Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apocalypse of Peter/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 November 2024 [1].

---

Apocalypse of Peter

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

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)

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)

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 [2] & [3]), 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)
  • 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)
    • Fair enough; expanded the Eusebius bit into two sentences, but I don't think the overall length was blown up. (I'll also try and get ahold of Gallagher & Meade myself and make sure I didn't miss anything in there.) SnowFire (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm missing something, I think everything significant in Gallagher & Meade is currently being included. I still think we need a brief clarification for the Codex Claromontanus listing to indicate how exactly this canon list viewed the apocalypse. I'll try to complete a full review after UC finishes their review below. Hog Farm _Talk 19:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
        • I added another sentence on Claromontanus. (The ApocPeter-specific sources don't see fit to talk about it - my suspicion is that it's because they're interested in the hypothetical original 4th-century catalog that was being copied that we don't have, which probably had no such mark because why would you even bother including such a work if you already don't fully trust it. But still useful to note that the later scribe marked it up.) It's unfortunate that the sources don't seem to clarify which obelus, presumably because it was obvious to them - I presume the dagger version, but I linked it to the top-level Obelus page since I'm not fully sure. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • I'll try to do a full review soon. I'm probably not going to have time this weekend, though. Hog Farm _Talk 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• @Hog Farm: Do you think you'll be able to perform a fuller review? (No problem if not, just a reminder ping.) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't have the time tonight. I'm hoping I'll be able to tomorrow or Wednesday, but I can't make promises. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew and no other;" - but yet this is stated to include an account of the ascension, which is not directly found in Matthew. Is the argument here that this reference to the ascension is drawing on independent Christian tradition from outside the Gospels? But how exactly does one confidently demonstrate this and not that the account of the ascension is being taken from another gospel? I'd be interested to see what Bauckham is using to draw this conclusion.
  • It's page 173 of Bauckham, where he's citing himself on 4723-4724 of this article (on Wikipedia library). Checking... "Dependence on Matthew is especially clear in E1-2 (cf. Mt. 24:3-33) and E15—17 (cf. Mt. 17:1—8), with possible further allusions in E3, E5—6, and E14=R" (the R is "Rainer" here, and the E#s are Ethiopic chapter numbers). It does seem to be something of an argument from silence though - that because there aren't direct Lukan literary references, it wasn't used, even if the author knew of some circulating stories that also ended up in Luke. It looks like Bauckham goes into more detail in "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter" (on Wikipedia library as well)... as mentioned, the author seems to be quoting specifically Matthew's version of the Little Apocalypse. On the Lukan Parable of the barren fig tree, Bauckham says that there are no direct quotes, and further the version quoted seems to have "considerable differences", which suggests knowing of the parable from independent tradition rather than reading Luke. (He doesn't discuss the ascension, but my understanding is that this was thought to be a common piece of Christian tradition in the era, and the literary dependence is clearly Matthew's transfiguration.)
  • I should add that there is at least one scholar who argues against this, but in the reverse direction... Beck brings up Robert C. Helmer arguing that the author wasn't familiar with Matthew, either, and was only working with "Tradition" and lost sources! This was for an unpublished dissertation, though, that is inexplicably listed as "withdrawn" on the website ([4] - maybe only from e-publication?). Considering the high-quality of sources elsewhere, I'm not sure an unpublished view is important enough to discuss. I've repeated Bauckham's Fig Tree journal article as a reference to this line though, since that seems relevant.
• Is the link to wheel of fire really useful? Besides the fact that that article is currently a mass of OR ranging from Ixion to Frodo, it seems bold to pick a specific link for a topic that the scholars are considering to be unclear
  • The reasoning behind a wheel of fire being involved is unclear, but the punishment being a wheel of fire is clear enough. As is, the link is kinda worthless since the article is worthless, but given that there is an "In mythology" section, it seems potentially relevant? It's not a big deal and I'm happy to remove it, but if hypothetically the wheel of fire article was improved and sourced and continued to have a myth / religion section, I think the wikilink would be fine.
• "Sinners who perished in the Great Flood are brought back as well: probably a reference to the Nephilim, the children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women described in the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and Genesis." - I don't know that there's an easy way to rephrase this, but I'm not sure that this is the best way to approach this. Yes, the Nephilim are described in Genesis, but they are not described as "children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women" in Genesis; yes this is how some traditions have interpreted "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them" but we can't say that this is what the Genesis narrative explicitly describes
  • Fair enough. I was worried that not including Genesis might imply that this was entirely an Enochian tradition with no basis in the Torah, but I suppose the Genesis connection is already in the footnote. Removed the mention of Genesis here.
• One last thought I have with this - from what I've read, there seems to be a fair number of scholars who take the stance that apostolic authorship was part of the criteria for determining the canon in the early church. Does any of the scholarship on the apocalypse bear on this idea? Another angle is whether or not the scholarship gives any thought to considerations of if this work was recognized as pseudepigrapha in the early church, or if there was belief that this was an authentic Petrine revelation.
  • Absolutely! The canonicity section was refactored recently to include " A common criticism of those who opposed the canonicity of these works was to accuse them of lacking apostolic authorship" - hopefully that's enough for casual readers, but can add another line to add the reverse that canonical works had apostolic authorship if you think it'd help. As best we can tell, the number one argument used to buttress the authority of a document was to claim apostolic authorship for it, and the number one argument used against the authority of a document that did claim apostolic authorship was that it wasn't really written by apostles. Eusebius calling the Apocalypse spurious-if-orthodox probably indicates he doubts Peter wrote it, yeah. However, while this was the argument used, few surviving ancient authors approached the question like a modern scholar would - i.e. examining grammar, word choice, attestation. Rather, it was the somewhat circular criterion of "if it speaks the Word of God, then an apostle might have written it, and if it spreads heresy, then an apostle couldn't possibly have written it." Or more cynically, if you disagree with the content, then that means Peter didn't write this. So Apostolic authorship is the criteria, but most writers used theological criteria to decide the matter, rather than literary criteria.
  • Ehrman cites Serapion of Antioch saying as much about the Gospel of Peter - Serapion directly argues that because the Gospel of Peter could be read docetically (not even necessarily advocating docetism outright!), obviously the real Peter couldn't have written it. Ehrman's argument in reasoning by analogy is that if "could be read as promoting heresy" = "no aposotolic authorship", and we have condemnations of Rainer Fragment-ish universal salvation, maybe there was some influential Church figure condemning the Apocalypse of Peter as not apostolically authored, a la the Serapion example.
  • Anyway, any ancient authors positively quoting the Apocalypse should be assumed to think Peter really wrote it (or dictated it, or had some Mark-esque secretary record the story, etc.), and anyone speaking poorly of it should be assumed to think it was pseudepigrapha.

