Talk:Saint Peter

Peter's nationality

I believe St Peter should appear under the following Wiki category page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_popes

So the following text should be added to the St Peter page: Category:Jewish popes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minneapolisite (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 March 2013‎

References to the Petrine letters being written by a secretary

The section "New Testament" in "Writings" includes the statement: "the author of the first epistle explicitly claims to be using a secretary". This unsourced statement is downright false. The passage referred to says "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly" (1 Peter 5:12). It does not say "By my secretary" or "by Silvanus my secretary" which it would need to do to make the claim that the author explicitly claims to be using a secretary. Some commentators read into it that Silvanus was a secretary, but as Bart Ehrman says in his book "Forged", p76, that is wrong - "He is indicating not the name of his secretary, but the person who was carrying the letter to the recipients." The whole section does not cite any sources and states a number of highly disputable opinions as facts. It continues " The textual features of these two epistles are such that a majority of scholars doubt that they were written by the same hand. This means at the most that Peter could not have authored both" - no, that is not "the most" it could mean, it could be (and almost certainly is) the case that Peter did not author either one - "or at the least that he used a different secretary for each letter." We now move from unsourced conjecture that "By Silvanus" in 1 Peter refers to the use of a secretary to unsourced conjecture that 2 Peter also used a secretary, with nothing beyond the speculation of the author of this part of the article to back up that. This is WP:OR and I am removing all of that. If someone wants to make the case that these letters used secretaries, they need to find and cite sources.

The section continues: "A number of scholars have argued that the textual discrepancies with what would be expected of the biblical Peter are due to it having been written with the help of a secretary or as an amanuensis. Indeed in the first epistle the use of a secretary is clearly described: "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand".[1 Pet. 5:12] Thus, in regards to at least the first epistle, the claims that Peter would have written Greek poorly seem irrelevant." Once again, "By Silvanus" does not clearly describe the use of a secretary and the claims that Peter would have written Greek poorly are not irrelevant.

I am removing these passages for right now, but in fact the whole section "New Testament" in "Writings" does not cite a single source and unless someone adds some citations to that section in the next few days, I will re-write the whole thing.Smeat75 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that user Bede735 reverted my changes shortly after I had made them and did add one reference from a source more than a hundred years old to the possible use of secretaries by the author of the Petrine letters. However there is still no source for the false statements "the author of the first epistle explicitly claims to be using a secretary" and "in the first epistle the use of a secretary is clearly described". I am removing these unsourced, false statements and ask that they not be restored without citations (for instance, so-and-so in such and such a reliable source says that "By Silvanus" is a clear , explicit claim to be using a secretary.)

Also I have deleted the unsourced sentence :"This means at the most that Peter could not have authored both (letters), or at the least that he used a different secretary for each letter." It needs a citation as to whose opinion this is, as it is certainly not that held by most scholars today. Wikipedia is not a place to repeat Sunday School lessons from a hundred years ago. I have added a quote from a recent book by Bart Ehrman noting that modern scholars, as opposed to pre World War One scholars, do not believe that the words "By Silvanus" refer to the use of a secretary, but to the person who was going to deliver the letter to the recipients. Please do not remove this quote from a WP:RS without a discussion here on the talk page first.Smeat75 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cephas and Peter separate people?

Some years ago, Bart Ehrman wrote an article here in which he discussed the old idea that Saints Cephas and Peter were separate people. (I think he may also indicate that a Saint Simon was a separate person as well, but I haven't read the article recently and may be wrong there.) This idea has received little if any support, or even attention, in recent years, and Ehrman argues that, basically, that we are right to do so, but that the possibility of them being different people should not be completely dismissed. Few if any of the reference books I've seen discuss the matter though. How should we deal with it here? John Carter (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The most common form

Before a move request is proposed for the fifth time, I'd like to present some data for the most familiar form of this person's name, courtesy of Google. (Self-disclosure: I don't like the current form "Saint Peter", but I can live with it. I'd rather see this article titled simply "Peter", & put all of the disambiguation stuff under Peter (disambiguation).) The actual string I entered into Google is shown in Italics.

First, doing a Google search on "Peter" returns 1.05 x 10⁹ hits. Due to some weirdness on Google's part, searching on "Peter -wikipedia", which ought to remove all hits to Wikipedia, actually returns a larger number, about 3 billion. Go figure.

For the most common variants, "Saint Peter" -wikipedia" returns 3,500,000 hits. "Pope Peter" -wikipedia returns 396,000 hits; the first hit is to a Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria. "Peter the Apostle" -wikipedia returns 6,610,000 hits. "Peter the Disciple" -wikipedia returns 364,000 hits. And "Simon Peter" -wikipedia returns 2,360,000 hits. So at first glance, the most common form appears to be the current title, Saint Peter.

However, we all know there are a lot of people, places & things with the words "Saint Peter" in them. Lets drill down on the three most common variants.

• For "Saint Peter", the first hit is a town in Minnesota, with hits on a place in Hudson county & other churches on the first page. Lets refine our search. "Saint Peter" -wikipedia -minnesota yields 29,100,000 hits. "Saint Peter" -wikipedia -minnesota -hudson yields 28,100,000. "Saint Peter" -wikipedia -minnesota -hudson -parish yields 25,600,000.
• For "Peter the Apostle", on the first page a lot of schools & churches appear. "Peter the Apostle" -wikipedia -parish returns 5,330,000. "Peter the Apostle" -wikipedia -parish -school returns 2,430,000.
• For "Simon Peter" the first hit is a sports store in New Jersey, & there is an academic by that name on the first page of results. "Simon Peter" -sport returns 2,270,000 hits. "Simon Peter" -sport -university returns 1,730,000 hits.

In brief, based on this Google search the most common form used for this person is "Saint Peter". That does not mean that other arguments would show another form is best, but that arguments based on popular use must support "Saint Peter". -- llywrch (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No particular disagreements from me regarding the use of the existing title, more or less as the least objectionable and/or objectionable of the existing options. Yes, I do suppose that there are possibly a few groups of notable Christians who might have different opinions about Peter, or who dislike the use of the word "saint" regarding him, but they seem to be in a pronounced minority. I can see some questions regarding some of the content of the article, though, based on the material in the section above. I do think that the variant names of Cephas and maybe Simon are probably notable enough in their own right, based on material in reference books, but am unsure how much weight, if any, to give those matters here, and what if anything to say. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My point in offering the material above was not to plead for any one version. I only mentioned that I favored a different one to explain that I had no motive here other than to head off another useless move request. There have been four proposals already, & not once did anyone look at the Google results. (Doing that might have prevented two or three of the iterations of this proposal.) And while I think another title would be better for this article, my feelings about that matter could be best described as jaded annoyance; if had the interest or desire to pursue it I'd use those instead on some other things about this article that annoy me more. For example, while the Liber Ponitificalis states that Peter was bishop of Antioch, Eusebius states that the first bishop of that city was Euodius. I don't know which of these two sources has the truth. -- llywrch (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Cephas is listed as the first bishop of Iconium as well, although I don't know, as per Ehrman and others, whether that is supposed to refer to Peter or not, or if it is, when he was bishop of Iconium. So far as I can see, few if any of the most recent reference sources mention the question in articles or content related directly to Peter, but I'm not sure whether what seems to be a historically significant, even if no longer current, question about the matter deserves inclusion here, maybe in a spinout article, in articles on Cephas and others, or whatever. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter, Father of Mark

In 1 Peter 5:13 it discusses his son, Mark. Which part of the article can this be added to? Twillisjr (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the commentaries either maintain that it was not the same Mark or that Son was meant as a term of endearment rather than relation (comp. with 1 Timothy 1:2). The Pulpit commentary, Gill's exposition, and the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary support this. Even without this, it is original research to say that that Mark is indeed the Disciple Mark (and questionable research, as that raises some issues of chronology, either Peter was especially old by Paul's time or the Disciple Mark was a noteworthily young disciple whose childhood was left unmentioned for some reason). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

'Saint' Peter

With all respect, why 'Saint' Peter? As if the apostel is only the apostel to the Catholics.. In Protestantism there are no saints, and Protestantism is the second biggest Christian Faith on earth. It is more than reasonable to rename the article: Peter (Apostle) or something.

--178.85.96.2 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we have been over this four times, and we have never reached a consensus to move the page. Feel free to start round 5. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in protestantism, there are still saints. All true believers are saints, so even to protestants, Peter is a saint (unless you are the member of a bizarre sect that thinks Peter went to hell). It's just that the Catholic Church says that it can't know who still here on earth is a true saint and whose a false believer, and so chooses to refer only to those it believes are in heaven as saints.

Also, if I recall correctly, once upon this time, the article was called Peter (apostle)Farsight001 (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go close to that far. Although the Lutheran, Episcopal, and other denominations may continue to venerate Peter and others as "Saints" while another group (with some overlap) refers to its church-goers/adherents/members as saints, neither are excluisive/inclusive traits of either Protestantism or even of "all true believers" - because after all, whose definition of what "true believer" means are we going to follow? Although I agree with Elizium that this issue has been discussed ad nauseum with no conclusion, my opinion has always been that having the "official" Peter page referring to him as "Saint". However, I freely admit this is due to my own non-NPOV. Ckruschke (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Requested move 5

• Saint Peter → Peter
• Peter → Peter (disambiguation)

– Every English-language Bible gives this name as simply "Peter." Here is a collection of 16 major translations if you want to see for yourself. If you think this version of the name is unCatholic, check out Douay-Rheims. Why should "saint" be any different than "general", "president", "CEO," or "king," all of which drop off in Wiki-style? Antonio Hazard (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It's less than 6 months since Talk:Saint_Peter/Archive_2#Requested_move_4. Let's not start this again in the holidays, or until 2014. Previous debates have clearly shown that plain "Peter" would not be the primary topic. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - totally inappropriate sectarian title. If anything previous debates have shown the person for whom the name was coined (since the name didn't exist before him) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, although Matthew the Apostle and John the Apostle provide an alternative example for titles which don't fly in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:HONORIFIC as this one does. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, The last RM resulted in no consensus, and this is a different proposal anyway, so this is totally appropriate. I still haven't seen a good argument for COMMONNAME, but regardless "Saint" is clearly an honorific, and a divisive one at that. Also, this figure is very important in parts of Christianity who reject the cult of saints. Peter is so well known within and without Christianity that he satisfies PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JFH (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• There are many noteworthy people named Peter, as the size of the disambig page Peter shows. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, is not the number of notable things commonly called "Peter", but the likelihood that a reader would be looking for this Peter when they search for "Peter", on its own. I can't imagine any other Peter being the expected result from that search. Also, this Peter satisfies the second criterion because he is substantially more notable than any other Peter.

I'm more concerned about the "Saint" part, and I wish the opposes would specify whether they prefer something other than Saint Peter even if they don't like Peter. For me, I would prefer Peter the Apostle as a second choice to Peter due to the precedent set by other Apostles who need disambiguation. --JFH (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone reasonably searching for this specific person expecting to get it immediately by searching for "Peter". For such a simple search, I think they should be expecting to find a disambiguation page, or Peter (given name), or they are attempting a title search, intitle:Peter. Anyone seriously looking for this Peter specifically should be expected to combine "Peter" with "apostle" or "saint" or "disciple" or "Jesus" or "pope".

I prefer Simon Peter because I believe that is how he is introduced, and because (translated) his name was Simon, with Peter being a nickname that caught on. I accept that "Saint" reflects a religious POV, and is unnecessary in the face of several acceptable options. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The nominator's statement is not a sufficient reason to move, but the longstanding policy (if quite imperfectly applied) on avoiding religious honorifics is reason enough. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose these particulars. "Peter" is not sufficiently recognizable for this specific topic. Peter should remain the disambiguation page. If Saint Peter is not OK, prefer Simon Peter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the given name should be "Peter" or the disambiguation page, not this apostle. This apostle should be Apostle Peter, Peter (apostle), Peter the Apostle , Saint Peter , Saint Peter the Apostle , Peter, the Apostle , Saint Peter, the Apostle, but not "Peter" Also, already discussed TWICE this year at RM#3 and RM#4 in February and March respectively (in archives 1 and 2 respectively) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I specifically dislike the use of "Saint Peter", as this smacks of Catholicism rather than Christianity as a whole, but switching it to just "Peter" is worse as this could be "anyone". I would support changing it to "Simon Peter", "Apostle Peter" or something more generically Christian. Ckruschke (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Oppose There is no reliable source data associated with this request and no demonstration that anything has changed since the last request.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What has changed since the previous requests? This is a different request, for one thing. The February RM was for Peter (disciple of Jesus), and the one in March was for Peter (apostle). In response to SmokeyJoe, Peter is introduced as "Simon called Peter" (Mat 4:18), which would suggest that "Simon Peter" is also a nickname. Titles should not be SEO'd. Google can write their algorithms to find our articles, not the other way around. Ckruschke also misunderstands the purpose of the titles. Their purpose is to give the common name of the subject. If you want to know what an article is about, read the opening sentence. I concur with In ictu oculi that Peter the Apostle would make an excellent title as well. Antonio Hazard (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)