Is the Gospel Of Bartholemew A Forgery?

[Sunstone]

Check out the case for it's being a forgery and the publisher's defense of its authenticity:

http://www.snant.com/fp/archives/the-gnostic-gospel-of-st-bartholemew/#comments

 

[croak]

I think it's a forgery.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's a forgery.

Why do you think it's a forgery, O Wonderful Paw!

 

[James the Persian]

Is this the one that certain Islamic apologists have attempted to use in the past? I seem to recall that that was the 'Gospel' of Bartholomew, but I'm a little hazy. If so, not only is it certainly a forgery, but it's a late one, with many internal indicators that it cannot be anywhere near as early as its proponents claim. I can dig up some sources if you want.

James

 

[Halcyon]

I already placed a comment on his blog with the an alternative theory, that of Cathar rather than classical authorship. He countered it pretty quickly by identifying the author of the koans found in the "Gospel" as an 18th century Zen Buddhist. Thus the text is no older than the 18th Century.

Its not impossible that the Zen monk heard the koans from a travelling gnostic, but i find that very unlikely, especially as there are no other records of the koans being of Jesus.

It's a modern fake.

I would like to point out though that it is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, within Gnosticism to write your own original gospels, discourses, cosmologies etc. It's just not ok to then publicise them as ancient.

 

[gnostic]

It's a fake.

The GoB seemed to be written in medieval Spain.

Who ever wrote it don't even know the geography of Judaea in the time of Christ. It mixed the town that supposed to be on hill, but place it on the coast of the Galilee Sea, and town supposed on the coast but place it on the hill.

The seasons are all wrong in Judaea; the seasons found in GoB is more likely that of Spain, not Judaea.

And the Jews using wooden wine casket, as in wine barrel. This is a medieval invention. All ancient kingdoms used large clay storage jars, or wine-skins if you are travelling, not wooden wine-barrels.

Only the Muslims (particularly the ones I met at islam.com forums) believe this Gospel from Bartholomew to be the only true gospel, and the canonical gospels are corrupted.

 

[allogenes]

I think there's a bit of confusion here. There are actually two different so-called Gospels of Bartholomew. One has been known of for centuries, and can be found in collections of medieval Christian pseudopigraphia (I tried to post a link, but haven't posted enough yet-- you can find it at Pseudopigraphia dot com). This is the one seen in some Muslim communities as a "true" gospel.

The one I discussed as a forgery is something called by the publisher the "Gnostic Gospel of Bartholomew," and is most certainly a fake. The Zen koans included in this so-called Gospel were written in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.

Now, it's tempting to be generous and try to trace Buddhist influences on Gnosticism and vice-versa; indeed, I do believe that there were ideas exchanged between the two traditions. However, what we know as "Zen" (or Chan) Buddhism hadn't been developed until centuries after the composition of the Gnostic texts. The stories included in the so-called Gnostic Gospel of Bartholomew, in particular, are far too similar to those from the Zen tradition.

So, in summary:

Gospel of Bartholomew = Medieval Christian Pseudopigraphical Work

"Gnostic" Gospel of Bartholomew = Modern Fake Derived from Zen Buddhist Koans

 

[SimonMagus]

yeah the older Gospel of B. was where Satan was called Belial, and was talking with the angel of Hades, simply called Hades in the text. Bartholomew also conversed with Satan, to which the Devil told him many things like his origin as greatest angel of heaven.

When I was studying Theistic Luciferianism, I thought this was the best text for accuracy on early Christian demons (Satan's son Salpsan, Simon Magus, and the two Egyptian sorcerors in Exodus were all considered to be chief arch demons in the gospel). I'm no longer a Luciferian, or follow this gospel, but what I like about it is the personality it gives Satan and some of the other demonic entities, whereas the Biblical gospels are so vague and colorless as to the nature of these beings.

It's not a "Gnostic" gospel but could have some Gnostic influence, it probably came about in the first few centuries after Christ, or a bit later.