Talk:Saint Peter

Why not mention Peter was married?

I see in the Archives that there is sufficient reliable evidence that Peter was married, & there is an early tradition that he possibly had a daughter. Adding this reminds us that there is more to the man than being a religious figure: he had a private life too. The only reason to omit this is to promote the image that all early Christians were chaste & flawless -- even though Peter is known for his moment of weakness. -- llywrch (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not omitted, it is already mentioned in the first paragraph of Saint Peter#Accounts. SanctumRosarium (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, the private life mention reminded me of a conversation with a Theologian who is now, unfortunately dead, that he believed that 'Simon Peter' was actually 'Simon the Rock', because he couldn't swim. For a fisherman this would be something unusual enough to become part of his name. Hard to prove, but interesting alternative point of view, nonetheless. TiredAndConfused (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Dubious claim

Nevertheless, Evangelicals and Catholics have always affirmed Peter's authorship—while I may agree that most Evangelicals assert the Petrine authorship, I don't think that holds for most Catholic Bible scholars. Perhaps for the Magisterium of the Church and for most of the clergy, but Bible scholars are quite another kettle of fish.

Bible scholars who are Catholics are under no obligation to kowtow to traditional dogma, but often call a spade a spade.

Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Can someone revert vandalism

Some user changed the aramaic to hebrew, and even used a wrong template in the info box Akhshartag (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit. Certainly not vandalism, & I suspect he's right that Hebrew was the nearest literary language. I don't know how to fix the template. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Which you know from what source?

Page number

To editor CycoMa1: Don't be ridiculous. It's a short article from a dictionary. It has been specified well enough for WP:V purposes. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Saint Peter

According to the acts of the Apposes, Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem to Samaria. 1.141.63.121 (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

What the heck is "Apposes"? Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing lead image

The current lead image (henceforth Image A) should be changed to this one (henceforth Image B) or its variants (images B1, B2 and B3, see below) for the following reasons:

Image A

Image B

For Image B:

1. Neutrality (Image A is an intrinstically Roman Catholic (RC) image, as it was made in the 17th century by a RC painter depicting St Peter in (most likely) anachronistic RC vestments and holding the keys of Heaven; while Image B was made in the early 6th century in the Byzantine style, when both the RC and Eastern Orthodox (EO) Church were one; in other words, it is acceptable to more people than Image A, refer to the Jesus article's lead image and its discussion)
2. Already used by other language Wikipedias (Currently, Image B and its variants are used as the lead image on 8 language WP articles for St Peter himself, used elsewhere in ~6 Peter articles as well as the lead image on Serbo-Croatian "Peter (name)" and various language WP articles on encaustic painting and Image B itself. This means it has already been considered as a suitable (lead) image by various editors of different backgrounds)
3. 

   Image B1

   

   Image B2

   

   Image B3
   Notability (Image B has its own Wikipedia article in 4 languages (albeit not yet in English, refer to Image B), while Image A does not have its own WP article anywhere (verified by looking at its global usage on Wikimedia Commons)
4. Age (Not much of an argument, but as previously said, Image B is over 1000 years older than Image A)

Against Image A:

1. Violation of WP:UNDUE (having the lead image showing St Peter in anachronistic RC vestments gives undue weight to the RC perspective on him. Is the RC perspective significant? Yes. But is it the one that should be placed first and foremost in the article? No. Especially not when we have more neutral images available (refer to point 1 above)
2. By extension, an example of WP:GLOBAL and systemic bias (having not just the lead image but a majority of the article's images be RC Renaissance paintings and the vast majority simply being of RC Western European origin is a clear example of such bias.)

I hope I have illustrated my points clearly and directly. My personal preference goes towards Image B3 as it depicts only St Peter, has a reasonable image quality and isn't too tall like the others, however all are acceptable to me, besides Image B2, which is a massive ~ 8,000px by 13,000px so it's not ideal for most readers. I hope a consensus can be reached speedily. Cheers!

𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 13:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)