Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apocalypse of Peter/archive1

Apocalypse of Peter

Featured article candidates/Apocalypse of Peter/archive1

Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you flip to the back of a Christian Bible these days, you'll find the Book of Revelation as the final book in the New Testament. But did you know that over in some rather plausible alternate timelines, there would be TWO books of Revelation in the back - the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter? It took centuries to come up with a consensus New Testament; the contents weren't obvious. Our oldest surviving list that is close-ish to the New Testament, the Muratorian fragment, actually includes the Revelation of Peter as part of its canon! Some other early Christian writers seem to have thought it deserved canonical status, too. That didn't happen, of course, but it's interesting. (Although given some of the content, Christianity may have dodged a bullet here...)

This article includes the latest scholarship, as there's been decent interest lately - Eric Beck wrote a 2019 book on it (the thesis it's based on is open-access, link in the article), Bart Ehrman covered it pretty heavily in a 2022 book on katabases in general, and a monograph collection on the topic just dropped just a few months ago, also free & open-access (link in article). I ran the article past Beck over email and he didn't have any complaints, so hopefully a good sign. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I don't know that I'll be able to do a full review here, but I do own and have read a copy of Edmon L. Gallagher's and John D. Meade's The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, published by Oxford University Press (I own the 2019 paperback edition).

"Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna which perhaps comes from the 3rd or 4th century" - we're presenting these dates as a scholarly consensus (sourced to something from the 1960s?) but I don't know that this is actually the scholarly consensus. Gallagher & Meade refer to these as both fourth-century, and contains the following interesting footnote: These two fragments [Bodleian and Rainer] possibly (definitely, according to Van Minnen 2003: 35) derive from the same manuscript; see Bauckham 1998: 257. The Bauckham citation they are referring to is the Fate of the Dead book cited here and Van Minnen 2003 is "The Greek 'Apocalypse of Peter' which is apparently pp. 15-39 in the Bremmer and Czachesz 2003 source cited in this article.
Gallagher and Meade also specificy that the Ethiopic versions are in Ge'ez
"The Apocalypse of Peter is listed in the catalog of the 6th-century Codex Claromontanus, which was probably copying a 3rd- or 4th-century source" - this seems to be a bit misleading, per Gallagher & Meade p. 184 There are also some books beyond the traditional New Testament; the list concludes with mention of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter, but the first and last three of these titles are preceded by a horizontal stroke that appears to be an obelus, probably indicating their dubious status
I do wonder if the text should contain an explicit reference to the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter being a separate work given the similar names and ages. At least in my opinion, there is a greater degree of potential confusion between these two things than what most subjects handled with a simple hatnote would be
Is it worth noting that the Akhmim manuscript also contains the Gospel of Peter and I Enoch?
A bit more detail on the reception by Eusebius - Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 3.3.2) claims that no ecclesiastical writer ever made use of the Petrine apocrypha, [elsewhere in the work Gallagher & Meade do mention that Eusebius actually attests to usage of the work by Clement] and in his canon list he classifies the Apocalype of Peter as a spurious antilegomenon, but not a heretical work (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4)
Lastly (for now) Gallagher & Meade cite Elliott, J.K. 1993 The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James by OUP pp. 598-600 as collecting seven patristic citations. This article references all but one set of two citations: Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum 2.19

I'm not sure how helpful this might be, but that's what I can contribute to this. I've been considering acquiring and reading a copy of Metzger's work on the canon for awhile; I liked his work on the textual history. Hog Farm _Talk 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy feedback!

