The Dead Sea Scrolls By Misheal Al-Kadhi, from the Arabic Paper

"Its interpretation (Habakkuk 2:15) concerns the Wicked Priest, who 
pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to swallow him up with his wrathful 
anger to the place of his exile. And at the time of the day of rest of the Day 
of Atonement, he (the Wicked Priest) appeared before them to swallow 
them up and to make them stumble on the day of the fast of their abstention 
from work."
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 120 
"The Wicked Priest began his career with the support of the sectarians, but 
he quickly lost his way and began to transgress in order to increase his 
wealth". 
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 233 
Remember Matthew 26:15
"And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto 

---

you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver".
"Various theories have sought to identify the Teacher with Jesus, claiming 
that he was executed by the Wicked Priest. Had that been the case, the text 
would not have gone on to explain how God took vengeance against the 
priest by turning him over to the 'ruthless ones of the nations'. And 
according to this text, the teacher certainly survived the ambush. Indeed 
the entire passage is an interpretation of Psalms where the text continues, 
"The Lord will not abandon him (the Righteous), into his hand (the 
Wicked); He will not let him (the Righteous) be condemned in judgment (by 
the wicked)."
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, pp. 233-234 
The author goes on to quote 
Pesher Habakkuk
with regard to the Wicked 
Priest's intentions and his punishment. He says: 
"Ultimately, however, the Wicked Priest was punished: '.. because of his 
transgression against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his 
council, God gave him over to the hands of his enemies to afflict him with 
disease so as to destroy him with mortal suffering because he had acted 
wickedly against His chosen one'. The Wicked Priest's enemies tortured 
him which represents divine punishment for his attacks on the Teacher of 
Righteousness. The sufferings of the Wicked Priest are even more 
graphically described in another passage: 'and all his enemies arose and 
abused him in order for his suffering to be fit punishment for his evil. And 
they inflicted upon him horrible diseases, and acts of vengeance in the 
flesh of his body'. The one who suffered was the Wicked Priest, not the 
Teacher of Righteousness. The enemies of the Wicked Priest, the nation 
against whom he had made war, are said to have tortured him, so that his 
life ended in mortal disease and affliction."
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 234 
Pesher Habakkuk 9:9-10 reads:
"Its interpretation (Habakkuk 2:8) concerns the Wicked Priest, who, 
because of (his) transgression against the Teacher of Righteousness and 
the men of his council, God handed over into the hands of his enemies to 
afflict him..." 
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 119 
If we were to read the Gospel of Barnabas, we would find that when Judas 
came with the Roman troops in order to betray Jesus (pbuh), God raised 
Jesus (pbuh) unto Him and saved him. He then made Judas look and even 
speak like Jesus (pbuh) so that the Romans dragged Judas away with them 
kicking and screaming that he was not Jesus (pbuh) but Judas. Even the 

---

apostles were totally bewildered. 
After the Romans had their fill afflicting Judas with all manner of abuse 
and torture, he was finally taken to trial. He was asked many times whether 
he was Jesus (pbuh) and each time he replied that he was not Jesus but 
Judas and that Jesus had utilized his black magic in order to alter his form 
and make him resemble Jesus. Of course, no one believed him. The most 
his pleas succeeded in doing was to convince some that Jesus was a 
lunatic. This turn of events appears to be supported by the New Testament 
where we find that whenever Jesus was asked, "art thou Jesus?" He would 
reply "Thou sayest"(Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2). This would be a 
completely logical response if he was not Jesus but Judas and he had been 
abused, ridiculed and mocked to the point that he had given up all hope of 
being believed. In other words, what Judas meant by "thou sayest" was, 
"you will not believe me if I say otherwise, so why fight it any more." 
Judas' enemies (the Romans) then took him and resumed their abuse. They 
mocked him, kicked him, cut him, spat on him, humiliated him, and 
tortured him. Finally, they put him up on the cross. It appears, however, 
that shortly after they took him down, he disappeared from his tomb 
(perhaps to live in disease and torment and die later on if he was not 
already dead). The Gospel of Barnabas then goes on to describe how Jesus 
(pbuh) returned to the apostles to tell them of how God had saved him 
from the hands of the Jews and the Romans, raised him up into heaven, and 
how the traitor (Judas) was taken instead. 
Once again this chain of events appears to be supported by the New 
Testament where we find that uncertainty regarding the fate of Judas has 
resulted in contradicting narrations in it's different books. For example, in 
Matthew 27:5 Judas is depicted as having felt severe remorse, handed over 
his blood money to the custodians of the great Temple, and then gone out 
and hung himself out of shame and remorse. However, in Acts 1:19 far 
from displaying remorse, Judas is depicted as having purchased a field 
with his ill gotten gains and then one day while he was out walking he 
tripped, fell down, and his internal organs burst out. In this manner, divine 
justice took vengeance against the traitor.
Conservative scholars have tried to harmonize these two conflicting 
narrations for centuries now, trying to make sense of how in one place it is 
Judas who purchased the field himself, and in the other it is the chief 
priests who purchased it. Similarly, in one place Judas died by hanging 
himself, and in the other he triped and his bowels gush out. In one he was 
remorseful and in the other he displayed no signs of remorse. As a partial 
solution to this dilemma, some conservative scholars have suggested that 
Judas hung himself, the rope broke, he fell down and then his bowels 
gushed out. In other words, they have taken two contradictory accounts, 
added in additional details found in neither one, and then come up with a 
completely new account supported by neither.

---

As mentioned previously, it is quite possible that the elusive Q document 
which Christian scholars believe to be the source document for the first 
three Gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke) is indeed the Gospel of 
Barnabas. This Gospel, once again, appears to have had a strong influence 
on our current day New Testament, however, the denial of Judas has now 
taken on various new forms, for example: 
In one (Matthew 26:64), Jesus is taken before the high priest who 
commands him to answer