The Gospel of Barnabas, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and the Ahmadiyya

Muslims need to demonstrate from manuscript evidence and/or history that somebody earlier in history tried and was successful in changing the New Testament so that it now teaches Jesus died on the cross. Muslims sometimes submit the Gospel of Barnabas as evidence. There is an irony in this because Muslims who appeal to the Gospel of Barnabas are guilty of doing the very thing which they accuse others: adding to and/or corrupting the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament.

Reference to the Gospel of Barnabas is commonly made by those who are part of the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect whose founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), wrote:

After all that has been stated, it should be kept in mind that in the gospel of Barnabas, which must be available in the British Museum, it is stated that Jesus was not crucified, not did he die on the Cross. Now we can very well say that though this book is not included in the gospels and has been rejected summarily, yet there is no doubt that it is an ancient book, and it belongs to the period in which the other gospels were written. Is it not open to us to regard this ancient book as a book of history of ancient times and to make use of it as a book of history? (Jesus in India).

The assertion “yet there is no doubt that it [gospel of Barnabas] is an ancient book, and it belongs to the period in which the other gospels were written…” is false. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s comments should cast doubt whether he knew what he was talking about because the Gospel of Barnabas was not written by the Barnabas who lived in the 1st century AD. Academics (including Christians and Muslims) believe it was written in the 16th century A.D.

The Gospel of Barnabas