SnowFire - I think that's all of my thoughts on this. I guess as full disclosure, I'm approaching this from an evangelical Christian perspective, although I think I've kept my personal religious beliefs out of this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm: No worries. (And Bauckham is usually considered somewhat on the traditionalist side of scholarship FWIW, although not to the degree of the strongest and most traditional of apologist-scholars, i.e. the Talbot folks.) Thanks for the review; made a few changes and can easily make a few more if you think it'd help. SnowFire (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Great work, supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 02:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

UC

Resolved

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. I used to enforce this myself, but I gave up that fight since English usage seems to have shifted here. MOS:ERA says "AD appears before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD)," i.e. both are valid. Since most Wikipedia uses seem to place it after, I figured I might as well do so as well. 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. To be clear, it means "Greek" culturally, not "from the place Greece." But yes, since this is the lead, this is really hinting at what "Hellenistic" is to casual readers, many of whom won't know that already means (mostly) "Greek". I agree with your phrasing if this was deeper in the article, but I figure giving a glossary clue here is important. Casual readers already have to deal with a blizzard of unfamiliar terms. 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. I agree few readers will know it; I was trying to make the lede accessible by avoiding scary, unfamiliar Greek words, explaining in simple English, and hiding the technical term in a gloss. That said... done, I'm just worried about keeping accessibility high in the lede, and think it needs to be the friendliest of all the sections. 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. Yeah, obviously an American here, and adding "The" reads a touch "fancy" to me ("Look at me, I'm The Wikipedia Editor SnowFire!"). That said, done, changed (most? all?) of these, tell me if I missed any. 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. On swapping the first two body sections: Done. There is a problem with doing so though, which is that now the "map" which is intended to go with the "Date of Authorship" section won't display next to it on desktop because the giant New Testament Apocrypha sidebar pushes it down. So if others feel strongly, happy to swap them back, but will presume that this is just a price to pay for the moment. On moving manuscript history even further down: In most articles, I would agree (I've hidden the boring "Manuscripts" section at the end of Arabic Apocalypse of Peter#Later_manuscript_history for example). Unfortunately, I believe we're stuck with doing it first for this topic, because Akhmim & Ethiopic & Rainer all differ, and readers will be totally confused if we're saying "Akhmim says X, Ethiopic says Y, Rainer says Z" before what that means is explained. Ah, of course -- that's fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Double quotes on "an eye for an eye" and similar. Done. (This one is a little odd because it's more setting off a phrase than being a true quote, but sure.) 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). Done. Jesus, Moses, and Elijah: suggest explaining who these other two people were. I've added "the prophets", but I don't really want to add much more detail for something not really that relevant (these were sorta just name-drops that only appear in one version of the text). Explaining messianic expectations around Moses & Elijah would be an entire separate article - I think if readers are interested in more, they can find it in the Transfiguration article wikilink, or the links to them. Yes, I think that's the right level of detail here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) The Apocalypse of Peter fits snugly into the genre: MOS:IDIOM applies here, I think. Hmm, is this even an idiom? I guess "fit" is metaphorical, but that's not uncommon. Changed regardless, went with "is a predecessor of and has similarities with" instead. We should put a date on Eusebius. Done. 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. It is tricky, but my understanding is that the dating of just Book 2 is somewhat more secure. It looks like a recent work on this isn't on WP Library (JJ Lightfoot's "The Sibylline Oracles" is 335 dollars on Oxford Academic!), but JJ Collins in 1983 wrote "the Christian redaction should probably be dated no later than A.D. 150." As this is providing a later bound, using the latest reasonable time is valid. For an older source, Alfons Kurfess in NT Apocrypha (the same 1960s book the Christian Maurer writeup on ApocPeter is in) was apparently pretty confident in 150 too. Sources only on ApocPeter just seem to mention 150, footnote it to Kurfess or the like, and move on. "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) Switched. (I was thinking that these aren't, strictly speaking, quotes, and that LQ only applies to [Bob said "Oh no"] type deals, but no big deal either way.) In general, most scholars: this is tautology, unless those scholars frequently change their minds. Cut. Most famously, Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy would become extremely popular and celebrated in the 14th century and beyond: See above re. Most famously. Cut. Mirror Punishment: decapitalise, I think, per MOS:CAPS (Wikipedia generally errs on the side of few capitalisations, relative to other publications) Done. for both divine justice as well as divine mercy: a tautology -- either both .. and or just justice as well as ... I don't follow the concern here with the old phrasing, but your phrasing is fine too, so switched to "and". God's Commandments: decap commandments unless in a phrase like the Ten Commandments. Done. 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... Switched. "Nephilim" is capitalised. Done. a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." : see MOS:LQ point above, but also -- which language? Greek. (As for why it was romanized "Temelouchus" in sources on ApocPeter yet our Wikipedia article on the named angel is at "Temeluchus", I don't know. Probably just random chance. Not a fan at how it's probably suggesting a phantom distinction, but that's what the sources seem to use...) I've looked it up: the former is correct. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 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. Switched. a popular 4th-century work: if popular here means "widely beloved", it's a tautology -- we've established that in the preceding clause. I don't think we have? We established that ApocPaul became more popular than ApocPeter, but eclipsing #28,742 on the Amazon "religious apocalypses" bestseller list could mean you're #27,458, or it could mean you were #2. ApocPaul was absolutely a top 3 apocalypse for centuries, and indicating that is important IMO (since unlike Dante, most people aren't familiar with ApocPaul now). This is backed by the sources which call out this special prominence: "very popular and widespread" (p. 66 of Buchholz), "the most popular medieval apocryphal Apocalypse" (p. 302 of Bremmer 2009), etc. There are a decent number of other Christian works name-dropped in this article that might have been a Random Book in the library of one monastery that lucked out and happened to be preserved, but Apoc Paul is qualitatively different from them. 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. Well, many readers probably already know Dante at least, but for those who don't, I think it's relevant to indicate that Dante is a Big Deal. This isn't being included to puff up Dante, but rather just to indicate that the Divine Comedy is a cultural touchstone, a work in the literary canon of vast influence. Open to suggestions here, but this is relevant IMO, and if anything "famous" is an understatement. As far as earlier examples, I would definitely say that Dante is way closer to ApocPeter than he is to Odysseus, most obviously in the vibes of Inferno which aren't really that close to "shades attracted by blood who want to dump some backstory". So don't think it's unreasonable to call it out as a forerunner. I would strongly advocate for cutting famous -- I can't see a reading of the relevant PAGs (WP:V, WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASELWORDS in particular) that allows it. if you want to demonstrate that Dante is a Big Deal, do so in a way that is verifiable -- "Dante's Inferno, described as "the most important work of Christian poetry ever" by Scholar McScholarson". However, even then I'm not sure it's important to do that here -- readers will, I think, naturally infer from the prominent presence given to the work in the lead that it's particularly important, even if they've never heard of it, and can of course click on the link to find out precisely how important it is. On the other comment -- I don't see that naming it as a forerunner (which is fine) requires the specific phrasing of "an early example" -- why not do precisely what you've suggested and call it an important influence upon/forerunner of the poem? I think my issue is with the word "early", which has slippage between "earlier than Dante" and "early in absolute terms, relative to other examples of the same genre". UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Changed to "is a forerunner" if you prefer that over "early example" if it's not worth qualifying exactly how early in comparison to what. I guess the dispute here is that I don't see "famous" as puffery, but rather as simply factual in this case. Calling it the "greatest" would be puffery, to me, but "famous" is the equivalent of writing that a blockbuster film sold many tickets at the box office - a measurable and relevant item to discuss, and exactly the kind of thing WP:PUFFERY suggests as a better alternative. For example, Jaws (novel) (a GA) writes "[The film] Jaws is credited as the first summer blockbuster movie and was the highest grossing film in motion picture history up to that time". The fact that the film was a mega-smash is relevant as far as "this novel was the basis of something that's a big deal," and there's no need to qualify this as an opinion because it's measurable. (Presumably you could count quotes, references, book sales, etc. to "prove" that the Divine Comedy was indeed "famous" to a hardcore skeptic). Basically, if it's supported and relevant (i.e. not "an Indie magazine said my garage band was popular"), it's not necessarily puffery to make claims about popularity and influence, especially for works of towering influence. (Side note: not a GA/FA, but our article Divine Comedy writes it is "the pre-eminent work in Italian literature and one of the greatest works of Western literature" as a general consensus opinion in the very first paragraph. That one might be pushing it! But... not wrong, either.) You also write on readers "naturally infer"ing from placement - maybe I'm just swayed from working on some articles on other old works of literature, but many of them also have statements like "X influenced Y" but sotto voce the "Y" is obscure, so a reader assuming that Y was particularly important would be incorrect in so doing. This topic is a rare case where, even if the original work became obscure, its influence resonated indirectly via something raised to the Western canon. I don't think WP:WEASEL is violated here either. All of the sources in the section in the body on the topic support the weak claim that the Divine Comedy was famous. It's WEASEL if you claim people say it but it's never referenced who is saying it, but that's checkable in the sources. You can make very bold claims as long as they're backed - checking other literature FAs, Uncle Tom's Cabin writes it "had a profound effect on attitudes toward African Americans and slavery", not as a quote or attribution to one scholar. Which is true! Similarly, I think it's true and verifiable that The Divine Comedy was famous. Of course, this is an article on an entirely different work, so I don't want to sidetrack with an attributed quote about The Divine Comedy: was it important or not. The word "famous" is there for a reason though: it's explaining why we're bringing this centuries-later connection up at all. We haven't discussed The Divine Comedy at all before here, and we're suddenly bringing it up: why? Because it's famous. I could obviously rephrase a number of ways, but presumably they'd have the same issue if merely acknowledging its influence is inherently puffery. A circular problem here because that influence is exactly what needs to be raised. That was a lot of verbiage on one word. I strongly disagree here per the above valid examples of discussing fame, but I'll remove it anyway, for now. If my above comments convinced UC, or anyone else out there reading this wants to offer a third opinion though, happy to hear it though, whether in favor or against. There has to be some way to differentiate a mega-popular work from an obscure work, and this is a factual enough question that it shouldn't be regarded as mere opinion.... but I've already written way too much on this and don't want to trap people in "DEBATE ME!" loops more than I already have. 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. The tricky thing is that Akhmim, which is in Greek, doesn't ever call itself the Apocalypse of Peter, so we're stuck with old Greek quotations. I picked one from Macarius Magnes - p. 30 of Buchholz indeed uses "ει". I double-checked this wasn't a transcription error, and it wasn't - 4,6 of Magnes is in a 2013 edition on De Gruyter on the Wikipedia library (link), and has "1. Περιουσίας δ’ ἕνεκεν λελέχθω κἀκεῖνο τὸ λελεγμένον ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Πέτρου." (I suspect the capitals & accents are from brushing up the raw version - those aren't in Buchholz's which uses lowercase alpha, lowercase pi, etc.) But I'm not a Greek expert so I'm flying blind here. If this was a modified form or just a scribe being bad at spelling, happy to switch to the "usual" version; otherwise switched to the 2013 transcription. (Also threw that into G Translate and grabbed a transliteration there, which threw an accent on the y, added it in - but I will defer to you over trusting the machine if that's incorrect. Or just flat removing all the accent marks.) Ah -- your quotation has it in the dative case -- that writer would have put it as Ἀποκάλυψις if writing it in the context you have. We should do likewise (there's a grammatical explanation here, which I'm happy to go into if you want, but we can think of it as a routine calculation as described by WP:OR) UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Done. Thanks! 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. Switched. parchment leaves claimed to be deposited in the grave of a Christian monk: claimed by whom? A chain of two claims I believe - Maspero claimed that the unnamed Egyptian guy he got it from told him this. It's... possible... but also what Maspero would have wanted to hear. Also some archaeologists of this era just lied all the time to disguise when they stole stuff or dressed up the provenance as more compelling than it really was - "found in a tomb of a monk" sounds more valuable than "bought from a shady guy". The methodology was awful by modern standards - they basically told the local Egyptian population to go grab what they could as document mercenaries, and then lots of it ended up on the antiques market. But I think going into the weeds loses focus here - "claimed" is a hint that we aren't really confident that this story is true, which is enough. See p. 25-27 from Nicklas/Kraus 2004 for more - features words like "Unfortunately" and "everyone keeps citing Bouraint as if it were given facts, but..." and "used with caution" as far as the "tomb of a monk" story. Do you think it's worth adding a Note on this? I'm a little worried about the number of side notes creeping up, but happy to add it the source of the skepticism there. I think we need to be clear about whether Maspero claimed this, or whether (as it sounds) he claimed that someone else claimed it -- personally, I'd include a footnote, but I'm not shy about including silly numbers of efns and quite like a good archaeological story. It does sound like this is a particularly dubious claim, and I think readers should be given a sense of that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Added. (And yes, he claimed someone else claimed it, so there's two places where someone could have possibly made stuff up.) In a bulleted list, the MoS (MOS:CITE?) would like each citation no later than the end of the corresponding bullet. This would be crazy overkill, though? I picked three lists of the punishments and they're the same references for each line in the list. I'm happy to ask for clarification on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources if desired, but my presumption is that if there's a Wikipedia list but there's a single cite for every entry, it's okay to throw the citations at the end of the list. If nothing else, IAR suggests that 21 copies of the same 3 citations in a row is off, and an IAR case. Personally, I find it weirder to come to the end of a sentence/paragraph and not see a little blue number (if you're using SFN templates, those would all link to a single footnote). I think the MoS is pretty clear here -- it's not a huge matter, as readers can tell where the material comes from with the current framing, but I do think it would be more bomb-proof for WP:TSI (imagine, for example, that a future editor adds another bullet point) if done by the book. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) If another bullet point is added, either it's getting reverted, or we've found another manuscript and need to re-source the whole thing anyway! I went ahead and replicated the citations, but still suspect this is a case of citation overkill. I'll bring it up on the Citing Sources talk page later but not tie it to this particular article and we'll see if anyone bites on an opinion, as this is a general issue not specific to this article that probably just needs a standard. 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. See above - I think this is a "summing up" statement on what is the other half of why people still write / care about ApocPeter (half are interested in the theology of salvation, half are interested in depictions of hell that would lead to Dante). This is another case where it might be a metaphor, but it's a metaphor used all the time, even in academia - Himmelfarb has got a bunch of fancy graphs & maps of parent works that influenced other daughter works that went on to influence yet other works. I now wonder if changing "important" to "influential" even helped above if you object to influential as well, but this is one of those "writing for a general audience" matters IMO - this is where I'm trying to say "this is the part that mattered!" And per above, "influential" is already a vast understatement on Dante. I do sympathise with "this is how it is done in academia", but Wikipedia isn't an academic chapter -- for one thing, it's written for people with a whole range of linguistic abilities and educational backgrounds, whereas academic works are invariably written for people with an extremely strong command of English and an almost excessive level of erudition. There are quite a few PAGs (e.g. WP:MTAU) to the effect that our articles should not always look like our sources, and I think this is one case where that applies -- an academic journal article has different aims to a Wikipedia article, and we should expect the writing style to diverge accordingly (in this case, because catering for non-experts and second-language speakers is far more important to us than it is to them). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC) In this I fully agree! I just think that second-language speakers are exactly who I have in mind (similar to the above discussion on who would need to be told that Dante was "popular"), hence the recap sentence at all (for an academic audience, I would consider cutting the sentence entirely, as you suggest, as mildly redundant). I just don't think these general audience folk will be at all confused by "parent" here - to the extent it's a metaphor, it's an obvious, helpful one. That said, I cut it and went with attributed quotes to Fiori / Bremmer instead. (Which make the passage slightly longer, so maybe we're going in the wrong direction here since you suggested an outright cut of the entire sentence, but hopefully won't have the other issues at least.) Anyway, changes so far are here. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Looks good, just remember to attribute the Fiori quote. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Done. 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? It could be removed, but I'd argue it reads better with it? i.e. imagine a sentence like "TITLE is an apocalypse, an (insert description of apocalypse here)." You could technically either just say "it's an apocalypse" or "it's (description of what an apocalypse is)" but combining them makes a little definition for a casual reader so they know to connect the two, and can now use one word to think of many. Or it wouldn't be odd to read "[SPORTS TEAM] was on the cusp, the highest-ranked team to still be relegated" even though "on the cusp" could be similarly cut. That said, removed anyway since we don't really discuss other 'borderline' works, but eh, I still think it made it a slightly easier read. 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. The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag. Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.

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!

• • Thank you so much for the prompt and detailed review! I wouldn't disclaim your subject matter knowledge too much - you clearly know plenty here, and more than me on the matters of Koine Greek itself. (There are a few points I have some pushback, but don't take my whining too seriously - if you feel strongly on it, I'm happy to adjust anyway. Just figured I'd just raise the "other side" first on the ones I disagree on.) SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• 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?
  • What happens to beggars in the real world, yes. i.e. "clothed in filthy rags and having calloused feet from stones cutting through their bad shoes". The burning part maybe not as much, but that's kinda the standard hell addition in ApocPeter. (Although who knows, the ground can get pretty hot in the Middle East...) Fun fact on the side: I forget where exactly, but someone wrote an article with a long analogy about how this was fore-runner of the medieval Danse Macabre, i.e. in the sense that noble & commoner alike do the dance, and maybe the rich people are being forced to dance into the stones? I didn't really buy the connection, but it was cool anyway.
    • I think that could do with a little bit of clarification -- at the moment, what is written isn't quite compatible with that (very good) explanation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I've expanded this to make the analogy more clear.
        • I'm afraid I still found it a bit unclear in the lead; I've made a tentative edit there to assist. I now don't see anything about mirroring the existence of beggars in the body? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Added a sentence in the "lex talionis" section. I also switched "beggars" to "poor"... I personally think beggars are fine, but the text uses "widows and orphans" which seems to be synecdoche for the poor in general. So beggars might be over-specific.
• 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.
  • Rephrased the sentence; take a look.
• The Rainer fragment was originally dated to the 3rd or 4th century; later analysis: can we put dates on these?
  • For the first, yes, and done. For the second, I'm not so sure there's a clean date when this becomes accepted (there are still recent-ish publications that use the old date), nor do I think it's that relevant - it seems like it started as a hypothesis that got better backing with later close analysis.
    • Right, but are we talking (more or less) about the early medieval period, or more or less about modern academia? I'm not suggesting that we need to pin it down to the 24th of March, 1893, but giving the reader an idea of vaguely what sort of timescale they're imagining would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Went with "2003" as when Van Minnen published his chapter in "The Apocalypse of Peter," although see disclaimer above. (I'd rather go for either pure hand-waving in this case or one specific event, as I don't think I have a source that says "over the course of the 2000s decade and 2010s...", although that's my personal guess).
• 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.
  • I feel that this is off-topic. I agree most readers won't have a clue what this is, but context provides everything that the reader needs to know - there was a source saying the Apoc Peter should have X lines, and the Ethiopic version is pretty close to that, and here's a wikilink to the source if you want to learn what a Stichometry is.
• 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.
  • Open to suggestions, but the fact that this is attributed in-line to a specific scholar and uses "argues" (rather than just stating as a fact it's from Palestine) hopefully communicates it's not a scholarly consensus already (along with "Other scholars suggest [something else]"). I feel like that might also make the Egypt theory seem stronger than it really is - Bauckham's views have been challenged because a lot of people buy them, while the Egypt origin view doesn't seem as popular and thus people don't bother to swat it down. (The main competing view, as best I can tell, is flat "we don't know." But I'm not sure we need to write that one out.)
    • I'm not sure I agree -- it sounds like there's a debate with two sides, both of which have equal levels of scholarly acceptance, so WP:DUEWEIGHT says we should present both equally. Putting one in the body text and relegating the other to a footnote places greater weight on the first, which we should not do unless it is clearly the majority position (WP:FRINGE). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • But both are in the body text? Both the possibility of a Egyptian and a Palestinian origin are discussed in the body. Unless you mean the "we don't know" option? That's just some OR from me, nobody publishes a paper arguing "I've unsolved the problem, we have no idea." I've added a brief sentence cited to Bremmer acknowledging that provenance is still a matter of scholarly debate and uncertainty, with Palestine & Egypt the lead two options - does that work? (p. 153 here if curious)
• 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.
  • I was just doing some basic translation of German from a map and leaving the Latin alone. @Enyavar: who created this series. From looking at the upload, a list of sources are at File:Ancient_Orient_History_Map_basis.de.svg#Beschreibung - anything else to be aware of in using the map?
    • That list seems to be specifically about the Bronze Age -- wherever a page is cited, it's specifically BA material. It does cite books that we would expect to have maps of the Roman period in them, but I don't see a definitive statement that those maps were used in the map we have. Of course, if you can find other sources which verify the information and append them to the Commons page, it doesn't particularly matter whether they were originally consulted, but we do need something for the included claims like, for example, "the Roman Empire had only weak influence over Nabataea in 100 CE". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I asked Enyavar directly - stay tuned. As for Nabatea itself, it looks like Rome only took over in 106 CE (Nabataean_Kingdom#Roman_annexation), so to the extent the map is "exactly 100 AD", it seems sorta justified as a heavily Roman-influenced but client-y state.
        • I'm not disputing any of the ideas in the map (except possibly that anyone ever called it Myos Hormus), only that we need to cite those claims, just as we would in text. We couldn't write "Nabataea was a Roman client state in 100 CE" without a citation, and it's the same to do so with an image. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Sorry about that! My own maps I try to carefully document (File:BattleofTordesillas.PNG for an old example), but this one was pre-existing, hence it being tricky for me to do directly. Enyavar replied at Benutzer_Diskussion:Enyavar#Question_on_Ancient_Near_East_maps, and I used that to add this addition to the file description. Is that enough information, do you think?
            • As I read it, it's (slightly harshly put) a vague handwave towards "go check the bibliography in the relevant Wikipedia article?" I don't think that's enough, really: one, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, two, that bibliography isn't necessarily stable, three, "it's somewhere in at least some of this huge list of books" isn't really precise enough. Really, we need something at the level of "For the geographical information, see maps on [these pages] of [these books]; see also a discussion of toponyms in [this gazetteer], and I've followed the view of [this book chapter] on the matter of [whatever]". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) Haven't forgotten about this, just was traveling over the weekend and am back at work now. I put in requests at the library for atlases & maps; we'll see what they turn up. Unfortunately the easy-to-access batch was mostly not showing much detail, or was dated like the 1923 Shepherd map. (Side fun fact: did you know that the 2023 Atlas of the Classical World has a "Rome under Trajan" map advertised in its Table of Contents? It's a map of... the city of Rome, specifically, during the reign of Trajan. Sad trombone noises go here.) SnowFire (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay. Attempting to make an entirely new map at the level of detail of the original map is way, way too much work, so there's no way that's going to finish "in time" here. I've elected to just use a less detailed map instead. I've uploaded File:Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg which has the original sources in the original map, and I've adjusted some of the city names to follow Talbert (2023) and verified a few others with other recent atlases. The Arabia Petraea region also follows the more conservative territory seen in most maps of the Roman Empire after 106 than the old 100 AD map. Hopefully this is considered sufficient enough sourcing. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• 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?
  • I'm mostly mimicking Ehrman 2022 here. He leaves "katabasis" unitalicized (except on the very first introduction of the Greek term) but italicizes nekuia (with a u) everywhere. Bauckham 1998 does italicize katabasis though, and a quick search through the 2024 "In Context" shows two italicizations by Bremmer. I suppose I can switch it over, it's not a big deal. And I don't think there's a firm distinction, it's borderline, but to the extent that Peter & the disciples are tripping on a spiritual vision but while on Earth, you can argue it's a nekyia if your criteria is "happens on Earth" and if your criteria it that a true katabasis would involve actually VISITING a la Dante / ApocPaul, which is of course impossible in this case as it'd involve time travel.
• 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.
  • Done, although now I'm a little worried it looks like the shoots are achieving martyrdom (when in the text, it's definitely the Jewish Christians).
• 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.
  • I think this is a good general rule of Wikipedia writing, but similar to the concerns on "popular" above, this one I think needs some sort of callout. This is the theological issue and half the reason people are still writing about the Apoc Peter still today. It consumes a huge amount of what Beck, Ehrman, Bauckham, etc. have to say on the work; Ilaria Ramelli wrote a whole book on early Christian universalism that cites ApocPeter as an example for her thesis. Open to suggestions, but I think the importance of this passage needs to be emphasized in some way that makes it distinct from comparatively piddly stuff also discussed, like the names of angels.
    • OK, so let's say as much -- Beck writes that "the central theological issue of the text" is.... If we can't find anyone actually willing to put it in writing that it's so important, it's WP:SYNTH to infer it simply from the volume of scholarly writing on it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • We can, it's just that qualifying it in-text makes it sound like it's just one scholar's take, and it's broader in this case. It also calls even more attention to the matter up front before even describing it, rather than a brief side comment that's promising "read on and you'll find out why." Hence me preferring to simply state it as a fact - it's proven by all the referenced stuff later on to the pages and pages written on it.
      • I've removed it for now, though - the proper person to cite, if anyone, is Ilaria Ramelli here (for all that others think she overstates her case), and the Brill access for the Wikipedia Library is still down. :( If it comes back up, I'll re-check her $405 book to see if there's a suitably saucy quote to use, in the reference if nothing else.
• The Greek word "apocalypse": technically speaking, apocalypse is not a Greek word: I would transliterate apokalypsis here (and see note above on Greek words).
  • Done. Good idea, agree we should use the raw Romanized Greek here rather than the Latinized version.
• the work is pseudepigrapha: pseudepigrapha is plural, so I think you're on safer grammatical grounds to make this an adjective: pseudepigraphical.
  • Done.
• 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?
  • Switched to an ndash. And it wasn't restricted to Jewish Christianity, so that wasn't the intent... it's more like it belongs to Christianity, but had major Jewish influences.
    • Generally speaking, these kind of doublets are better written out with a full explanation. (I think MOS:DASH or MOS:HYPHEN says something to that effect. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I just cut "Jewish" - it's probably accurate, but it can be covered in the section on Himmelfarb's opinions.
• 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.
  • It could be misread, but I feel that anyone capable of that misreading also knows enough to know what is "really" meant, that Plato was still current in the Hellenistic era and there were people called Platonists etc.? I switched it to the simple "Greek" though to avoid confusion.
    • Oh, yes, and Neoplatonism is a huge deal that might well need some sort of mention here. Switching to "Greek" solves the problem, I think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Later scholarship by Martha Himmelfarb and others: as before, can we be more specific as to the date?
  • Himmelfarb's book was published in 1983, but "others" is harder to pin down. I suspect picking a date would be problematic though - it's not like everyone instantly agreed Himmelfarb was right (in fact, just as Dieterich was a maximalist "everything was Greek with minor Jewish flavor" that was probably wrong, Himmelfarb's maximalist "this is all based on lost Jewish stuff" hasn't actually found much support at the other end of the spectrum), and the process was probably somewhat gradual as people filtered in the parts of Himmelfarb's argument that were the best supported in the 1980s & 90s. (And I'm sure there were some scholars in the 1960s arguing for more Jewish influence who are annoyed if Himmelfarb took all the credit.) I think this one is best left for "click the wikilink on Himmelfarb, or hit the references, for more."
    • As above -- would "twentieth-century" of similar work? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Rephrased to include that.
• 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've usually used the "no intro" style except for very early in the article. I removed "The scholar" before Bauckham - if I missed any others, happy to remove them. The one intro I believe remains is for M. R. James, and that's because I want to mention he was English (but reading French translations of Ethiopic documents for fun, and connecting them to German translations of Greek he read & translated earlier. Just normal stuff).
• 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?
  • Unfortunately, there isn't really a "story" to tell here past the Greek vs. Jewish influence debate. It's more like "Scholar A detected a claimed influence here. Scholar B detected a claimed influence over here. Scholar C..." And some of these claimed influences really do need a "probable" disclaimer, because it's not like the passage says "As Ezra said in that one Greek book of his work..." Beck writes "It is important to acknowledge the uncertainty of source critical discussions". I've done my best to have something of a "narrative" here, but also want to avoid SYNTH.
  • On short paragraphs, here and elsewhere: My stance favors the "paragraphs should have a topic" writing style. Sometimes this leads to long paragraphs (as in the Canonicity section), but sometimes it leads to short paragraphs if there's just one person making one claim or the like. I'd rather avoid glomming together unrelated thoughts that suggests the Psalm 24 quote is linked with the postmortem baptism or the like. (And looking back, including Matthew in the "Greek katabasis vs. Jewish apocalypses" section is a little loose as is... Matthew does have an apocalyptic section but I don't go into that 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.
