Talk:Apocalypse of Peter

Untitled
Wouldn't the third quarter of the second century be 150 - 175? The page currently notes it as 175 - 200. (Anon.)


 * Yes, last quarter is correct. Text now corrected. Thank you. --Wetman 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I am not expert enough to edit this page, but the grammar is terrible. Some sentences in the first paragraph do not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.57.31 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Without changing information, I've completed sentences, made the text clearer and set it under three simple headings. --Wetman 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I too had a go, but even deleting a suspect comma would change the information. A problem seems to be that the lede deals with a Greek text and an Ethiopic text (later called an Arab Christian document) that are basically two different texts, yet subsumed into one article. What little we know about the either one gets very muddled here by the combination in a single article. I propose splitting off the Ru'ya Butros into a separate article! Wegesrand (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Suppression

 * Someone wanted to revert the following, as original research: "Comparison of the two on-line translations confirms that it is not the same text discussed here." What would Jon Stewart of The daily Show say of Wikipedians' concept of originality and research when he heard this! --Wetman (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another attempted suppression (in italics) that should be discussed rather than silently censored:
 * "The Apocalypse of Peter was eventually not accepted into the Christian canon and thus remains today among the New Testament apocrypha, though the numerous references to it attest to its being once in wide circulation. Thus the disappearance of every single manuscript of the work is perhaps not entirely coincidental."

May Wikipedia make any reference at all to the concerted, consistent official suppression over the centuries of non-mainstream Christian texts? Perhaps not. --Wetman (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC):


 * One problem I have with such a reference is that it smacks of a "Vast right-wing conspiracy" type of talk that does not lend credibility to the article. A second problem is that "suppression" is a loaded word; surely a more neutral word is available. A third problem is that no conspiracy is needed to explain the disappearance over centuries of an obscure and neglected text; age, accident, recycling, and war, coupled with the very high cost of copying, are more than enough explanation for such disappearances.


 * That said, I don't really have an objection to the article as it now stands. It successfully avoids the loaded word "suppression". And it is reasonable to assume that had the Apocalypse of Peter been considered canonical, it likely would have been better preserved. Surely that, as the article correctly states, is not entirely coincidental. Rwflammang (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (I guess I could add volcanic eruptions to that list of explanations of why all works not diligently copied eventually disappear. The link is to a fascinating news story about the "only surviving library from antiquity", although the term "surviving" may yet turn out to be optimistic. Rwflammang (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC) )


 * The unnamed library at Herculaneum mentionmed in the news article is the Villa of the Papyri, containing the only surviving Roman library. Is there a single text uncontroversially noted as suppressed by the Catholic Church in any Wikipedia article?--Wetman (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggest you look at the articles on the Wycliffe Bible, Machiavelli's Prince, Copernicus and Galileo's heliocentric publications Faustina Kowalska's Divine Mercy. If they don't note suppression, they should. Of course, all these works are run-away best sellers, so they might not illustrate your point very well. But best-sellers are the only ones I'm likely to have heard of. You might want to take a look at the works listed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. No doubt there are some works there that have disappeared entirely. But to the best of my knowlege, there was no analogue to the Index before the 16th century. For texts older than that, we only have conciliar condemnations, like those of Wycliffe. Arius, Nestorius, and a host of lesser theologians fall into that category, and many of their works, obviously, have not survived. But then the works of many of their persecutors have been lost as well. How significant are any of these losses? I don't know. Rwflammang (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

4 Esther?
I never heard of 4 Esther. Perhaps 4 Esdras was meant? Rwflammang (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This source seems to indicate that the Apocalypse of Esdras was meant: . There is no meantion of Esther. I will change the article. Rwflammang (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter as opposed to James
The Article now includes: "..granted to Peter, the favourite figure of the emerging mainstream Church (as opposed to James the Just, favourite of the Jewish Christians)". This sentence shall be removed because: 1) the figure of Peter cannot be summarized in so a short statement. There is a wikilink to Saint Peter where all the infos and different POV can be find. 2) to choose this statement to describe Saint Peter instead of many other possible choices (as "the head of the Apostles") is a POV. 3) to say that Peter was in opposition to James is a POV not at all universally accepted 4) We are speaking about a text, the Apocalypse of Peter, that says nothing about Peter as opposed to James. 5) it is un-sourced. I see no reason for this statement here in this Article. There is already the Article about Peter. I kindly ask not to revert my edit without any justification. A ntv (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Impressive. Ordinarily, deletions made by passers-by who have never contributed to an article are not backed by so many justifications. As a general rule, deleting is not editing. One spends many tiresome hours debating with oneself whether deletions are improvements: in rare cases, they are indeed.--Wetman (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right I've never edited this Article. I've edited other similar articles, as the Jewish Apocalypse of Zephaniah that is very similar in date and in the description of the hell to the Apocalypse of Peter. What was striking in the sentence was that it supported that this text was an expression of the mainstream Church because it referred to Peter. On the contrary one of the few Judeo-Christian survived text, the Clementine literature, uses Peter as leading figure. A ntv (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ru'ya Butrus
Is the document "Ru'ya Butrus" even related to the Apocalypse of Peter? This article should say yes or no if there is any commonality between the two.

If the only relation is the name, as seem to be the case, then 99% of the Ru'ya Butrus section should be removed to elsewhere, maybe as it own article. tahc chat 07:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing Grébaut to Maspéro
I'm changing the phrase "during excavations directed by Sylvain Grébaut during the 1886–87 season" to "during excavations initiated by Gaston Maspéro during the 1886–87 season": see Van Minnen in Bremmer et al. 2003, p. 17. Grébaut could certainly not have directed the digs, since he was only born in 1881: https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb12083556t.

Confusion over dating
This article makes it seem that both the massive Ethipic version and the miniscule Greek version are dependent on 4 Esdras. The source listed states that this is for the Ethiopic version. The Greek version cannot be dated to after 100 AD, based on the fact that an unrelated document with the same name quoted 4 Esdras. The Greek version is not an excerpt from the Ethiopic version. They are two different documents.

I don't want to tamper with the article, but as it stands it is confusing and even misleading. Perhaps these documents need separate articles? Either way they should not be confused as a single document. 24.114.38.59 (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Interpretation
I think we should interpret without changing the meaning of original text. 'It was not allowed to be read in church by others' is sort of enlargement. Nuance of that sentence states that all of the people in church officially banned reading Apocalypse of Peter. There are 'some' people, written as 'some' among us, who would not have it read in church. People who don't want it to be read were maybe not even majority but minority, and I think that is why it was included in Muratorian canon. Otherwise, it would not have been included in, and therefore just rejected from the canon. 58.79.236.68 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)