![]() | Apocalypse of Peter is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by SnowFire ( talk) at 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: 2nd-century Christian apocalyptic text |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wouldn't the third quarter of the second century be 150 - 175? The page currently notes it as 175 - 200. (Anon.)
---
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)
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):
I never heard of 4 Esther. Perhaps 4 Esdras was meant? Rwflammang ( talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
![]() | Apocalypse of Peter is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by SnowFire ( talk) at 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: 2nd-century Christian apocalyptic text |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wouldn't the third quarter of the second century be 150 - 175? The page currently notes it as 175 - 200. (Anon.)
---
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)
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):
I never heard of 4 Esther. Perhaps 4 Esdras was meant? Rwflammang ( talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)