1500-Year-Old Bible Discovered In Turkey Indicates Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified

1500-Year-Old Bible Discovered In Turkey Indicates Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified

The question is whether or not this is a forgery.. If it is 1500 years old rather than 2,000 years old, it would have existed just a hundred years or so before the emergence of Islam.

http://www.latintimes.com/1500-year...dicates-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified-171471


A 1500-year-old bible has been discovered in Turkey. The holy book claims Jesus Christ was not crucified,the work is allegedly the Gospel of Barnabas.

A 1500-year-old bible has been discovered in Turkey. Discovered in 2000, the book that contains purportedly the Gospel of Barnabas has been transferred by the Turkish government to the Ethnography Museum of Ankara with a police escort.

Barnabas was a disciple of Christ, and in the work, claims that Jesus was not crucified, instead it says he ascended to heaven alive and Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place. Furthermore, the 1500-year-old bible states that Jesus Christ was not the son of God, but simply a prophet who passed on the word of God.

According to a report for The National Turk, the bible and alleged Gospel of Barnabas was seized from smugglers in the Mediterranean area in 2000 and held in a Turkish courthouse until safe transfer to the museum could be arranged.

Authorities charged the thieves with “smuggling antiquities, illegal excavations and the possession of explosives,” they since been sent to trial, Turkish police testified in regards to the incredible age of the bible, claiming it could be as old as "2000 years."

The Vatican has made an official request to be granted access to the 1500-year-old bible, however the bible that is said to be worth $28 million is currently held by the Turkish government securely. The holy words are hand written in Syriac in luminous gold lettering on loosely bound together animal hides. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic – the reported native language of Jesus Christ. Aramaic itself is a nearly dead language, rarely present in today's modern society. Aramaic is only spoken in a small village near Damascus.

According to the Christian Post, merely photocopies of the holy book’s pages are being sold for a staggering $1.7 million. In addition to the age and impeccable construction of the bible, the contents of the holy book is what makes it so valuable.

The Gospel of Barnabas is not included in the New Testament alongside Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

This work opposes the ideas proposed in the widely spread New Testament, and instead has noticeable similarities to the Muslim interpretation of Jesus.

The Gospel of Barnabas even contains a story in which Jesus predicts the coming of Prophet Muhammad. Due to this fact, many followers of Islam believe the original gospel work was repressed by the Vatican Library.

 

Epistle of Barnabas

Excerpt:

In 16:3-4, the Epistle of Barnabas says: "Furthermore he says again, 'Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it.' That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again." This clearly places Barnabas after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. But it also places Barnabas before the Bar Kochba revolt in 132 CE, after which there could have been no hope that the Romans would help to rebuild the temple. This shows that the document comes from the period between these two revolts.

Jay Curry Treat states on the dating of Barnabas (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, pp. 613-614):


Since Barnabas 16:3 refers to the destruction of the temple, Barnabas must be written after 70 C.E. It must be written before its first undisputable use in Clement of Alexandria, ca. 190. Since 16:4 expects the temple to be rebuilt, it was most likely written before Hadrian built a Roman temple on the site ca. 135. Attempts to use 4:4-5 and 16:1-5 to specify the time of origin more exactly have not won wide agreement. It is important to remember that traditions of varying ages have been incoprorated into this work.

Treat comments on the provenance of the Epistle of Barnabas (op. cit., p. 613):


Barnabas does not give enough indications to permit confident identification of either the teacher's location or the location to which he writes. His thought, hermeneutical methods, and style have many parallels throughout the known Jewish and Christian worlds. Most scholars have located the work's origin in the area of Alexandria, on the grounds that it has many affinities with Alexandrian Jewish and Christian thought and because its first witnesses are Alexandrian. Recently, Prigent (Prigent and Kraft 1971: 20-24), Wengst (1971: 114-1, and Scorza Barcellona (1975: 62-65) have suggested other origins based on affinities in Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. The place of origin must remain an open question, although the Gk-speaking E. Mediterranean appears most probable.

Concerning the relationship between Barnabas and the New Testament, Treat writes (op. cit., p. 614):


Although Barnabas 4:14 appears to quote Matt 22:14, it must remain an open question whether the Barnabas circle knew written gospels. Based on Koester's analysis (1957: 125-27, 157), it appears more likely that Barnabas stood in the living oral tradition used by the written gospels. For example, the reference to gall and vinegar in Barnabas 7:3, 5 seems to preserve an early stage of tradition that influenced the formation of the passion narratives in the Gospel of Peter and the synoptic gospels.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html

 

There was a book, back in the 1970s, by Irving Wallace called "The Word"...where a new Gospel was discovered that contradicted traditional Christian teaching and ended up creating a firestorm....and of course an "ambigious ending" where you weren't sure if it was real or a forgery.

 

I don't think "forgery" is really the correct word here. Our current Bibles are based on the King James Version which was assembled some time later from multiple texts that were considered by committee to be appropriate to include or exclude based on whatever factors they deemed appropriate. It is an anthology of varied Christian religious texts, edited, and hardly anything close to a perfect accounting either historically or religiously.

 

I'll have to look for that.. Meanwhile, the Catholic has declared this 1500 year old Bible to be a hoax.

 

You know, there have been other questionable works about Christianity outside the Bible beside your Barnabas book.

When I saw Jesus Christ Superstar I questioned its authenticity.

 

The early Christian writings site is interesting if only because there a sense that early on there were many traditions that were conflicting.

 

That's why there were Councils in the early church, often to 'standardise' teachings. And to exclude things like Gnosticism, Montanism, Arianism etc etc.

For me there are Churches today that include things that have no place in True Christianity practising rituals from the OT Judaism. Purgatory comes from Judaism - only in a different form. Incense, 'payment' for confession, ridiculous clown dresses, genuflection and ritual. All for show. It has no meaning. If people need this to get them close to God, there's something missing in their lives.

That from an ex Christian - now agnostic.

 

They'd have to....otherwise the RCC would have to admit that doctrine was wrong for 1500 years...and the Catholic Church cannot ever admit that its beliefs were wrong or false.

 

The accounts of Christ's ministry ( or whatever it was) that preceded King James were already hardly anything close to a perfect accounting either historically or religiously. In fact nothing we now have has ever had anything like an overall veracity. Strange how The Almighty has permitted his so called word to be so frequently tampered with.

 

So more proof that Jesus was real.

Amen

 

Great post..

I think Jesus probably was real enough without all the supernatural embellishments.

 

Of course Jesus, the Jewish teacher and Rabbi, was real. He believed it was his call to bring his people, the Jews, back you Jahweh.

He never thought of himself as a Messiah in Christian terms. Indeed he looked forward to the Messianic age of Judaism. That's why he confined himself to his people, the Jews - despite what Christianity claims.

 

Darn it, we'll never know the truth either way, shoot! Too bad Jesus isn't actually real or, if he cared about keeping out of hell that is, he'd have come down and told us in the last 2000 years as to which version about him is actually true (this version, the KJ version, the Qur'an, etc.) Too bad. I kinda wish there WAS a "god", because then he could give us the cure for cancer, for AIDS, for the common cold, and warn people when a deadly tsunami/earthquake/tornado is about to hit, etc., etc.. Alas, "god" is no more true than Peter Pan (*sigh*.)

 

I have news for you ... Peter Pan is real, I've read his book and it says he was real so let's not be trying to squash others faith OK!

 

That happens every time something surfaces that contradicts official Church dogma. Time will tell. The results on the Gospel of Mary should be out soon.

 

There must have been some messianic figure (one among many in the 1st century mind you) that sparked Christianity.

That this messianic figure was God himself (aka - God of Abraham) walking around in the flesh as is claimed by current Christian doctrine ... now that is another question altogether.

 

I don't understand your point. You accept this discovery as "proving Jesus was real"...so you'd accept it denying a VITAL component of Christian dogma, that Jesus was crucified?!?!?!?

 

Not true. It just takes them a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

 

But not on Church dogma. They'd never deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary or Purgatory or the Transubstantiation.

To deny that Jesus was crucified?....the Catholic Church would implode....EVERY Christian denomination would.

 

Think of all the crucifix statues that would have to be replaced!

 

`
`
Biblical archaeologists have been digging up bibles and items related to the bible for centuries. Everyone of these discoveries was supposed to shake up the fabric work of the Abrahamic faiths.

 

But their big book of fables and folk tales say he was killed and hanged up in a tree.

"And we are witnesses of all things which he [Jesus] did both in the
land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a
tree" (Acts 10.39.)

"And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took
him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre." (Acts 13.29.)

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we,
being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness" (Peter 2.24.)

In reality if he was crucified it would probably have been on a single post, or tree with no cross involved, like this:

 

"Bible Archeology" is agenda driven.. and IMO that's a mistake.. Let the science and the evidence speak for itself.. rather than sift it and bend it to fit the scriptures.

 

The alleged "Gospel of Barnabas" is an old hoax:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/05/hoax-gospel-goes-viral/#

In several languages the same word can be used for both "tree" and "wood", which probably explains the confusion.