Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them.

Moderator: Maria

User avatar
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 8:39 pm
Faith: Genuine Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Location: United States

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby Justice » Wed 7 February 2018 3:11 am

Is this also a Gnostic text?

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oRHezLzyRk

I'm aware that this is the History channel and they have there bias against Christianity, but this is a very interesting story to me. This version of Adam and Eve sounds very Gnostic to my ears, yet it appears in the Quran which was written nearly eight-hundred years later. What do the Orthodox think of this text?
"The church is your hope, the church is your salvation, the church is your refuge." St. John Chrysostom

d9popov
Jr Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Tue 13 February 2018 9:07 pm

There is an entire "Adam and Eve literature" from the ancient world: Jewish, "Gnostic," and "Christian." Many of these texts mix true doctrine with false doctrine, or at least with speculation. Something can be false without being Gnostic; and "Gnosticism" includes many sects and contradictory views. I believe that there was a "mainstream" in ancient Jewish and Christian interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 to 3. You may want to consult Father John Romanides's book The Ancestral Sin, not because it is perfect, but as a first step towards patristic sources on the Fall. Another book that has patristic citations is Peter Bouteneff's Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. I would use that with caution as another entry point into patristic sources. Lastly, with even more caution, one can consult James Kugel's big book The Bible as It Was and the even larger version Traditions of the Bible. It is Kugel's documentation that leads me to believe that the Orthodox Church Fathers were in continuity with the "mainstream" of ancient Israelite interpretation and that texts or parts of texts that deviate from the mainstream should be ignored.

Some of the main points of Genesis 1-3 --- points on which all Church Fathers are unanimous --- are that God's creation was "very good" but that we see evil around us because human beings misuse the free will that God gave to humanity. Orthodox commentaries on Genesis are not completely literal and not merely symbolic, but they do emphasize spiritual lessons that can be drawn from the literal words. The traditional Orthodox approaches have been neither "liberal/critical" nor "fundamentalist/evangelical."

Take the issue of what "day" means. If I start out a story saying "Back in the day when the internet had not been invented, we used to always have to ... ... ," the word "day" is understood by everyone as an "era," actually a long era, not a 24-hour period. Similarly, the word "day" is the correct translation for the Old Testament word, but the word "day" sometimes means a 24-hour period and sometimes an era. I read that Church Fathers say we are still living in the "Seventh Day" today and that eternity is the "Eighth Day." Also, I have read that some Church Fathers consider the first six days to be "ages/eons."

As always, what all the Church Fathers agree on is what we should all accept.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 7433
Joined: Sat 12 June 2004 12:39 am
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby Maria » Tue 13 February 2018 9:17 pm

Very well written.

Then there is the quote: A thousand years is as a day.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

d9popov
Jr Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Mon 2 April 2018 7:48 pm

THERE IS A LOT OF FRAUD IN MODERN GOSPEL RESEARCH. Helmut Koester (who was a world famous Harvard scholar of the Gospels) spent much of his career pushing the "Gospel of Thomas" (which has inauthentic interpolations) and the so-called "Secret Gospel of Mark." The later was proved to be a forgery from the twentieth century, forged by a high-IQ, but mentally-disturbed homosexual professor named Morton Smith. Koester recently died without admitting his error. Koester's successor, the feminist Karen King, pushed a "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" that was also proved to be a twentieth-century forgery. In the case of pro-homosexual Morton Smith and anti-celibacy Karen King, they each allowed their ideology to cause them to create or support a forgery. These were such wastes of God-given intelligence and wastes of scholarly careers --- in the case of all these professors. The field of Biblical Studies has great learning and great ideologically-driven corruption. Harvard Divinity School's reputation suffered because of the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" forgery/fiasco/debacle.

d9popov
Jr Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Tue 10 April 2018 8:24 pm

