Talk:Gospel of Peter

"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)

To claim that a document is pseudo- is to deny that it is the Word of God, given that God cannot lie. So if canonical means "it is the Word of God," what is canonical cannot be pseudo-. (AltheaCase (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC))

Not Anti-Judaic

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."

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?

Is not the Word of God self-evident to those who believe that it is God's Word? My sheep hear My voice. The Word of God is what is used for final proof of truth. What higher authority could there be by which one could authenticate it? Human opinions by "critics" are inferior to the Word of God. All logical proof depends upon self-evident axioms, which are not proven, but used for final proof (It is written!) (AltheaCase (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC))

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."

Do you believe that the people that canonised the New Testament nearly 1,600 years ago kept minutes of the meeting? 14.2.198.12 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The idea of canon seems a crock, as if nobody knew what was the Word of God until in 4th century some old geezers in ecclesiastical robes & long beards told the world what was the word of God. Should it be thought that the recipients of Paul's letters set them aside, saying, We donno about this, cause them geezers haven't yet met"? Or should it be thought that the recipients of the letters to 7 churches in Rev 2-3 set them aside, not knowing whether or not they were God's Word -- or just optional advice? Given that God cannot lie, whatever is deemed to be His word must be systematically consistent. So any document which contradicts the recognized (as self-evident) Word of God already published, cannot be recognized as God's Word (or "canonical"). (AltheaCase (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC))

This article seems quite deficient; can it be enhanced?

Article says, "The 8th- or 9th-century manuscript . . . . The fragmentary Gospel of Peter ... Two other papyrus fragments from Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy 4009 and P.Oxy. 2949) were uncovered later ...."

So if all there is is one fragment & 2 fragments which are conjectured to belong to this document also (without any date given of the fragments), how is it concluded that there is such a thing as The Gospel of Peter in existence and that it is the thing(s) mentioned by early church "fathers"? (AltheaCase (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC))

Please clarify the caption under the photography

Caption says, "A fragment of the manuscript, found at Akhmim." Does the article mean that there is more that fragment to the manuscript? If so, how much more? Or does the article mean that here is what appears to be a fragment of a longer manuscript, the length of which we have no proof? Should the caption read: "A fragment, which is all we have of the manuscript." Then in the text of the article there should be evidence given that originally it was part of a longer manuscript (& how that is known). (AltheaCase (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC))