Talk:Gospel of Peter
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 "Like the canonic gospels, it is epigraphical"
- 2 Broken Link
- 3 Not Anti-Judaic
- 4 wikipedia readers may fall into heresy
- 5 Greek
- 6 How authentic are the Christian Greek Scriptures?
- 7 Pseudepigraphical definition
- 8 are you sure?
- 9 discovered versus re-discovered?
- 10 Why Not Canonical?
- 11 Disagrees with First Peter
- 12 Neutrality issue
- 13 Language
"Like the canonic gospels, it is epigraphical"
This phrase, so innocuous to historians and mainstream Christians, is offensive to some cultists. How can we rephrase this to avoid having one of those disreputable "NPOV" tages applied to this sensible essay? --Wetman 22:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's BTW the wrong word altogether. Epigraphy means inscription. What the writer probably means is "pseudepigraphical". --Harnack 09:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yipe! How embarrassing! --Wetman 09:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that the sentence is problematic. As far as I see it at least the Gospels of Mark and Luke are generally accepted as from "Mark" and "Luke". I think one should remove the phrase mentioning the canonical Gospels, saying only that the GoP is pseudepigraphical, which is pretty certain. --Harnack 10:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- May Wikipedia make the historical point that not just non-canonical books of the NT are pseudepigraphical, but that some of the accepted canon is pseudepigraphical also? Or would that be tarred as "controversial"? Needless to say, it is possible to find a cult ready to deny the history of anything that runs counter to one's own authoritative POV. Wise readers of Wikipedia always read the Talk pages, anyway, to see what's suppressed. So I suppose the point is made. --Wetman 10:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think the way you have it now is ok. --Harnack 11:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the link 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 ✉✍ 11:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
In a sense this book is not anti-Judaic since it does draw a distinction between the leaders of the Judahites and the common people. Look at chapter 11
10 Now when these soldiers saw that [the riduclous talking cross], they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch).
11 Those men took counsel with each other and thought to go and report these things to Pilate. 2 And while they were thinking the heavens were opened again and a man descended and entered the tomb. 3 When those who were with the centurion saw that, they hurried to go by night to Pilate and left the tomb that they were watching. They told all what they had seen and were in great despair saying, "He was certainly the son of God!" 4 Pilate answered them, saying, I do not have the blood of the son of God on my hands. This was all your doing." 5 Then all they came and begeed and pleaded with him to order the centurion and the soldiers to tell nothing of what they had seen. 6 "For," they said, "it is better for us to be guilty of the greatest sin before God, than to fall into the hands of the Jews and to be stoned." 7 Pilate therefore ordered the centurion and the soldiers that they should say nothing.
What we have here is the Judahites in the sense of the common people being mislead by their apparently quite corrupt leadership.
6 "For," they said, "it is better for us to be guilty of the greatest sin before God, than to fall into the hands of the Jews and to be stoned."
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)
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)
How authentic are the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Do we have the authentic christian Greek Scriptures (NT)? What do we know about the quality and professionalism of the scribes from early christian times, especially after the death of the Apostles? Were the copies made faithful to the originals? Were there any accidental or deliberates alterations/mistakes made, and if so, for what reason or purpose? What has modern (lower) critisism revealed in order to help us know the above?
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 126.96.36.199 (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.
Why Not Canonical?
I think it would be reasonable to expect this article to include a discussion of why the Gospel of Peter was judged to not be worthy of inclusion in the "Canon." Clearly one may *infer* the reasons why but it seems legitimate to expect an actual, detailed section discussing the rationale behind it and more-detailed discussion of who was responsible for the decision. It seems that at the least, that could be "historically interesting."
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.
- "Note that" = "I'm going to make a comment". Editor2020 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you can find a non-primary source that says that, please do so. Editor2020
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)
- @2602:306:BC2D:A090:809:82B7:8557:4E85: 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)
- In what language did the composition originate?
- In what language is the oldest surviving fragments of the composition?