Very interesting, this is a new one on me. I would wonder, though, how
neutral it is, if indeed there are some (however biased and unreasonable) Muslims who are publishing it as genuine. We can convey the fact that most researchers believe it's fraudulent without committing Wikipedia to probability estimates ("almost certaintly") with which earnest, well-meaning (but almost certainly wrong, it seems) religionists would disagree. --
LMS
Well, some of the people who republish the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion may think it reports on an actual meeting of 19th century people, but it's been proved to be a fabrication. If it is (a) claiming to be an authentic and (b) provably Islamic, then it's not even in the same boat as the 2nd century C.E. gospels. Maybe 'fraudulent' is less neutral than 'fabrication'? --
MichaelTinkler
It's very easy to say exactly that, though, or that sort of thing, in the relevant articles, from the neutral point of view. If there is not even any minority dissent on the point, you can simply say it's been proven. If there is only a few wacko nuts, then you can say, "It has been proven that such-and-such, according to virtually all researchers. [insert details]" Then you add, as an afterthought in a sentence or two, something to the effect that there is a small minority of people who believe that the fabrication, or whatever, is genuine. What's wrong with that? It's completely fact-stating. --
LMS
That's true. --
MichaelTinkler
Omigosh. I decided I wouldn't wait to go by the library this afternoon and get my interlibrary loan books to look in the reference section. Do a google search on Gospel of Barnabas and you poke a hornet's nest. Not fun.--
MichaelTinkler
The hyperlink in the article is broken. Darn. --Branden
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)