Talk:Epistle of Barnabas

Untitled
The Epistle of Barnabas should be put on the internet for free, and made easy to find. The Gospel of Barnabas is available that way, and many people I suspect mistake it for the the Epistle.


 * This anonymous reader has not looked through the article's External links. --Wetman 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to be a testimony of the book's authenticity, although being disputed (no claim of authenticity dispute is noted here). --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article on the BBC claims "Anti-Semitic writings... the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. 'His blood be upon us,' Barnabas has the Jews cry." and a quote from Professor Bart Ehrman "The suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse had the Epistle of Barnabas remained". 78.105.220.50 (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have owned two copies of The Apostolic Fathers, and the Epistle of Barnabas was in both of them. That's where the Epistle of Barnabas is found. Aragorn 05:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews (talk • contribs)

Part of Roman Catholic Canon?
I'm puzzled about the presence of these three navigation templates at the end of this article:

Since the Epistle of Barnabas does not appear to belong to the RC canon of the New Testament, why are these templates here? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Finnis source
First, thanks for editing the other cites! And in general, adding in sourced journal stuff is cool.

That said... I think this might be UNDUE? The Journal of Theological Studies is Oxford's in-house arm, and John Finnis is an emeritus at Oxford. An emeritus publishing outside his area of expertise, too - he's obviously interested in a lot of stuff, but his main area of expertise is theoretically law. Nobody else argues for such an early date, and it doesn't make tons of sense - if it was written between 30-70, why would the rebuilding of the Temple be put in the future tense? The Second Temple would have been right there. Along with the million and one reasons to place this in later Christianity rather than the earliest Christianity. I think this source is sufficiently off the rails that we just shouldn't include it at all. (But... don't want to make it seem like I'm defending the current state of the article, if you're interested in adding sources it'd be great!  Just...  not this one. ;-) )   Any thoughts?  SnowFire (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @SnowFire: Thanks for your comment. I didn't know about who John Finnis was, but I was impressed after reading his article as he makes a very detailed case for his thesis. He also makes a case for understanding the reference to the rebuilding of the Temple as a vaticinium ex eventu description of Zerubabbel's reconstruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. I don't know if my addition of Finnis' article is UNDUE; I personally think of it as a piece of recent scholarship reassessing prior work on the topic. It was also published in a very prestigious, peer-reviewed academic journal published by Oxford University Press. That said, I don't know if that is sufficient to establish his theory as significant enough to deserve a mention in Wikipedia. What is your opinion about this? Potatín5 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)