The four authentic Gospels were recognized by the Church very early as the four and only four Gospels worthy to be read in Church services. Ancient writers even wrote down oral traditions about which apostles or co-workers of apostles were the authorities behind the four Gospels. For example, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, Exposition of the Logia of the Lord (circa AD 100–130) wrote: “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.… So then Matthew in Hebrew dialect [Hebraḯdi dialéktōͅ] compiled the oracles [lógia], and each [person] interpreted them as he was able” (Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσε δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος). Hebraḯdi dialéktōͅ can refer to either the Hebrew language (in the strict sense) or to the Aramaic language as spoken by Jews. The phrase might possibly refer to a composition in the Greek language that was written in a Hebraic, Jewish, or Semitic style. In antiquity, Jewish Aramaic was frequently referred to as “Hebrew.” There are several reasons why Aramaic is the more likely meaning. The idea of a Greek-language work in a Semitic style is probably excluded by the statement that “each [person] interpreted them as he was able.” Some kind of interpretation might be required because of a Semitic style of Greek, but “interpreted” most likely refers to actual translation from Aramaic to Greek. Indeed there are several ancient references to an original Semitic-language gospel associated with the Apostle Matthew. The expression lógia could refer to sayings, to both sayings and accounts of actions, and to scriptures. Papias most likely is referring to an early collection of gospel sayings and possibly accounts of actions compiled by the Apostle Matthew in Aramaic that was translated by various individuals into Greek. The final canonical Gospel of Matthew in Greek may have been completed by the Apostle Matthew's disciples, similarly to how the Gospel of John is a result of both the apostle himself and a disciple or disciples of the apostle. All four Gospels are based on authentic eyewitness testimony from those who knew the Lord directly. Several late first-century or second-century writers had close connections with apostles or disciples of apostles: such as Saint Clement, Bishop of Rome; Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch; and Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who wrote in the later second century, may have had direct access to some of these traditions through Polycarp. On Saint Justin Martyr, see Larry Hurtado's comments below.
*****
*****

FROM LARRY HURTADO'S BLOG
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/
APRIL 10, 2018
Justin Martyr and the Gospels

...
... let’s have a look at Justin, whose major writings to consider are his Apology (addressed the Emperor Antoninus Pius) and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (presented as a debate/discussion between Justin and three Jewish interlocutors about the validity of the Christian faith, particularly claims about Jesus).[1] ...

Justin’s frequent use of the term apomnēmoneumata (15x, often translated “memoirs”) comes in for attention. Nongbri seems to doubt that we can view the term as referring to the familiar NT Gospels. Well, it’s surely important to note that Justin actually identifies the writings in question as the writings also called “gospels” (ἅ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, 1 Apology 66.3). So, clearly, Justin knows this term as a label for certain specific texts. For him the term “gospel” is the Christian message and the tradition about Jesus, to be sure, but the term has also come to designate a certain set of texts.

Moreover, in Dialogue 103.8, Justin refers to these “memoirs” as “composed by his [Jesus’] apostles and those who accompanied them.” This implies that Justin not only knew certain texts as “gospels,” but also thought of them as composed/authored by specific individuals. Indeed, his reference to their authors as “apostles and those who accompanied them” suggests to many scholars that Justin has in mind here our familiar NT Gospels, two of which were (at a very early point) ascribed to apostles (Matthew and John), and two of which were ascribed to figures linked with apostles (Mark, linked to Peter; and Luke, linked to Paul).[2]

One might ask why Justin refers to these texts as “apomnēmoneumata,” and the obvious answer is that both of the writings in which he uses the term are posed as addressing non-Christians, for whom the term had an established and respected meaning for a genre of literature (whereas, “gospel” did not). As Oskar Skarsaune observed, apomnēmoneumata had an association with Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates.[3] The term didn’t designate loose notes or sub-literary texts, but, instead, connoted texts that conveyed the authentic remembrances of a great teacher, whether Socrates or (for Justin) Jesus.

Moreover, detailed studies of Justin’s use of his scriptures (which became the “Old Testament”) and early Christian material shows that he sometimes quotes the Gospels directly, and at other points uses writings that appear to have been composed by drawing upon the NT Gospels (and perhaps also other texts such as Gospel of Peter).[4] This is a somewhat similar to Justin’s use of “Old Testament” scriptures, which involved both direct (sometimes extended) citation and also the use of “testimony sources” (Christian compilations of “proof texts” and accompanying interpretations).[5]

In sum, Justin (writing mid-second century CE) gives us what I take to be evidence that (1) certain texts had come to be known in Christian circles as “gospels,” (2) these texts were regarded as composed by known figures of apostolic standing or linkage, (3) these texts were among those read in the worship gatherings of Christians (1 Apology 67.3), which made them what we may call the corporate property of these circles, and (4) these texts enjoyed a particular value and authority.[6] ...

