Testament as early as the end of the second century.

However, disagreement still persists among scholars as to the exact date of the compilation of the Gospels, and as to which one of them was the first to have been produced. In his Lexicon of the New Testament, Javier Leon Duvour considers the Gospel of Mark as the oldest one. He asserts that it was composed in Rome between the years 64 and 70 AD. He also thinks that the Gospel of Matthew was written directly in Greek from Palestinian sources, between the years 80 and 90 AD. As to the Gospel of Luke, he thinks that it was produced between 70 and 90 AD., while the compilation of the Gospel of John started in the year 90 AD, and continued until the beginning of the second century.

In his preface to the Pléiade’s edition of the New Testament, Jean Grosjean argues that the canonical Gospels were produced before the destruction of the Temple by Titus in 70 AD. He also advances that the Gospel of Matthew was written first in Aramaic, between the years 50 and 60 AD., while its Greek version was composed before 67 AD. As to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, they were produced afterwards.

In any case, the problem of determining the date of the compilation of the Gospels remains unsolved, but everybody agrees that all of these Books are no more than biographies of Jesus, written after his Ascension, which proves that they were produced at a time when the teachings promulgated by Jesus became completely confused. Moreover, these Gospels do not provide a clear idea about the Divine Mission of Jesus, the Apostle of God. If some elements of the original Gospel revealed to Jesus may have survived in these Biblical texts, they would be the ones that are in harmony with monotheism.

The gist of research into the sources of the Gospels has been summed up by the French Encyclopedia, Encarta, thus :

“The New Testament consists of twenty seven documents written between 50 and 150 A.D. While there is a claim that some of these documents are based on Armaic sources, all of them have been translated into Greece - a language, in which the earliest sources. The Greek transcriptions of the New Testament now add up to five thousand, not a single of which may be said to be original ( that is, actually penned by the person to whom it is attributed). The Gospel, according to John, which dates back to the era spanning 120-140 A.D., is deemed to be the Oldest.” (63)

It seems to follow then, that humanity does not possess a single authentic Gospel, which may be said to have actually been written (or dictated) by John, Mark, Luke, or Mattew.

According to statistics furnished by Christian researchers, it appears that the New Testament was written in more than 24,000 manuscripts: 5,300 in Greek, 10,000 in Latin, and 9,300 in other languages(65). These figures are highly significant when compared to the relatively small number of copies of other ancient works, such as the writings of Plato, which have been preserved in seven manuscripts, the oldest of which dating back to 900 years after his death. Likewise, The Annals of Roman historian Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts. Some manuscripts of the New Testament, such as “Alexandrinus,” “Vaticanus,” and Sinaitinus” are granted paramount importance by both the Church and by Christian scholars.

The Gospel of Barnabas:

The Gospel of Barnabas opens with an introduction which provides an account of the life of the author, and the reason which made him write this book. Apart from the Gospel of Luke, we do not find such introductions in the other Gospels which only use such statements as “The Good News as it is composed by so and so,” or, “the Gospel, according to …” From the outset, the Gospel of Barnabas raises the problem of the authentic Gospel, and the apocryphal ones. Barnabas puts it as follows: “the True Gospel of Jesus, called Christ, a new prophet sent by God to the world, according to the description of Barnabas, his Apostle.”

Though such a statement appears normal and recurs in the introductions to the Gospels, it draws attention to contradictions between this Gospel and other ones, as exemplified by:

- The existence of a genuine Gospel and a false one;

- The Gospel of Barnabas is attributed to Jesus, as is the case with the other Gospels;

- The narration of the present Gospel is done by Barnabas, one of the Apostles of Jesus.

We have already mentioned that Christians define the term “Gospel” as being “the Good News”. They say that “it is the Message which Jesus, the Father, had to convey to his people”. It has also been said that “Jesus himself is the Gospel, the Good News announced to all humanity.” Christians further think that  :

The word “Gospel” acquired a wider meaning in the second   century. It referred to the four Gospels which relate the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is the proclamation of the Message of Jesus, by the word of mouth, and the pen of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who had composed their books by inspiration from God. As a result of this divine inspiration, these Books have become the written Word of God …

Such ideas are equally relevant to the Gospel of Barnabas, too, for it is also a promulgation of the Message of Jesus, and an account of his life, as reported by Barnabas. The Gospel of the latter is, therefore, part and parcel of the general vision Christians have of the nature of the “Gospel”. Its author wrote it in an attempt to remove the ambiguity and distortion which prevail in the other Gospels, a fact which made them deviate from the monotheistic faith. It may be rewarding here to compare some statements made by Barnabas with those made by Luke.

Luke opens his Gospel (I: 1-4) as follows:

For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

In the Gospel of Barnabas we read :

Dearly beloved, the greatest and wonderful God has during these past days visited us by His prophet Jesus Christ in great mercy of teaching and miracles, for which reason may, 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 has been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief. It is because of this that I am writing that truth which I have seen and heard, in the discourse that I have had with Jesus, in order that you may be saved, and not be deceived of Satan and perish in the judgment of God. Therefore, beware of every one that preaches new doctrine to you contrary to that which I write, that you may be saved eternally. The great God be with you and guard you from Satan and from every evil. Amen.

What these two introductions point out is that there were various versions of the “Good News” of Jesus (PBBUH). Thus, the motive behind the two men’s decision to write their Gospels was their desire to provide for the benefit believers the authentic Gospel, namely the one which had not undergone any distortion or revision. Actually, after the Ascension of Jesus, there was complete anarchy as to the compilation of the “Good News,” which was characterized by the distortion of what was considered as the “Gospel”. This falsification was so widespread that allusions are made to it in many parts of the New Testament. This state of affairs obtained until the period commonly referred to as the “Apostles”. To illustrate the point at issue here, it may suffice to report Paul’s statement in the “Corinthians II” (66): “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God : but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”(67)

Of relevance here are John’s words:(68)

If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (“Revelation,” 4: 2)

It is obvious that the introduction of the Gospel of Barnabas is in complete harmony with the general context of the introductions of the other Gospels. It should not thus be seen only from the point of view of those who propagated the idea that this Gospel was forged by Muslim Moriscos (Moors), whose main objective, in this respect, was to protest against the Church. The introduction of this Gospel stresses the fact that the author of this book is Barnabas himself, the Apostle of Jesus, whose name is mentioned in the other Gospels. The writing of this Gospel took place within the general framework of an attempt to defend the authentic monotheist religion, Christianity –a fact which explains why Barnabas’ book was bound to disappear since it is a document which goes against the kind of Christianity adopted by the Nicene Council, and against the polytheist thesis of Paul.

In Chapter 221 of the Gospel of Barnabas, we read the following:

Jesus turned to him who writes, and said: “Barnabas, see that by all means you write my gospel concerning all that has happened through my dwelling in the world. And write in a similar manner that which has befallen Judas, in order that the faithful may be undeceived, and every one may believe the truth.” Then answered he who writes: “I will do so, if God wills, O Master, but I do not know what happened to Judas, for I did not see it.” Jesus answered: “Here are John and Peter who saw everything, and they will tell you all that has passed …”

This passage takes us back to our point of departure: Jesus, according to Barnabas, asked his disciples to record three things:

1. The Gospel;