Talk:Apocalypse of Peter

message: Wouldn't the third quarter of the second century be 150 - 175?  The page currently notes it as 175 - 200. (Anon.)
:Yes, last quarter is correct. Text now corrected. Thank you. --Wetman 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without changing information, I've completed sentences, made the text clearer and set it under three simple headings. --Wetman 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too had a go, but even deleting a suspect comma would change the information. A problem seems to be that the lede deals with a Greek text and an Ethiopic text (later called an Arab Christian document) that are basically two different texts, yet subsumed into one article. What little we know about the either one gets very muddled here by the combination in a single article. I propose splitting off the Ru'ya Butros into a separate article! Wegesrand (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I never heard of 4 Esther. Perhaps 4 Esdras was meant? Rwflammang (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This source seems to indicate that the Apocalypse of Esdras was meant: . There is no meantion of Esther. I will change the article. Rwflammang (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 Esther?

message: 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)
replies: text: Impressive. Ordinarily, deletions made by passers-by who have never contributed to an article are not backed by so many justifications. As a general rule, deleting is not editing. One spends many tiresome hours debating with oneself whether deletions are improvements: in rare cases, they are indeed.--Wetman (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right I've never edited this Article. I've edited other similar articles, as the Jewish Apocalypse of Zephaniah that is very similar in date and in the description of the hell to the Apocalypse of Peter. What was striking in the sentence was that it supported that this text was an expression of the mainstream Church because it referred to Peter. On the contrary one of the few Judeo-Christian survived text, the Clementine literature, uses Peter as leading figure. A ntv (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter as opposed to James 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ru'ya Butrus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion over dating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interpretation