Talk:Gospel of Barnabas

Paraclete passages

I have restored the following passage in the section on the prediction of Muhammad.

"The Gospel of Barnabas claims that Jesus predicted the advent of Muhammad, thus conforming with the Qur'an which mentions:

And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad. But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, this is evident sorcery!

— Sura 61:6 [1]

(Ahmad is an Arabic name from the same triconsonantal root Ḥ-M-D = [ح - م - د].)

A Muslim scholarly tradition links this Qur'anic passage to the New Testament references to the Paraclete in the canonical Gospel of John (14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7). The Greek word "paraclete" can be translated as "Counsellor", and refers according to Christians to the Holy Spirit. Some Muslim scholars, have noted the similarity to the Greek "peryklytos" which can be translated as "admirable one"; or in Arabic, "Ahmad"."

The point is an important one; as is shown by its mention in Sale's notice of the Gospel of Barnabas in the Preliminary Discourse. Islamic tradition associates the Gospel term "Paraclete" with the name Muhammad; hence Sale assumes (wrongly) that the Gospel of Barnabas must do so too. The Gospel of Barnabas does contain repeated explicit prophecies of the coming of Muhammad by name; but in no case do these correspond to a Johannine 'Paraclete' pericope. So the article needs to state this finding, and list those pericopes. If we accept that the Gospel of Barnabas is a Gospel Harmony, then what it systematically excludes is as notable as what it includes. Which is why the Raggs discussed this issue in some detail. Indeed, as the Raggs note, the Gospel of Barnabas attaches a prophecy of the coming 'Messenger of God' (though not named) to a Messianic saying canonically attributed to John the Baptist. TomHennell (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Joseph Wright -> Joseph White

I have changed it, since it was Joseph White (orientalist) who gave the 1784 Bampton Lectures. Feel free to revert if "Joseph Wright" really was the right person in this matter.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Manuscript

I did some google-searches for the Spanish manuscript. These are the most important results:

1.: A CATALOGUE of the collection of scarce printed books, and curious Manuscripts, of mr. Joseph Ames, lately deceased;

Item 339. (page 33) says: El Evangelio de Barnabas Apostol, transcribed from one in the Possession of Mr. Edm. Calamy, who bought it at the Decease of Mr.Geo. Sale, fol. After the item we find the initials "P.T.", which probably stands for Ames's old friend and antiquarian Sir Peter Thompson.

2. At the end of William Hone's book Ancient mysteries described (1823), there is an announcement for Hones's other book, Apocryphal New Testament, which has a "To the reader"-section (p. 314-315 in the PDF).

This says: It is said that the Gospel of Barnabas ought to have been included. Of that Gospel, the Rev. Jeremiah Jones supposed that there were no fragments extant. He refers to the Italian MS. of it in Prince Eugene's Library, quoted by Toland and La Monnoy, and gives their citations, at the same time observing that the piece is a Mahometan imposture. From another MS. belonging to Dr. Monkhouse, the Rev. Joseph White, in the notes to his Bampton Lectures, produces a long extract. Sale, who in his translation of the Koran, notices this Gospel, likewise had a MS. of it, which after his death was purchased by the Rev. Edm. Calamy, who permitted a copy to be taken by Mr. John Nickolls, the portrait collector: on his decease it became the property of Mr. Joseph Ames, author of the History of Printing, and is now in my possession. The authors mentioned, show, that if any portion of this be the remains of the ancient Gospel, it is obscured by Mahometan interpolation; while their extracts suffice to satisfy the inquisitive concerning its tendency, and to convince the reasonable, that its claim to be considered a production of the first four centuries is not properly supported.

Are these texts and sources useful for the article? Or would that be a violation o the WP:OR-policy? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As it is a published source; I do not see how it should be excluded as Original Research. Tells us a bit more about the history of the Spanish trancript before it got to Sydney. I did a bit of google ferreting myself to try to track down any subsequent references to the original Spanish manuscript; but aside from confirming its bequest to Queen's College Oxford in George Holme's will, I drew a blank. But that would have been OR in Wikipedia terms, had there been no published citation. Of the manuscripts noted by William Hone, we know the current location of his transcript and of the Italian Ms. But we still don't know what happened to the original Spainsh MS; after the death of Dr. Monkhouse. It was supposed to have gone to Queen's College library, but they have no record of ever receiving it; likely Monkhouse (George Holme's successor at Headly, and also his executor) filched it. Monkhouse (or White) appear to have commissioned an English translation, which is also lost. And then also lost is George Sale's own transcript, from which Hone's transcript was made. It is not impossible that any of these could resurface; either in the rediscovery of the manuscripts themselves, or in finding some notice of them in a secondary work of 18th or 19th century date. One place that might be worth checking on the off-chance could be Teddy Hall library, as both Holme and Monkhouse made bequests there too. TomHennell (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

At least one could discover a reference to the book; the 1915 British Museum's list of catalogues of English book sales (1676–1900) has catalogues of the book sales of Sale, Calamy, Thompson and a catalogue of a "Collection of vocal and instrumental Music" from a certain "Rev. dr. Monkhouse," December 1823. I hope someday one would take a look at those catalogues. Meanwhile, I'll see how I can put my findings into the text. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Tom, maybe my edits are a bit too long for the article. If you think my edits need to be shortened, please do. All the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In the Roman Catholic Church

Hopefully, a so short section could be integrated in a previous one. But it is significant the fact that the socalled Gospel of Barnabas is cited withihn the Roman Catechism (article 1905), even if it is not officially part of the biblical canon that is read during any Holy Mass. This point can be read a some sort of implicit recognition of its divine inspiration. Apart from that, Barnabas is a saint of the Roman Catholic Church and he is also mentioned for more times in the Acts of the Apostles.Theologian81sp (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure it's this "Gospel of Barnabas", and not the Epistle of Barnabas? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The article should clearly distinguish between the Gospel of Barnabas and the Epistle, which is in the Codex Sinaiticus, and the more-important text, as it was taken to be canonical by many early Christians. Philgoetz (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)