The Gospel of Barnabas 129called Fra Marino) tearing rus hair out in desperation as hundreds
of gullible Italians inexplicably embrace Islam after reading the
infamous Gospel ofBarnabas. Indeed there is no real'proof' that the
Fra Marino to whom the Preface to the Spanish version refers is
none other than our ex-Inquisitor from Vernce. In all probability
there were literally tens, if not hundreds, of Fra Marinos in Italy
during the time of Pope Sixtus ~ not all of whom would have been
recorded in what few records have survived up until today, and
any one of whom might have been the Fra Marino who stole the
Pope's copy of the Gospel of Barnabas.
Furthermore, as regards the Fra Marino selected by David Sox,
although it is recorded that he was an Inquisitor, and that he was
reprimanded, and that he was demoted (but not disrnissed), there
is no record that he either subsequently embraced Islam, or that he
was bumt at the stake for embracing Islam, or that he fled the coun
try in order to avoid the clutches of the Inquisition after accepting
Islam. If, as David Sox has attempted to argue, Fra Marino himself
wrote the Gospel ofBarnabas 'in revengeagainst rus successor', surely
the Gospel would have been publicised at the time, and surely there
would have been a public outcry as a result. It appears that David
Sox could find no such record.
Thus in spite of all rus long hours of research, his carefully ar
ranged footnotes and cross-references, and rus lucid style, David
Sox's hypothesis remains unlikely, implausible and unconvincing.
It is highly unlikely that any impartial court of law today could
possibly conclude, on the 'evidence' presented by David Sox, that
the link needed to substantiate his allegation of forgery which he
seeks to establish in his book has been proved. Indeed one cannot
help concluding that perhaps the main reason why he has gone to
such great lengths in his attempts to prove the highly improbable,
may weIl be that it is because the contents of the Gospel of Barnabas
are in fact true.
It is however to his credit that in spite of all the far-fetched specu
lation - of which, as we have already seen, he admits there is 'a
great amount' - David Sox does have the intelleetual honesty to
admit that, 'The Jesus of the Gospel of Barnabas is on many occa
sions similar to that of the canonical Gospels,' 6 - although he then
adds, ' because, of course, the former book depends on material
contained in the latter.' It is possible, however, that it is in fact the
converse of that statement which is nearer the truth: