The critical and objective study of the Gospel of Barnabas is hampered on all fronts by religious bias and ignorance. Many Muslim authors have an unfounded enthusiasm for the work which is based upon their very faulty understanding of the Christian tradition. But more commonly Christian criticism of the Barnabas gospel displays profound naivity and a poor appreciation of the dimensions of the critical difficulties involved in studying such a work. This is because such Christian writers have an altogether naive (faith-based) view of the New Testament and Biblical history. This is most apparent when we consider their "knock down" criticisms of the Barnabas text and its supposed "errors". Some examples:

*It is argued that the Gospel of Barnabas cannot be authentic because Barnabas was not an apostle of Jesus as the work claims.

Response: We have no historical information regarding a "Barnabas" in first century Palestine. Our only information comes from Acts of the Apostles which is a manifestly mythologized Hellenistic romance, albeit embraced as "scripture" by the Church. To argue that the GoB is false simply because it contradicts Acts of the Apostles is no argument at all. In this respect Acts of the Apostles is as much a forgery as the GoB. In objective historical terms we don't know if there was any such person as a "Barnabas". We have no sure evidence against which to measure the medieval work's claims.

*Similiarly, we find arguments such as: The real Barnabas, native of Cyprus with Greek as his lifelong tongue, would certainly know that Christ (Greek) is the equivalent of Messiah (Hebrew). As a Cypriot Jew he would have known both languages and would not title Jesus as Christ at the beginning and then proceed throughout his 'Gospel' to deny that Jesus is Messiah.

Response: The problem here is the notion of the "real Barnabas". This is entirely based upon Acts of the Apostles and derivative Christian literature, but it is not supported by any objective historical evidence. In fact, we don't know who the "real Barnabas" was or even if there was such a person. (No historical sources, such as Josephus, make mention of such a person.) How sure are we that the "real Barnabas" came from Cyprus and spoke both Greek and Hebrew? (And let it be noted that other early Christian sources, such as the Clementina do list a "Barnabas" as an Apostle and give a different account of who he was and where he came from.) The confidence of those who invoke the "real Barnabas" has no historical foundation. The only objective position is the agnostic, "We don't know."

*It is argued that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas did not know New Testament geography. For example, he presents Nazareth as a lakeside town whereas "we know" it is located in the hills far from the Sea of Galilee.

Response: We have no idea where such a place as Nazareth was. There is no record of any such place outside of the New Testament. Its current location was decided in the 4th/5th centuries of the Christian era, i.e. hundreds of years later, by Queen Helana. There is no supporting archeological evidence for such a place. In fact, it is *highly likely* that the whole notion of such a town is a corruption of the idea that Jesus was a "Nazarite" (and therefore must have come from a place called Nazareth - a spurious etymology.) To say that the author of the GoB didn't know where Nazareth was is no argument because no one else has a clue where it was either. (In fact, the GoB makes this "error" by following Biblical confusion about whether Jesus lived at Nazareth or Capernaum.) We can't accuse the Barnabas author of ignorance without admitting our own ignorance. Most Christians are utterly unaware that the historical location of a town called Nazareth is not an established fact but a pious theory.

*Most spectacularly, we find Christian critics of the Gospel of Barnabas making light of the miraculous nature of the Barnabas text. Thus such criticisms as: one True Pharisee says to another in chapter 144: 'O brother, it is now two months since I have drunk water'. Critics point out that this is a physical impossibility.

Response: Yet the same critics have no trouble with the idea that Jesus walked on water, fed 5000 and raised himself from the dead!!! The Bible is chock-full of physical impossibilities! To argue that the GoB cannot be authentic because its text contains stories that are unbelievable is no argument at all, because the same argument must apply to the Bible itself. Typically, Christian critics find the Barnabas stories ridiculous or ludicrous but have no qualms about believing in New Testament miracles. In objective scholarship one is suspect of ALL breaches of the laws of nature!

*Much argumentation is spent on establishing that the Gospel of Barnabas is a "forgery" and in refuting its claim to be the genuine gospel of Christ.

Response: It is highly likely that ALL gospel literature is "forged" in the sense that none of it was written by the people it is supposedly written by. Few serious Biblical scholars suppose that somerone named Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, or Mark the Gospel of Mark, or Luke the Gospel of Luke. Certainly, the medieval Barnabas is a "forgery" but not in contradistinction to the canonical gospels. Many Christian critics of the Gospel of Barnabas maintain quite naive views of the origins of the canonical gospels. What really needs to be said is that the Gospel of Barnabas is a medieval forgery and not an ancient forgery like the canonical gospels.

None of this is to say that the GoB is true or accurate or gives an historical account of events. It is simply to say that the issues are more complex than they seem. The typical mistake of Christian (or Christian-influenced) critics is to hold the Barnabas gospel up against the standard of orthodox belief. Typically, we KNOW the GoB is wrong because we KNOW that the Bible is right. This is not scholarship! It is religious polemic. In real scholarship the GoB is placed within the context of Christian literature which is ALL treated in a systematically sceptical and rigorously critical manner. We don't KNOW who Barnabas was, or where Nazareth was, etc. We have differing accounts and we weigh up those accounts, always sceptical of the claims that are made. We might reasonably prefer the canonical accounts, but we should not treat them as FACTS against which to compare the "lies" of the Barnabas gospel. Again, to do so is religious polemic, not scholarship!