The Maurer 1965 write-up is a good one IMO, but it's just there as a supporting chorus and more proof of what goes in the shorter write-ups (one problem that happens sometime when compressing 300 page books into Wikipedia articles is that it isn't obvious it is the "most important" stuff; citing some shorter articles helps cut against that). (Side note, on age of references... similarly, all of the citations to M. R. James generally are "extras" that are conveniently available online, except when citing opinions attributed to James, as a little too dated; there's a "real" current-scholarship citation next to all of them. But I figured he was good to throw in thanks to Wikisource scans for easy verifiability on a few, along with general historic flavor.) Van Minnen 2003 is definitely cited in the article (ref 3 in the version of Aug 29), although annoyingly enough I don't own a copy and my interlibrary loan long since expired for easily re-checking it - was a good article though. Yes, I've read the theory that Rainer & Bodleian are from the same manuscript, but my thought at the time was I didn't want to stick in every bit of scholarly speculation. That said, checking... it looks like both Beck 2019 and Dochhorn 2024 buy it, and so does Kraus/Nicklas 2004, the most recent full book-length treatment of just the Greek. So it seems you're right that most recent scholars have switched over - updated the phrasing. (A little annoying since various other sources refer to the Rainer fragment as the "oldest" which wouldn't be quite true if Rainer = Bodleian is accurate, but oh well.)
Ethiopic and Ge'ez are the same thing (see Geʽez). For reasons that I do not know, scholarship on the Apocalypse of Peter calls the language of the d'Abaddie / Lake Tana manuscripts "Ethiopic" 99% of the time - perhaps there's some technical distinction that makes Ethiopic correct and Ge'ez incorrect? I figured I should honor that and just use Ethiopic everywhere as well. (And even if they're pure synonyms, it's one less term for a reader to keep track of.)
Hmm, what's misleading here? That Gallagher & Meade sentence sounds like what is trying to be communicated. If you meant "in the codex itself" I'd argue that's already implicitly indicated by specifying that it was (only) in the "catalog" (if a copy of ApocPeter was in it, that'd have made the scholarship way easier!). If you meant the "dubious" part, the topic of that paragraph is "indications ApocPeter was used, but disputed", so that's keeping with the general sense of examples the paragraph is trying to provide. Open to suggestions for rephrasing if that isn't being communicated as well as it could be.
- Side note: Now, there IS something that I'd like to go into more detail if this was really scholarly-paper certified... specifically, that the idea that the Catalog was copying a 3rd- or 4th- century document is circular. That is, we think that's true precisely because we think the Apoc Peter would still have been current at the time (and 2nd century is too early for such a full catalog of the New Testament), but would have been unlikely in the 5th century... basically it's scholarship on ApocPeter informing the dating of the Codex, not the other way around. But I figure that point is too minor for a general audience (and besides, this isn't the "Date of authorship" section so it's not being used as faux-evidence there).
On the Gnostic Apocalypse: Hmm. I did include two sentences in Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter#Literary_influences, because this text preceded that one and an obvious question is if the Gnostic Apoc. Peter author read "this" ApocPeter. But since most scholars think "no", it feels a little artificial to include here... "there's another work with the same title written later that has nothing to do with this?" Especially since the Gnostic work appears to have been obscure - until it was dug up, we had no idea it existed. I'd prefer not to add it, but can add a similar statement if really desired - I just have no idea where it won't stand out as irrelevant. ("Later influence"? Except about a work it didn't influence?)
On Akhmim & Eusebius: Same answer here for both - I was just trying to keep the length of the article under control, and be a summary and not a total deep dive. The Akhmim manuscript including the Gospel of Peter is mentioned indirectly in "Manuscript History" when it's relevant for how the Akhmim version was probably rewritten, but I don't think including Enoch is that relevant (the Ethiopic manuscripts include a bunch of other stuff not mentioned here too - see [1] & [2]), just it feels off-topic to mention them. Eusebius is simply wrong when he says nobody else quotes Apoc Peter, but beating up on him for overstating the case seems petty. And I figure people interested in Eusebius dividing books into good; disputed; orthodox-but-spurious (our ApocPeter in this category); and heretical can hit the references for more. I can certainly expand it into a full sentence if desired, just that paragraph is already on the long side, and I thought "dubious" gets the gist of Eusebius's opinion across.
On Theophilus: Buchholz deep dives all the patristic references and alleged references, and is rather skeptical of this one (and in the realm of side chatter, so am I, this is a total stretch). Both Theophilus's line and Akhmim Gr. 15 talk about a cool place with both light and beautiful plants, but to quote Buchholz p. 49, "The evidence is not convincing because it was normal at that time to describe paradise with much light and beautiful plants." It'd be an indirect reference at best that suggested Theophilus had read ApocPeter and was loosely quoting it. I suppose I can add it, but I'd rather kick it to a note, similar to the Acts of Paul and Thecla possible reference. (But even then, that one is more "interesting" because it's touching on a theological issue. This one is just vaguely similar flowery descriptions that could have easily happened by chance with no particular significance.)
diff changes here. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your replies above except on two points - as to the mention in the Codex Claromontanus, for the other references here the article is indicating generally how the list or church father viewed the work. For instance, in the next sentence it doesn't just say that Stichometry of Nicephorus lists the work, it states the general classification that it gave it. I don't think much is needed to add here, but it's necessary I think to indicate how this was actually viewed, given that the early canon lists covered a fair bit of ground. Likewise, I think "Eusebius considered the work spurious but not heretical" is more informative and useful to the reader than just a simple statement that he found it dubious. I think there's a way to provide clarification in both of those cases without meaningfully adding to the length. Hog Farm _Talk 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Some impressive scholarship on display here. I think my comments will mostly have to stick with Wikipedia minutiae rather than really getting to grips with the subject matter, but I hope they are useful. If you wouldn't mind, could you answer the points below each one, rather than in a list at the end -- I can see this review getting even longer and more confusing otherwise!

A small issue throughout -- AD dates are given as e.g. AD 120 (AD before the number), while CE dates are given as e.g. 120 CE. We have quite a lot of 120 AD in the article.
The Apocalypse of Peter is influenced by both Jewish apocalyptic literature and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture: Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture doesn't quite sit right with me as a phrase -- Hellenistic, after all, means "Greek (with some asterisks)", and of course much of what we know as Hellenistic literature, philosophy etc was being done in places like Egypt and Syria by people whose cultural affiliation was complicated. Personally, I'd cut after philosophy, but I can see the argument for the current framing.
The (pseudepigraphia) is a bit unclear -- how does that word fit into what preceded it, especially given that few readers will know it? I'd try to work it into the the text -- something like The text is pseudepigraphical; it purports to be written by the disciple Peter, but its real author is unknown.
Double quotes on "an eye for an eye" and similar.
be pierced by sharp fiery stones as would beggars: not sure what as would beggars means in this context -- do beggars get the same punishment, or is this (apparently) what happens to beggars in the real world?
a popular 4th-century work: if popular here means "widely beloved", it's a tautology -- we've established that in the preceding clause.
The Apocalypse of Peter is an early example of the same genre as the famous Divine Comedy of Dante: two things here -- one, we've established earlier that it might be a relatively early katabasis, but there are/were also plenty of earlier examples, usually inset into longer works like the Odyssey and the Aeneid. Secondly, famous is WP:PUFFERY and should be consigned to Limbo, at the very least.
The article makes heavy use of false titles, such as French explorer Antoine d'Abbadie, English scholar M. R. James, and so on. These aren't considered wrong in AmE as they are in BrE, but they do strike a journalistic (rather than academic) tone, particularly when used so frequently. Would advise The French explorer... and so on.
In Greek (note 1), Πέτρου is a proper noun, so is capitalised. Generally, so too are the first letters of titles, so Ἀποκάλυψει. Are you absolutely certain that Ἀποκάλυψει is intended, however, rather than Ἀποκάλυψις? The latter is the usual form in Ancient Greek; in modern Greek, it's Αποκάλυψη, but that's very much a post-1453 spelling. In the Romanisation, we've given the stress on Petrou, but not on the Apocalypse word.
I would advise swapping around the first two body sections, remembering that the body is meant to be able to stand apart from the lead. We currently start with From the medieval era to 1886, leaving us in the dark about the text's life before the medieval period until quite a lot further down. I might even be tempted to put "Manuscript history" quite a lot later -- down after "Debate over canonicity". Most readers, I imagine, will want to start with what the text is, then what it says, then why it matters, and only then to get into the weeds of manuscripts and philologists -- plus, this arrangement makes things a bit more chronological.
The Apocalypse is quoted in Book 2 of the Sibylline Oracles (c. 150): how confident are we (and our sources) on that date? My limited understanding is that the dating of the Sibylline Oracles is extremely tricky.
parchment leaves claimed to be deposited in the grave of a Christian monk: claimed by whom?
from Arabic, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original: we're missing a noun in the first clause here -- something like an Arabic version (or some other noun to avoid repetition).
Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna: as phrased, this sounds as though the second fragment was discovered in Vienna. Suggest adding "held by..." or similar to the institutions.
The Rainer fragment was originally dated to the 3rd or 4th century; later analysis: can we put dates on these?
"The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners.": period outside quotes. Likewise, later, within "an eye for an eye." and a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." (MOS:LQ)
In general, most scholars: this is tautology, unless those scholars frequently change their minds.
the Stichometry of Nicephorus: can we explain what this is and why it matters? We sort of introduce it right at the end of the article.
Note 2 is long and generally well formed, but I think we should put in the body the fact that Bauckham's views have been challenged.
File:Near East 0100AD.svg -- political maps like this are a very tricky business. I can't find any sign of the source data for this one, and we definitely need some reliable source to be making claims about territorial boundaries and levels of effective control in this period. A smaller thing, but I'm very unconvinced by some of their Latinisations (like Myos Hormus for Myos Hormos), and they've used a frustrating variety of fonts.
a Greek katabasis or nekyia: how come only the second gets italicised? I don't think katabasis is quite naturalised in English, at least among those who aren't Greek scholars. Smaller, but is a nekyia the right comparison here -- that usually involves, as Odysseus's does, standing more-or-less in the "real" world, being approached by the dead and asking questions of them?
The link to Jewish Christians shouldn't cover "and achieve martyrdom", since being a martyr is, thankfully, not necessarily part of being a Jewish Christian.
In a bulleted list, the MoS (MOS:CITE?) would like each citation no later than the end of the corresponding bullet.
Jesus, Moses, and Elijah: suggest explaining who these other two people were.
One theological issue of note: I would rephrase this sentence -- we generally avoid saying that things are notable, or should be noted -- it's taken as read that everything in a Wikipedia article is notable, and we do well to minimise the volume of our editorial voice.
The Greek word "apocalypse": technically speaking, apocalypse is not a Greek word: I would transliterate apokalypsis here (and see note above on Greek words).
the work is pseudepigrapha: pseudepigrapha is plural, so I think you're on safer grammatical grounds to make this an adjective: pseudepigraphical.
Christian-Jewish: this should be an endash, but I'm not sure what the join is meant to be here. Are we saying that it belongs to Jewish Christianity -- in which case, Jewish-Christian (with hyphen) would be better?
Plato's Phaedo is often held as a major example of the forerunning Hellenistic beliefs: this needs a bit more supporting material -- Plato's Phaedo is not Hellenistic.
Later scholarship by Martha Himmelfarb and others: as before, can we be more specific as to the date?
Some scholars get introductions, others don't -- who was Albrecht Dieterich, for example? There are arguments on either side, but I think it's best to pick a lane -- either introduce everyone, or only those who aren't what you'd expect. This essay puts forward one common and very sensible approach -- essentially, if it's (e.g.) a classicist doing a work of classical scholarship, leave out the introduction as obvious, but do introduce them if they aren't' a conventional subject-matter expert -- for example, if a poet or mystic commented on the text.
I struggled to get my head around the layout of the Predecessors section -- the chronology and provenance of texts involved seems very mixed, there's a lot of "probably" and "maybe" going on, and a few very short paragraphs. What's the logic at work here?
the Apocalypse of Peter is distinct among extant literature of the period, and may well have been unique at the time: aren't all works of literature unique in some respect? I'm not a fan of the distinction between "being unique" and "adapting earlier writings" -- leaving aside people like Virgil, Dante and so on, we have things like the Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi, which is entirely original and unique despite not containing a single original line. Suggest getting to the meaty material as to what's distinctive about it sooner, and ideally offering more than one example.
The Apocalypse of Peter fits snugly into the genre: MOS:IDIOM applies here, I think.
it is not known when the Clementine sections of the Ethiopic manuscripts containing the Apocalypse of Peter were originally written. Daniel Maier proposes an Egyptian origin in the 6th–10th centuries as an estimate, while Richard Bauckham suggests the author was familiar with the Arabic Apocalypse of Peter and proposes an origin in the 8th century or later.: this seems like it belongs in the section on manuscripts -- I don't really see its relevance in a section on the work's influence.
Later apocalyptic works inspired by it include the Apocalypse of Thomas in the 2nd–4th century, and more importantly, the Apocalypse of Paul in the 4th century: more importantly reads as pretty strong editorialising to me.
One notable tweak that the Apocalypse of Paul makes; see above re. notable, and MOS:IDIOM -- I would just axe this perambulatory clause.
medieval monks that copied and preserved manuscripts in the turbulent centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire: I would do without turbulent centuries -- the third, fourth and fifth centuries were hardly serene and peaceful by comparison with the sixth, seventh and eighth.
Most famously, Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy would become extremely popular and celebrated in the 14th century and beyond: See above re. Most famously.
the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife: I think this whole sentence can be cut, but if it stays, we need to do away with the metaphor and probably the word influential.

More to follow -- greatly enjoying it so far, having just dipped my toe into apocalyptic literature for another (much less impressive) article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that the punishment may fit the crime: is may fit the right word here -- should fit, surely? This isn't exactly the lex talionis, which is much more about reciprocation/compensation (that the perpetrator should experience the same suffering that they have inflicted upon others, and no more), but I think the framing here is fine.
The damned themselves admit from their own lips: from their own lips is tautological here, and a bit flowery for an encyclopaedia. This sentence might also be clearer if in a dialogue with the angel Tatirokos, the keeper of Tartarus were moved to the front.
It is possible that where there is no logical correspondence, the punishment has come from the Orphic tradition and has simply been clumsily attached to a vice by a Jewish redactor.: can we give some examples? I also think we could perhaps have done more to introduce Orphism further up.
contests classifying the ethics of the Apocalypse as being that of lex talionis: those of, since ethics is plural. A short paragraph: can we close it up with something else?
Mirror Punishment: decapitalise, I think, per MOS:CAPS (Wikipedia generally errs on the side of few capitalisations, relative to other publications)
often more symbolic in nature: more symbolic than what?
involving going up to a high fiery place (perhaps a volcano?): the last bit of this reads as an editorial note, which isn't right for an article -- could do a high fiery place, perhaps a volcano, or even attribute this: a high fiery place, which Smith conjectures to be a volcano.
The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished: better to lose the quotes her per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
{{Green|The Apocalypse of Peter is one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature to feature an anti-abortion message}: another very short paragraph.
The "Christology" section is very short indeed. Is that really the sum of all that has been written on the topic? If so, suggest rolling it in with another section. Ditto the "Literary merits" section, which could perhaps be repurposed as a sort of introduction to the "Analysis" section, without the subhead, unless there is more to say. Per MOS:FIGURES, don't start a sentence with a numeral.
God's Commandments: decap commandments unless in a phrase like the Ten Commandments.
gives evil spirits that inhabited idols and led people astray physical bodies: I found the object here a bit unclear: suggest gives physical bodies to evil spirits that...
"Nephilim" is capitalised.
a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." : see MOS:LQ point above, but also -- which language?
which might have partially explained a lack of elite enthusiasm for canonizing it later: we haven't actually talked about this yet, so it comes across as vague and confusing.
One of the theological messages of the Apocalypse of Peter is generally considered clear enough: there are a couple of perambulatory phrases and sentences in the article like this one -- as in previous notes, I would advise simply cutting them and getting to the point of what we want to say. If you mean to indicate that most of the other theological points are unclear, state that explicitly.
how can God allow persecution of the righteous on Earth and still be both sovereign and just?: similarly, in an encyclopaedia article (rather than an essay or an academic book chapter), we generally avoid direct/rhetorical questions in Wikivoice.
for both divine justice as well as divine mercy: a tautology -- either both .. and or just justice as well as ...
and contains elements of both messages: similarly, this is simply a rephrasing of what was said before -- best cut.
may not have fit the mood: I think this is a bit too informal, and perhaps on the wrong side of MOS:IDIOM.
three tabernacles here on Earth: here is best cut for concision -- those few people who read this article on the International Space Station can complain on the Talk page if needed.
one of the borderline works that came closest to being included: does borderline add anything here -- surely a work that came close to being included is, by definition, borderline?
We should put a date on Eusebius.
Make sure that Latin titles, such as Hypotyposes, are in lang templates.
Quite a few of the citation templates used in footnotes are throwing Harvard errors -- use this script to catch them, then add |ref=none to fix them.
More generally, I don't understand the relationship between the bibliography and the references section -- what's the logic as to what makes it into the bibliography, and what is only cited as a reference? Given how long the references section is, the overall effect is confusing -- it is very difficult to get a sense of how this article's sourcing is constructed.

That's my lot on a first pass -- quite a few comments, but please don't take the quantity as a reflection of the quality of the article -- most are very small and will be quickly resolved. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]