Talk:Saint Peter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peter's nationality[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:55, 15 March 2013‎

Strong Association with Gabriel[edit]

By induction from the Scriptures and the common unauthorized narratives, Gabriel has a strong association with St. Peter, and visa versa. I can't cite anything, unfortunately, but consider that it is common belief (you may have heard) that Gabriel guards the pearly gates, the Gates of Heaven, and Peter, in juxtaposition, holds the Keys of Heaven, given to him by Jesus, and in the common narrative prospective inductees always meet St. Peter at the Gates of Heaven. idk, maybe they're both there... maybe they share the work in shifts, or maybe they're the same person and an artist formerly of the band Genesis. Regardless, unless its some sacred secret, someone with references maybe ought to write a section with some indunction and conjecture concerning the existence of a strong association with St. Peter. --- me again... here is something interesting: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archangel_Gabriel_and_St._Peter,_Royal_Doors.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.45.219 (talk)

Use of "most biblical scholars" in place of "virtually all biblical scholars" in the lead[edit]

Moved from section above, as my comment there was directed at another user over a month ago in relation to a bunch of edits they had made, and was not specifically about the wording of the lead or of the cited source there. In fact, it didn't apply to the lead at all, as the lead generally shouldn't be listing off scholars even if the article body does. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

But looking at the transcript it says "Most of us scholars don't believe Peter actually wrote 1 Peter." It doesn't say "virtually all" at all. In any case, a lecture - even from a Yale scholar - isn't the best source because it isn't peer reviewed. Why isn't this sourced to a book? StAnselm (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Because once I cite a reliable source (and a lecture by a Yale professor is that), the burden is then on whoever wants to remove the text to find a better source (and I'm not saying they don't exist) that contradicts what I wrote (I do doubt that these sources exist, mind you). I don't mind your recent edit to the text, though. The succeeding WP:COMMENT needs to stay indefinitely, as the text, even as you edited it, is still a magnet for agenda-pushing IPs to come along and change "most" to "some". This has happened like half a dozen times since I put it there. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Source for Peter being married[edit]

<ref name="MetzgerCoogan2001">{{cite book|author1=Bruce M. Metzger|author2=Michael D. Coogan|title=The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ls-SDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA287|date=7 June 2001|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-976057-2|page=287}}</ref> Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. There is one passage in an early gospel which talks about Jesus healing Peter's mother-in-law, and possibly one more obscure passage in a Pauline epistle that appears to refer to Peter as being married. Citing modern scholarly texts that say Peter was married seems kind of pointless, since I doubt any of them seriously doubt he was married. A source that specifically names the relevant NT passages should be enough to say all we need to say in this article. The Metzger/Coogan source is insufficient, since "Married, his wife later travelled with him on some of his missionary journeys" is less detail than we currently provide, and probably less than we should provide. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Eodcarl[edit]

Is continuing to add information against consensus. I've hit the 3 revert limit. He has long since flown past it and continues to refuse to discuss his changes here as is procedure. Just as an fyi, there are several issues on other pages involving him and a thread on the Admin's notice board about it. So I'm mostly posting here to 1) Let people know that the issue is being or going to be resolved soon. 2) The revert limit is reached for the day, so watch out. The rules are a bit fuzzy in this particular case, but the 3rr rule can actually be violated by the combined edits of more than one user. 3) A last ditch effort to convince Eodcarl to discuss the issue.Farsight001 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference to authorship of Petrine epistles in the lead[edit]

I added this some years back, and since then my wording has been altered countless times by various IPs, most of them geolocating to the American south. I did this because simply saying that two epistles are attributed to him without pointing to the scholarly consensus that he didn't write them is a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. I think the source I cited was technically inadequate for the claim regarding 2 Peter, since Martin just says "I believe 2 Peter was written by someone else", but of 1 Peter he said "Most of us scholars don't believe Peter actually wrote 1 Peter". The fact that the majority of scholars reject the Petrine authorship is easily verifiable and virtually all sources discussing the issue will support this claim. No source has yet been presented that says "there is debate among scholars" or "some scholars reject Petrine authorship". No doubt there are books and articles written by conservative evangelical scholars who accept Petrine authorship that word it like this, but relying on those sources for what critical scholars teaching in major research universities say is again a violation of NPOV and DUE. I am opening this thread to establish what reliable sources by reputable scholars say about what the scholarly consensus (if any) is on these issues. Citing anything other than the scholarly consensus anywhere in this article is probably WP:UNDUE, since we already have an article on Authorship of the Petrine epistles to detail whatever debate might have historically taken, or might still be taking, place. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources for the scholarly view of authorship of 1 Peter[edit]

  • Martin (cited above): Most of us scholars don't believe Peter actually wrote 1 Peter
    • Bart D. Ehrman (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, New York: Oxford University Press. 1997. p.373 -- a textbook used in Martin's class): The book claims, of course, to be written by Peter, [...] Many scholars, however, doubt that Peter wrote this letter. [...] It is possible of course, that Peter went back to school after Jesus' resurrection, learned Greek, became an accomplished writer, mastered the Greek Old Testament, and moved to Rome before writing this letter, but to most scholars, this seems unlikely.
  • M. Eugene Boring (The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, New York: Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 2126 -- another textbook used in Martin's class): Some scholars still treat Simon Peter as the letter’s author, with Silvanus as secretary (5.12); others consider Silvanus as the actual author, who wrote at Peter’s instruction. However, [there is good evidence that it dates from later] Thus most scholars interpret the document as a letter from the last decade of the first century ce, written in Peter’s name to support the claim that its teaching represented the apostolic faith.
    • Boring (again): Of the ten commentaries, only Grudem, who espouses biblical inerrancy, insists that the letter was written directly by Simon Peter himself (p. 24). Michaels, whose evangelical view of Scripture is more nuanced, allowing for error and pseudonymity, interprets the letter as having been written in the 80s and inclines toward the view that Peter lived until this late date and is in some sense responsible for its content, though he did not necessarily compose it personally. All the others argue for pseudonymity, though some (Goppelt, Davids, Bartlett) think that Silvanus may have had a hand in its actual composition. The reference to Silvanus in 5:12, however, is now almost universally taken as referring to the one responsible for delivering the letter, not to the secretary who assisted in its composition. The two most ardent defenders of traditional Petrine authorship, Grudem and Michaels, both clearly reject the secretary hypothesis. The prevailing view is either that Simon Peter wrote it himself or that it was written in his name by a teacher in the Roman church some years after Peter’s death, with most critical scholars clearly opting for pseudonymity.
  • Duane Warden[who?] ([1]): The opening words of the letter identify the author as clearly as we might hope. [...] On the basis of this testimony and the common witness of the second century church, few have doubted that the same Peter whom we encounter in the Gospels and in Acts is the author of the letter that bears his name. As expected, there have been doubters, but the evidence supporting the assertion that Simon Peter is the author is overwhelming.
  • Frank F. Judd[who?] ([2]): During the past couple of centuries, however, some scholars have argued against Petrine authorship of 1 Peter. Yet there are still scholars who hold to the traditional authorship of this epistle.
  • This source (not giving its own opinion, just citing two earlier sources): [The letter claims to be by Peter.] However, “despite [the] strongly attested claim of authorship, a significant number— perhaps even a majority—of contemporary scholars deny that Peter was the author of the letter”(Raymond Brown, 1997). [...] Judging by Mark Allen Powell’s introductory text on the NT (2009), Petrine authorship is not as out of favor as it was.
  • Michael J. Kruger (here) wrote that "the author of 1 Peter, whom we have every reason to believe to have been the Apostle St. Peter himself" is in agreement with the "current consensus".

Sources for the scholarly view of authorship of 2 Peter[edit]

  • Ehrman (1997 : 373): In addition, as we will see, scholars are virtually unanimous in thinking that the book of 2 Peter within the New Testament is pseudonymous as well
  • Ehrman (1997 : 394): For a variety of reasons, there is less debate about the authorship of 2 Peter than any other pseudepigraphon in the New Testament. The vast majority of critical scholars agree that whoever wrote the book, it was not Jesus' disciple Simon Peter.
  • (Patrick A. Tiller's introduction to 2 Peter in the NOASB, p. 2132, simply says that the work is a pseudepigraphon written by someone else, but doesn't mention the proportion of scholars who accept this view, and of course says nothing of a "debate".)
  • J. N. D. Kelly (quoted here): scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.
    • The doctoral student writing the above-linked essay also wrote that "was not written by [Peter]. [...] We conclude, therefore, that the second Epistle is not authentic." is in agreement with the "current consensus".