[1] For those who can handle Greek, Edgar J. Goodspeed (ed.), Die ältesten Apologeten: Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914; reprint 1984) is a handy resource; but especially for Justin’s Apology see now Denis Minns and Paul Parvis (eds.), Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Older English translations of Justin’s works are in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (orig. 1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).

[2] E. g., Oskar Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, eds. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 72 (53-76). This essay is essential reading for any view of Justin’s use of the Gospels and other texts.

[3] Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” 71-72. “Justin evidently sees considerable argumentative value in the fact that these Memoirs were put into writing at an early stage, by Jesus’ closest disciples, the apostles, or by their immediate followers” (73, emphasis his).

[4] See the full discussion in Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” 64-74. In the same volume, see Paul Foster, “The Relationship between the Writings of Justin Martyr and the So-Called Gospel of Peter,” 104-12. And also see C. E. Hill, “Was John’s Gospel among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?” 88-94, arguing cogently “yes.”

[5] Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” 55-61.

[6] See now Brian J. Wright, Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017).

...

d9popov
Jr Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Wed 11 April 2018 9:12 pm

MORE ON THE TEXT OF THE FOUR AUTHENTIC GOSPELS AND SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR

FROM LARRY HURTADO'S BLOG
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018 ... nuscripts/
APRIL 11, 2018
Justin and Manuscripts

Nearly 1,200 years separate Justin Martyr from the earliest manuscript of his works (Parisinus graecus 450, completed 11 September 1364, the only manuscript of independent value for Justin). I mention this as a small footnote to my posting yesterday about Justin and his references to, and knowledge of, the Gospels.

Some people make much of the chronological distance between the composition of the Gospels, for example, and our earliest manuscript data, which, by contrast is considerably less. We have portions of copies of Matthew and John, for example, palaeographically dated as early as the late second century, and more and larger portions dated to the third century. So, about 100 to 150 years or so between composition and earliest manuscripts.

And we have portions from an impressive number of those manuscripts, each of them an independent witness to their respective texts. So, you see what I mean when I exhort some perspective in matters. This is all the more relevant when we take account of the lifespan of ancient papyrus manuscripts, which have been shown to remain in use for well over a century, sometimes a few centuries. So this means that the predecessor copies of texts remained available and in circulation, along with copies made from them. It wasn’t a situation, thus, in which earlier copies disappeared, to be wholly replaced by new ones. The implications for textual transmission should be obvious.

But, to return to Justin, I highly recommend the recent edition of his Apologies by Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). ...

d9popov
Jr Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Why was the Gospel of St Barnabas cut?

Postby d9popov » Tue 17 April 2018 12:19 am

MORE ON THE HISTORY OF THE FOUR AUTHENTIC GOSPELS
The Witness of Papias on Mark and Matthew (Fuller English quotation, with Greek original)
And the Witness of Saint Irenaeus on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Papias (circa AD 100–120): “This also the Elder [John] used to say: Since Mark became the interpreter of Peter, he [Mark] wrote accurately, though not indeed an ordered account, whatever he [Peter] remembered of what was said or done by the Lord. For he [Mark] neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, [heard and followed] Peter, who used to give his teaching as the occasion required, but not as if he [Peter] were making a connected account of the Lord’s logia, so that Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote thus some things as he [Peter] remembered. For he [Mark] was careful about one thing, to leave out none of the things that he heard [Peter teach], nor to falsify any of them. ... So then Matthew compiled the logia in the Hebrew dialect and each person interpreted them as best he could.” (Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, _Exposition of the Lord’s Logia_ [Ἐξήγησις Κυριακῶν Λογίων] [circa AD 100–120], in Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, _History of the Church_ [Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία] 3.39.15–16 [circa AD 324]: [3.39.15:] «καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν. ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς». [3.39.16:] … «Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος».).

Other sources indicate that although Mark was never one of the Twelve Apostles, he may indeed have seen and heard Christ.


Saint Irenaeus (circa AD 180): “So Matthew brought out a written gospel among the Jews in their own language, when Peter and Paul were laying the foundation of the Church at Rome. But after their deaths, Mark Himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. While Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel that was beng preached by him [Paul]. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had reclined on his bosom, brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia [Asia Minor].” (Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, Hieromartyr, _Against Heresies_ [Κατὰ αἱρέσεων], 3.1.1 [circa AD 180; text survives in Latin not the Greek original].


Return to “Inquiring into Orthodoxy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests