Talk:Gospel of Peter/Archive 1

Broken Link
the link [http://cpa.csad.ox.ac.uk/GP/GP.html High resolution images of P.Cair. 10759, the Akhmim codex] is dead - therefore I removed it. perhaps somebody can fins a working one... --Baruch ben Alexander &#9993;&#9997;  11:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia readers may fall into heresy
very beginning of article: "but that some parts might encourage its hearers to fall into the Docetist heresy" tell me that's just vandalism :) (anonymous)


 * Serapion is being paraphrased, following the direct quote earlier in the same sentence, needless to say. --Wetman 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek
Shall we mention that the Gospel survives in Greek somewhere? Does it survive in any other languages?Christian Askeland 11:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudepigraphical definition
I don't have any problem with including a definition of "pseudepigraphical" in the article -- but as it appears now it appears to be smuggling in a claim -- that Saint Peter did not author this work -- without attributing it to a source as would be required by WP:V and WP:NPOV. Grover cleveland 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

are you sure?
"and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them"

In the article it says the cross is "floating" out of the tomb. Could "following" just mean "dragged behind"? Like Jesus was put in the tomb while still attached to the cross, and they were carrying him out? Weird, yes, but not as weird as a floating cross.

"And a response was heard from the cross, Yes."

Likewise, if he's still on it, "a response from the cross" could just mean him. "a response from the house" most often means "a response from someone inside the house", not that the house itself is speaking. Does Wikipedia's description match the original language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.71.99 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

discovered versus re-discovered?
How could it be rejected by early church as apocryphal if it was not discovered until late 1800s.

Are there references to it BEFORE its actual discovery? If so or not, article should clarify.96.234.198.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Disagrees with First Peter
The other day, after the sentence 'This, together with the claim that on the cross Jesus "remained silent, as though he felt no pain", has led many early Christians to accuse the text of docetism', I added the parenthesis "(Note that the First Epistle of Peter 3:18 states that Christ did suffer.)"

Now User:Editor2020 has reverted that with no explanation. The reason I added it is to show that the Gospel of Peter disagrees with the First Epistle of Peter. This shows that at least one is not by Peter. I think it's an interesting observation and I don't see why it should be deleted.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Note that" = "I'm going to make a comment". Editor2020 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So we're not allowed to point out anything interesting? Have you never done so? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can find a non-primary source that says that, please do so. Editor2020

Neutrality issue
This article uses weasle words and portrays the Gospel of Peter as an authentic Christian Gospel, without giving weight to the other side of the issue. I think it should be cleaned up to present a neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC2D:A090:809:82B7:8557:4E85 (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see any issue of undue weight. On the contrary, it presents it in a fairly neutral manner, illustrating that we actually know very little about the context or provenance of the text: some passages can be interpreted as docetic or gnostic, but it might equally lay within the camp of proto-orthodoxy (or have an Judaic context, given its apparent usage by Essenes and Elkaisaites); none of the content paints an obvious picture (aside from absolving the Roman authorities and ascribing the Gospel to Peter), thus, the ambiguity and "tantalising" wording of certain passages has led authors to speculate on the theological motivations of some parts. These views are all presented in the article, without drawing conclusions, and are sourced. This is, on Wikipedia, a clear example of the very definition of NPOV. I wasn't able to find anything that actually presented it as "authentic". In fact, a good deal of space is given to late classical and post-classical authorities, that more often than not reject a gospel some identify with this one. The presentation of modern scholars, as I pointed out, is likewise quite balanced.
 * Thus, I'll be removing the neutrality tag you placed a few months ago, as that clearly doesn't apply. The article might have other issues, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. I'm assuming good faith, but I urge you to read the guideline on RNPOV, as I think that might have been a factor here. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Crossan's position
Whether or not Wright, Theissen and Merz are being quoted correctly, Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter is not that the text as we now know it predates the canonical gospels. Rather, he argues that it is a second century document that has been edited to reflect details in the biblical gospels, and that these edits can be identified in order to reveal an earlier form of the text that he believes predates canonical passion and resurrection narratives. Sineaste (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Language
allixpeeke (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) In what language did the composition originate?
 * 2) In what language is the oldest surviving fragments of the composition?


 * Come on! It's been nearly two years since I asked the above question, and in that time, no one has improved the article by adding information regarding the composition's language! (The #Discovery section states that an 8th- or 9th-century manuscript was discovered in 1886, but says nothing of the language in which that manuscript was written, and the #Contents section states that Harris offered his opinion on the composition's original language, but not what Harris's (or anyone else's) opinion was (or is).) allixpeeke (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "In the course of explorations carried on during the winter of 1886-87 by the order of M. Grébaut, then Director of the Museums of Egypt, two Greek manuscripts were discovered in the necropolis of Akhmîm, the ancient Panopolis, in Upper Egypt." - "The Gospel According To Peter" By Walter R. Cassels (1894) p. 2
 * "Modern scholars are more inclined to attribute it to a Syrian Christian Gnostic" - Britannica
 * There's probably more information out there - cheeers - Epinoia (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Complaint about reversion
You reverted my entire edit, with the comment (Reverted good faith edits by Eric Kvaalen: - citations needed - WP:NOR - WP:VERIFY - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." (TW))

What exactly do you object to? Do I need a reference to say that Πετρον should not be transliterated Petrōn? Do I need a reference to say that "the Gospel of Peter is an ancient text concerning Jesus Christ, only partially known today"? Or to say that what we have of it doesn't include anything about the birth of Christ? (Our article tells us what the parts we have do say. That sentence by the way was in our article in a slightly different form for a long time.) And do I need another reference to say that Deane Galbraith is talking about the first six verses of Psalm 19, besides the reference that is already there and which says that in the abstract? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - you changed a quote, "the Gospel according to Peter, as it is called, or the Book of James" to that the Gospel of Peter, together with "the book of James"" - changing a quote requires a citation - you also added new information that it was "rejected as apocryphal by the Church Fathers" - this requires a citation - if you can gain consensus from other editors that these changes improve the article, then they can be reinstated - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You should check. It was you who changed the quote "the Gospel according to Peter, as it is called, or the Book of James" to that the Gospel of Peter, together with "the book of James". And it was you who added (back) that it was rejected as apocryphal by the Church Fathers. And what do you say about your edit saying that Πετρον is transliterated Petrōn? Or about reverting my pointing out that Deane Galbraith refers to the first six verses of the psalm? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - either way, content was changed and such changes require citations - Epinoia (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - citations required - "Origen seems to consider" is original research not supported by reliable sources - see WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, WP:NOR and other guidelines - "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles...must be verifiable." "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged." "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable...is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines." "Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"
 * - if other editors support your changes they can be reinstated - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Would you please address what I say? (See above.) By the way, I wrote "Origen seems to consider the "Book of James" as the same thing as the Gospel of Peter" in my edit comment, not in the text! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I believe the changes you made require citations in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines - if other editors support the changes without citations, then they can be reinstated. - Epinoia (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment
See the above section. I made an innocuous edit the other day and the User:Epinoia reverted it. When I complained (above) he claimed that I made the changes that he made! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you starting a full-blown thirty-day formal RFC about this? Have all of the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE been exhausted? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you read what he wrote above, you'll see that he won't agree to my edit unless "other editors" support it! So naturally I am trying to get some other editors to look at this huge issue! Yes, I did read WP:RFCBEFORE and decided that it was all right to proceed. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Redrose64, it is unclear that an RFC was necessary or will be useful. If you identify what the RFC is about, ping me and I will return. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But I already said what it's about (see above). Could someone please address the issue, rather than whether I should or shouldn't have asked for help using a Request for Comment? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep lede change, revert other changes - Do you want us to address whether the change was appropriate? If so, which of the changes? Do you want us to address the behaviour? You have not clearly identified the topic of this RFC. Your change to the lede looks appropriate because it is discussed in further detail later. However, your changes to the body seem inappropriate to me without further sourcing. As to the behaviours, I think that Epinoia behaved perfectly reasonably and simply got confused. I know that I have confused who made what change before. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What bothers me is not that he got confused, but that he criticized his own changes, which he made when he reverted my changes, because he thought his changes were my changes! If his putting things back the way they were was something to be criticized, then why doesn't he accept the changes I had made?
 * Now, the two changes I made other than in the lede were to quote what Origen actually said (and to add back a note that was removed years ago to the effect that what we now have does not mention the birth of Christ or the perpetual virginity of Mary), and to simply state that the theory of Deane Galbraith is about the first six verses of the psalm in question (which one can see from the abstract). So what do you object to? User:Epinoia apparently had no objection to those!
 * Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is no answer in a few days then I will restore my edit. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)