For Christians who believe 1 Enoch is pseudepigrapha what internal evidence do you have? A professor saying "trust me bro I'm a professor" is not evidence. In other words, for Christians who believe that 1 Enoch was first written 300 BC, and then deliberately deceptively backdated to make it look like it was written by Enoch 7th generation from Adam before Noah's flood -- as that is what internal authorship claims -- what evidence do you have of this? In case someone does not know what pseudepigrapha means, here's the [origin and history of *pseudepigrapha*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudepigrapha) from the *etymonline* website: > **pseudepigrapha**(n.)
"books or writings of false authorship," 1620s (implied in *pseudepigraphical*), especially of spurious writing professing to be Biblical in character and inspired in authorship, from Modern Latin use of Greek neuter plural of *pseudepigraphos* "with false title," from *pseudos* "a lie" (see [pseudo-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudo-)) + *epigraphē "a writing" (see [epigraph](https://www.etymonline.com/word/epigraph)) . **Note**: I mean what internal evidence in 1 Enoch do you have that it was first written 300 BC, and not pre-flood by Enoch 7th from Adam? I know a lot of people like to refer to authority figures, and majority to get their opinions, but for this question I am asking for *internal evidence*. Actually you can use evidence from archaeological writings/inscriptions from the Ancient Near East to argue against it if you want, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Okay so I was looking around on google for some answers about where some of the demon names that are "Biblical" came from, and I came across the Testament of Solomon . It isn't in the Bible from what I can tell. (It may be, if so, can I have some references?). It is an account of how Solomon enslaved demons using Michael's ring and made them rebuild the temple. There's something about all of this that just feels off. Does anyone know if its considered true by the majority or if its just considered untrue?

The Gospel of Barnabas is rejected by Christians because of the contradictory statements with respect to other "accepted" gospels (Even though other accepted bibles contains some contradictions with respect to other accepted ones). It is also rejected by Muslims because of the contradictory statements with respect to the Quran. However, there is a super surprising statement in the gospel that mentioned Muhammad PBUH and the Shahadah (almost exactly the same statement that Muhammad PBUH taught, just in a different language) in chapter 39. > There is only one God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God. How can Christians explain this? Also the Gospel of Barnabas is more parallel to the Quran (example: crucifixion) than the other gospels (Not fully parallel as there are some contradictions). There are claims about forgery, but as far as I know, there are no evidences about it also, *again*, since there are obvious contradictions in the gospel with respect to the Quran and the word "Muhammad" PBUH was mentioned (by the exact name) exactly (or maybe at least) 15 times.

The Gospel Of Barnabas is one of the 2 additional Gospel discovered than present in Bible which has an clearly distinct prespective about Jesus (PBUH) and his death so why Christians do not believe in Gospel Of Barnabas?

The Gospel of Barnabas is a text that has turned up in the form of 16th century manuscripts in Italian and Spanish. The text claims to be the witness of Jesus' disciple Barnabas, however its content runs quite contrary to Christian doctrine in every major tradition that I know of. Secular media, however, loves to trumpet its claims and it periodically makes the rounds in pop culture. Sometimes it is touted as an alternate rendition of the Biblical New Testament account (either to be considered the true one if you discount the NT or a bogus one if you trust it). While the media doesn't tend to cover this, most scholars recognize that it's teachings are hugely divergent from those of Christianity. What Christian traditions have come down with official statements with direct bearing on this text either approving or rejecting it's claims? What secondary positions (creeds, confessions, etc) could be shown to directly address it? Have any Christian traditions ever given it's teaching any authority?