|
SECTION B BARNABAS IGNORANCE
OF PALESTINIAN GEOGRAPHY AND
HISTORY Decisively against the
theory of an apostolic or Palestinian origin to this "Gospel" is the
number of blunders made by its author in elementary matters of Palestinian
geography and history. The real Barnabas, the man
who lived in the first century A.D., knew this country and his age. And the Barnabas of this forgery claims
to know them both. Let the reader
judge whether or not he does. The first thing that
staggers us is to find that "Barnabas" imagines Nazareth, and most
probably Jerusalem also, to be on a sea or lake. Nazareth, we know, is on a hill some 2,000 feet above the
Sea of Galilee and half a day's march removed from it. The site today is the same as it has
always been for over 2000 years.
The location and elevation of Jerusalem is common knowledge also. In "Barnabas" we
have these astonishing words: "Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, and
having embarked on a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth" (20). This is clear enough! Yet in defense of
Barnabas someone might say that this is merely a way of speaking; it is only as
though someone in London should say: " I am sailing to Cairo or
Allahabad", knowing that his actual voyage by sea must come to an end at
Alexandria or Bombay respectively.
Still this defense will not hold; for after recounting the incident of
the storm, the narrative proceeds; "Having arrived at the city of Nazareth
the seamen spread through all the city all that Jesus had wrought"
(2). Here it is clearly meant that
immediately on touching land (Nazareth), the seamen landed and spread their
news in that (seaport) town! The next sections confirms
our suspicion of this confusion, for "Barnabas" say: "Jesus went
up to Capernaum" (from Nazareth) (21). Of course, it is just the reverse. He would have landed at Capernaum, Jesus gone up to Nazareth
and then gone down to Capernaum. The same error occurs again
later. We are told that one
Sabbath morning Jesus came to Nazareth (143). After several chapters giving His conversation there
(144-151), we read: "Jesus then embarked on a ship….." (151). This is further evidence for
"Barnabas" wrong notion that Nazareth was on the lake. There is still more. The ship leaves the port of Nazareth
and sails away. Where do we find
Jesus next: At Jerusalem. In the
very next section we read: "Jesus having come to Jerusalem…."
(152). No interval has elapsed and
no detail has been omitted; there can be little doubt that as the ship weighed
anchor at Nazareth, so it cast the same at Jerusalem! Next we come to some
incidents recorded by "Barnabas" which are historically
untenable. There is the story of
Daniel, who, according to "Barnabas" 80, was taken captive by
Nebuchadnezzar while he was yet two years old. The statement, it will be observed, is incompatible with
what may be inferred from the Bible narrative. According to the latter, it was in the second year of his
reign that Nebuchadnezzar had his famous dream which Daniel interpreted. Then
the king gave Daniel high honours and many great gifts, and made Now, if we suppose that
Nebuchadnezzar captured Daniel in the first year of his reign (the earliest
possible date which could be assigned to Daniel's captivity), and that,
according to Barnabas, Daniel was then two years old, it would follow that in
the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (the year in which he had his dream),
Daniel was three yea4s old. In
this very year, it will be remembered, he was promoted by Nebuchadnezzar to the
rank of a ruler "over the whole province of Babylon". According to "Barnabas ,
therefore, his age would be three, at most four years! Josephus' statement
coincides with the Bible narrative.
Those who do not have confidence in the latter may accept the testimony
of the secular Hebrew historian. (Josephus,
History of the Jews, Book X, chapter 10). Further,
"Barnabas" tells us that a great sedition broke out in all Judea on
account of Jesus: ….some
said that Jesus was God come to the world; others said: "nay, but These disputes would have ended in a great war, for
there assembled at Mizpeh. three
armies, each one of two hundred thousand men that bare sword. Herod
spoke to them, but they were not quieted.
Then spake the governor He give testimony of himself, and then believe in Him, according to hiswork".
So at this they were quieted, everyone; and …….they all embraced one another, saying one to the other: "Forgive
me, brother." (91) It is unnecessary to remark
that this incident finds no place in the pages of any historian, whether
Josephus, or any other ancient or modern historian. Besides, it is absurd to believe that three armies,
numbering 600,000 men, could gather in the twinkle of an eye and disperse as
quickly. And is the gathering of
6000,000 soldiers for the purpose of making war so insignificant an event that
Josephus should fail to record it, whereas he has recorded for us many other
trifling and unimportant derails? And how can we believe that Herod, an enemy
of Christ according to history, would attempt to quiet a riot which arose on
account of Christ? Would it not have been more natural for him to stir up a
riot in order that he might have a better pretext for condemning Him? Besides we know from history
that the whole of the Roman legions in those parts at that time did not amount
to a total of 600,000 soldiers. To
say that this number was stationed in Judea alone would simply that Rome had a
regular standing army of several millions. Moreover, such a big army would hardly disperse at a single
word spoken by Pilate. Could not
Pilate have said his word of peace before the three armies met for war? This story also fails to
mention the preliminary details which precede wars, the recording of which is
quite indispensable on such possessions.
The whole account of "Barnabas" seems to be a fairy-tale, and
the appearance of the three armies at Mizpeh a sort of spontaneous
generation. Stranger is the statement of "Barnabas' that the high priest, perhaps also Herod and Pilate, wished "to bow himself down and worship Jesus….." (93). The high priest, it will be remembered, was the chief enemy of Jesus and one of His accusers who condemned Him, because Jesus used to convict the high priests of hypocrisy. |