Talk:Barnabas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This entry incorporates text from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897.
This article includes content derived from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1914, which is in the public domain.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Saints Barnabas is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.


I've removed some vandalism done by 24.115.236.246 earlier today. 3 edits - changed "nerd" back to "prophet", "demon of Hell" back to "good man" and removed a reference to Wikipedia after "...discrepant and untrustworthy." (Didn't sign in) ColinCameron 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


What is the basis for the "written by a 14th century Italian" claim regarding the Barnabas gospel? I'm 3/4's through reading the document's text, and it seems to me to offer, underneath the Muslim polemical overlay, strong evidences throughout in various categories of some original authenticity. I could believe it had passed through 14th century Italian hands, particularly in light of the original Catholic church's proscriptions on its possession, and Islamic text interpolations seem abundantly evident, but I see no grounds yet for the argument the entire thing is a medieval fabrication in toto. Chris Rodgers 05:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


This article seems to be very biased against Pauline and trinitarian theology. It needs to be made more neutral. - 68.230.161.133 08:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikifying in progress

I am Wikifying this article and it's a big job. Some copy editing of parts appears necessary too.

I agree that this article is pretty polemical in tone. Needs a NPOV. (If I ever get time...). Peter Hitchmough 07:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

I'm sorry I had to do this, but the evidence is undeniable.

I was suspicious of several section of this article, namely "Teachings of Barnabas", "History Reference", & "Barnabas and Teachings of Islam". My original intent was mark these sections as needing either to be verified or purged of original research, but when I started to edit, I could tell from the formating of the text that it had been a cut-&-pasted from another source. Searching for the phrase "followers of Barnabas never developed a central" on Google returned the page on barnabas.net as the first hit. (It was added by an anonymous editor on 6 Dec 2004.)

I'm putting the version previous to that one at Barnabas/temp, so Peter can work on that one & not this embarassment. (And it is, in more than one way: much of the anti-Pauline material comes from that URL.) -- llywrch 20:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I support your findings. I shall not be doing any more wiki/copy-editing work on this for now. I have nothing to add to a rewrite. Maybe I will return later.
Peter Hitchmough 23:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Llywrch, for sorting this article out. I didn't know where to start with what we had before. I'll see if I can do a bit of an edit here, to tidy up and expand. Barnabas is called αποστολος in the Greek texts. It is non-controversial that English NTs translate this apostle: the interesting thing is that he and Paul (and others less well documented) broaden the church's understanding of apostleship to include those who were not the Twelve, or replacements for them. Gareth Hughes 12:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joses and Nabas

In this article, as well as others, the name Joses (Yoses) is presented as being the Aramaic version of Joseph (Yousef), but it is unlikely that the Aramaic version had an /s/ at its end, this being rather the Greek version of the Aramaic version. I think there are modern Israeli persons having the name Yosi which could be more likely the Aramaic version. Like wise, a proposed explanation for the etymology of Barnabas is that it is comprised of Aramaic Bar (=son of) and Nabas (==prophet). Nabas seems also to be the Graecised version of Naba (as in Arabic Nabi). --Alif 13:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luke as the author of Luke and Acts

The article claimed that the scholarly consensus is that Luke wrote Luke and Acts. I think there is unquestionably a scholarly consensus that the author of Luke and Acts is the same person. I question whether there is a scholarly consensus that Luke wrote Luke. At least it is disputed area. I hesitated to make a change in this article since I am sure others are more versed in the topic than I am. I won't object to a reversion if it is felt that is desirable. Thanks Davefoc 05:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double vandalisms

I just made the foolish error of restoring version 1 of a doubly entered vandalism: not cautious enoiugh in using the rollback feature. --Wetman 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Greek MSS?

Is there an original Greek copy of his writings? Surely we ought not to settle for a mere Latin translation in this day and age? (Weirpwoer 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)).