  • I think Beck would agree with you! ("It is important to recognise the originality of the Apoc Pet"). The reason he's bringing up this seemingly anodyne point is... well, a lot of earlier scholarly literature is obsessed with proving X copied from Y and Y was stealing from Z and the like. He was agreeing with this sentiment, that let the work stand on its own (and implicitly criticizing all of the previous paragraphs of claimed sources).
  • As far as offering more examples - that's a little fraught. Honestly the example that's there is not great, because Beck himself is very much on the "ApocPeter is 80% mercy and 20% judgment" side of the debate, yet I've included an example on the judgment side (it's not sourced to Beck, but it is placed right after his statement). Beck's example is, of course, the extent of post-mortem salvation, that ApocPeter is a unique early proponent of universal-ish salvation. But that's already covered in detail elsewhere, so bringing it up in "Predecessors" too would feel a little odd.
• 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.
  • I'd say it counts. This isn't about the manuscript so much as the content of "The Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead" and "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners" - i.e. when were they written (probably before the manuscript itself) and what were they based on? Since it's right next to the ApocPeter and seems to mention it, it seems clear ApocPeter was a huge influence, in the same way that a 2024 sequel to a Shakespeare play is influenced by, well, the Shakespeare play itself it's adding to. That said, this section was called out as a bit confusing in the GAN review too, so maybe there's clearly an issue. Perhaps it could be demoted to a footnote? That feels a little Western-centric though, these Ethiopic additions were the only attention ApocPeter was getting for centuries, even if the Ethiopian church of the 8th-18th centuries isn't well covered in English.
• 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.
  • See above comments on the lead. I've changed it to "more influentially" to perhaps make less bold claims about Importance with a capital I, but make no mistake, the Apoc Paul was the important one here. It's really hard to understate how weirdly popular ApocPaul was - while most surviving apocrypha involve scholars poring over just 1 or 2 manuscripts carefully, we've got hundreds of surviving ApocPaul manuscripts in a variety of languages. It'd be like writing "The noodle incident inspired a number of early 20th century authors, including Fergus MacForgotten, Bob Irrelevant, and Agatha Christie." For the reader not familiar, there should be some call out that one member of this list is way, way more important the others.
• One notable tweak that the Apocalypse of Paul makes; see above re. notable, and MOS:IDIOM -- I would just axe this perambulatory clause.
  • While the origin might be as an origin to real-life things, I think a "tweak" as a term for any "small change" is fine? I checked Merriam-Webster, and it has "a small change or adjustment" and its first example is to tweaking a menu (which clearly is more metaphorical than a radio dial). I removed "notable". Can switch "tweak" to "change" if desired, but since this is on ApocPeter's influence on ApocPaul, I think "tweak" hints that ApocPaul was modifying an already-existing framework better, while a change could simply be a difference.
    • To me, "tweak" reads as more informal than we're going for: I think "change" would work. On the other hand, a more direct sentence structure might be even better -- something like The Apocalypse of Paul diverges from that of Peter in describing personal judgments to bliss or torment as happening immediately after death (the bold bit is I think a necessary change for clarity, in any case). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Hmm, from the perspective of my armchair, I'm more convinced by the "the Roman Empire's fall was followed by a substantial crash in living conditions and economic disaster" camp. Not trying to imply that the 4th-5th century Western Roman Empire was particularly peaceful (3rd is too early for ApocPaul) of course, but they probably were substantially better for book preservation? My understanding is that these early centuries post-Fall were indeed very rough for manuscript preservation in the West by non-monks, since there were fewer rich nobles, scribes working for government officials, etc. that might have done it otherwise. And even if we take it as accepted that the 4th & 5th centuries were bad, that just means they were also turbulent. Despite the above, I'm happy to cut it if you feel strongly, just don't see the issue with a little bit of context that seems non-controversially true. (Really the best fix would be if we had a term that meant "late antique and Medieval" and we could just apply that modifier to the monks and then say "ever since it was published", but I can't think of any. And my vague understanding is that knowledge of ApocPaul in its first centuries is real vague anyway.)
    • It's really not non-controversially true, though -- it's not that the Early Medieval period was rosy, it's that the Late Roman period was pretty chaotic too. As I've said a few times, if you have a concrete statement in mind, like the idea that this was a particularly bad time for book preservation, it would be a good idea to say and cite that directly -- what we have at the moment is vague and fluffy, so it gives the reader an impression without actually presenting anything that could be falsified, and therefore without saying anything that could really be verified either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • What I mean is that this statement, strictly speaking, doesn't say anything about the late Roman period at all, just the periods afterward (and thus does not take a stand on exactly how bad the late Roman period was). It doesn't seem that vague and fluffy to me (it is bringing up the role of monks / monasteries in book preservation, yes), but as this is on a side topic anyway, I'm happy to kick it to the Apoc Paul article and let people click the wikilink. Cut to just "medieval monks".
        • Improved, I think. Now we have Despite this, it would go on to be popular and influential for centuries, possibly due to its popularity: firstly, this is a tautology (it was popular because it was popular -- what attracted monks to it in the first place?); secondly, can we adjust the repetition? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Rephrased to avoid the close repetition.
          • On why it was popular: I was happy to spend some text on explaining why monks mattered more than you'd expect (book copying / preservation), but going into why exactly the monks liked it is getting off-topic IMO. It's in the Apoc Paul article, but the short version is that it's very flattering to monks and spends time on monk interests - like, if you finish your vow of fasting, you will get a super-awesome apartment in the City of God near the center, but if you screw it up, you will be super-punished and thrown in a hole. Clergy & ascetics are the stars and get different fates than vanilla Christians - either much worse if they screw it up because expectations were higher, or much better if they do it well. But I don't think that's the relevant part for a section on ApocPeter's influence. I've tried to focus on the parts of ApocPaul that were clearly modifying existing Peter frameworks, but this aspect was just kinda new. (See Beck's comment elsewhere on Peter perceiving the righteous as a unified group - it's definitely a difference between Peter & Paul, as Paul thinks there's winners & losers even among the saved.)
          • On if it's a tautology: The current passage is describing who the "base" of support was (e.g. the equivalent of the Rocky Horror Picture Show superfans who kept would could have been an obscure commercial failure of a movie alive). Something like "Roger Ebert's strong advocacy of Hoop Dreams helped win the work wider popularity and acclaim." If you have a better suggestion on how to phrase that kind of message, happy to hear it, but as is I think it gets the point across?

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)

• 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.
  • Switched the order. And while flowery (in an evil flower kinda way), it's definitely a powerful rhetorical technique still used today (in the same way that, say, political parties love to quote whenever a rival agrees with them, or just make up a quote on Twitter of the other side confessing to being super evil). See? They admitted it themselves, therefore we're right and it's okay.
    • I don't disagree, but powerful rhetorical techniques aren't our wheelhouse: neither the purpose of the website nor the (zero) authority claimed by its authors suits them, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Cut.
• 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.
  • We could, but the problem is that for every example, there will be someone else arguing that no, this one totally makes sense. Fiensy offers "unchaste maidens are clad in darkness and have their flesh torn and sorcerers are tormented on wheels of fire" but we actually introduce proposed explanations for these later (i.e. bodily correspondence in that the skin/flesh that sinned is torn, and mirror punishment for sorcerers). I've seen elsewhere that the punishment for usurers is weirdly lenient compared to the others (up to the... knees in excrement? That's not fun, but it's not nearly as horrible as some of the other stuff.) and is also rather disconnected, but it'd be weird to offer that as an example when Fiensy doesn't. Maybe I just need a better reference for this than Fiensy - will look for one, stay tuned.
  • As for introducing Orphism, I'm not even sure where to start. I'm not sure there's even a consistent canonical Orphism to go over - it'd be like introducing 1st century Judaism, there are entire books written on it. I think we may be stuck with "click on the wikilink for more".
  • SF from the future: I added in a line in Callon's paragraph clarifying that the sorcerers example is one of the ones Fiensy thought made no sense. Still trying to figure out if there's any way to sneak in a better descriptive bit for Orphism that doesn't side-track, but I feel like I'd need to read a book to turn that into a non-contentious, non-distracting adjective other than the existing "er it was Greek-philosophy influenced tradition."
• 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?
  • I guess we could combine with the Callon paragraph as an "alternative non-lex-talionis views" but I don't think Ehrman and Callon actually agree. Would rather let them stand on their own, but I'm willing to do the merge if you feel strongly.
• often more symbolic in nature: more symbolic than what?
  • Than simple eye-for-an-eye. In Callon's example, eye-for-an-eye would be sorcerers suffering whatever harm their spells inflicted on others to themselves, while a poetic justice approach is more like the tool they used to gain power is now used to torture them, isn't that ironic.
    • So "more symbolic than reciprocal" or similar, or perhaps "determined more by symbolism than by the lex talionis? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Went with your second suggestion.
• The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished: better to lose the quotes her per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
  • These aren't scare quotes though; it has the number "ten" in the text, it's an actual quote. I'd read it without the quotes as potentially implying that the actual text lists 10 specific women (a la Dante calling out specific people for punishment) but the Wikipedia article isn't bothering to list them. Normally I would fix this by making the quote longer and thus more obviously a quote, but the problem is the text literally says "10 virgins" or "10 maidens" are having premarital sex which I presume reads fine in Ethiopic, but will read confusingly in English where it'll sound illogical/impossible.
    • Well, yes, but "John states that he ate ten apples" also implies that John said the word "ten". If you want to make clear that it's ten fungible women, "a total of ten" would do well. The quotes don't strike the right tone -- they read as scare quotes, even if they aren't (this is the point of MOS:QUOTEPOV). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I just went with dropping the quotes - "a total of" seems to draw even more attention to it and raise questions.
• {{Green|The Apocalypse of Peter is one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature to feature an anti-abortion message}: another very short paragraph.
  • Attaching this to another "thought" seems unwise; it's not really that connected. I'd rather keep it separate.
• 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.
  • Switched the sentence order.
  • I think placing the Literary Analysis section up front would give too much prominence to James' poison pen, IMO (The Ehrman reference discusses James opinion here only to criticize it as overly the-right-canon-prevailed triumphalist). I used the pre-section bit as an "intro" in Contents / Influences, but there isn't really much of an overall "Analysis" to be had which is already something of a grab-bag for "other stuff scholars talk about." I don't think these are that linked so would rather just have short, one-paragraph sections.
• 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.
  • A bit, but I don't think this is THAT confusing. We did mention already in the lede that it wasn't in the canon, so it's a minor flash-forward. More generally, I think this section is mostly on the "do scholars think this is actually well-written, coherent, etc." with the canonicity bit more a side comment. I think the article has a strong ending currently with the canonicity debate - moving this afterward would add a side "eh and here's another thought" afterward would dull the impact.
• 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.
  • I think you're reading this a bit more harshly than intended. I do describe a scholarly debate later in this paragraph on the "real" intent of the ApocPeter (both in its author and its early readers), but just wanted to set up that there do exist some baseline grounds scholars do agree on. And there's a subtle difference between "unclear" and "there is a scholarly debate" - the scholars on side A say it's very clear and obvious, just side B is wrong, and vice versa. I think it'd be a little bit editorializing to throw my hands up and declare that the problem is the text is unclear. (But yes, there is internal-to-the-text dissension on many of the messages, but the "monitory" message is clear. I'm citing Beck here because he is very much on the "ApocPeter as a scary morality play is overrated, it's not just about scaring people into compliance with the threat of hellfire" 'side', but even he grants that there's something of that in the story, just not the main thrust to him.)
• 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.
  • It's definitely not a rhetorical question, but a very hard one! Open to suggestions, but I cannot think of any other way to explain theodicy that doesn't introduce theology in Wikivoice, which is presumably worse. The article on the problem of evil even introduces the topic as a "question", and older theodicies were often explanations for major practical questions like "Why did God allow (disaster to happen)? Because...". Presumably atheists & Christians alike can agree that this is an issue that the author was trying to address, but elevating it from a question to a statement seems like it'd inherently annoy one side (e.g. simply stating the problem as a fact would annoy atheists as assuming a God did indeed allow anything, while including qualifiers like "so-called" would annoy theists).
    • We should make it an indirect question: "the problem of how God can allow...", to quieten down the authorial voice and make it clear that it isn't a rhetorical question. I'm sure the theodicy article does it a few times. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Rephrased as you suggested - take a look.
• and contains elements of both messages: similarly, this is simply a rephrasing of what was said before -- best cut.
  • Strong disagree here. Your wording is certainly more concise, but concision isn't everything; this one is intentional, for emphasis and clarity, and does indeed add something IMO. It's not as if there's a mercy-o-meter that there's a single setting for consistent across the work; the extra comment is hinting that while passage A might strongly indicate a preference for justice, passage B might do so for mercy, and passage C for both simultaneously. I think it's better writing to include this, and makes the sentence read much better to my eyes. (Side note: I'm not an expert here, but while on the topic of old religious writings, a theme seen in old Hebrew is repetition-for-emphasis as well - random Psalms will say something like "God is [X] and [CLOSE SYNONYM FOR X]". I don't think it's a mistake, and it can read rather well in English too.) I dunno, this might be a weird one to plant my flag on, but this one I feel significantly stronger about than the others - this passage is my writing style and I'd rather keep it like this unless there's an outright error here. We're allowed a few spare words to dress things up, and this particular issue is one of the top most useful places to spend them IMO. (Apologies in advance if I come across as an eccentric on this!)
• may not have fit the mood: I think this is a bit too informal, and perhaps on the wrong side of MOS:IDIOM.
  • You say "informal", I say "accessible to a general audience." ;-) But more seriously, I could replace with "intellectual milieu" or "zeitgeist" or the like but those seems both less accessible and less accurate, so I'm not super keen on doing so. Do you have any suggestions? It's tricky because Christianity was hardly a monolith in that era, so it needs to be a word indicating a similarly vague current-of-thought.
• 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.
  • In a vacuum, I agree, but there's an issue here. The text actually just says "My Lord, do you wish that I make three tabernacles here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah?" In other words, "here" is the word original to the text, and "on Earth" is an in-sentence gloss. I think we'd need to cut "on Earth" first if we wanted to shorten this, but then Jesus's objections would come across as somewhat nonsensical, hence clarifying Peter's proposed tabernacles were in the mortal realm and Jesus's tabernacle was heavenly.
• Make sure that Latin titles, such as Hypotyposes, are in lang templates.
  • Done.
• 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.
  • (I saw this, but will hold off, since it involves installing scripts. To be edited later.)
  • Well, these were warnings not errors, and they're acceptable warnings in this case IMO. Still, I fixed this in the "Bibliography" section. Elsewhere, I'm more inclined to "blame" the script - User_talk:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors#Citation_bundles indicates that this is a known quirk, where the script doesn't get that citation bundles shouldn't have such a warning. I can still change it if truly desired, but per above, it doesn't appear to actually be an error in the citation.
    • Adding |ref=none solves the "problem" in either case, and improves readability for those regular editors who use that script with no real loss for anyone else. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I've added ref=None for the remaining warnings.

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)

Thanks again for the extensive review! Here's a diff of changes so far (no section swap), and the section order swap separate diff. Will investigate the other comments as well. SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt replies -- I haven't got to all of them; most are absolutely find and need no reply, and I've put a few responses above where I think one is needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I haven't forgotten about this - just had an unexpectedly busy Labor Day weekend & travel + not wanting to do some of these fixes before I could hit the books again. Will hopefully respond soon-ish now that I have a tad more free time. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not at all -- I still have a few of your replies that I need to get my head around. If they're still below the "Resolved" collapse box, I'm meaning to get to them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! Did another pass - see diff. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm working my way through; it's going a bit slowly but hopefully steadily. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• A small one, but we're inconsistent about whether scholarship should be related in the present or past tense. I was taught to use the present for "live" views and the past when discussing the history of scholarship (with the implication that views related in the past tense were no longer considered mainstream), but as ever with these things any consistent system is fine. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I did a tense pass. Here's the tentative rules I applied: Dead scholars get past tense. Scholars who argued a position notably but later changed their mind also get past tense (don't think that ever comes up - maybe Bauckham softening some on 2 Peter vs. ApocPeter timing? That's hidden in a reference anyway.). Living scholars get present tense. Scholarly summations - your system sounds good, so went with past tense for when the vibes are this position is dated, but kept present tense if there are notable scholars still propounding the position. Some constructions not directly about scholarly views remained as is (i.e. "the fragment is dated" where it's talking about something else).
  • Anyway, most recent diff. Also feel free to speak up if I said I did something but then didn't do it - that's probably just an error (I seem to find myself responding to these at 3-4 AM while unable to sleep...). SnowFire (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

    Just gone through looking to close this off -- I've made some copyedit suggestions, including one to the "fit the mood" problem above. One remaining issue: I see considering the reservations various church authors had on the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation), it is possible similar considerations were in play. -- do we ever say what those considerations were? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

    Your changes look fine to me.

    On Revelation: Unfortunately, I don't think either set of considerations / objections are known (hence the "it is possible" wording). That said, that line was added very early in my expansion and it looks like I was a little loose on sourcing it at the time. I do think it's true but should probably get a direct attribution to scholar XYZ - I've commented it out for now. If I find a good source to restore it, I'll see what it says and if it includes any hypotheses. (Just it's often speculating at gaps - why did writer XYZ not mention it? and why did writer ABC just call it disputed? Very vague.) . SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

    • Has nobody taken a stab at it -- or said that it's unknown? I think one or the other would help: as we've phrased it, it sounds like there are known reasons about Revelation, which might apply to ApocPeter. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      • @UndercoverClassicist: I've reorganized the section and placed in a reference to "The Oxford Handbook of Revelation." It's still mildly sketchy since it's tying together a thought spread across two sources, but I think it's fine given that Nicklas does directly raise the matter of the Apocalypse of Peter's status as being comparable to Revelation.
      • Also, on an earlier note, I've snuck in a reference outside the Hatnote to the Gnostic & Arabic Apocalypses of Peter - in the name footnote, of all places. Added in another 2022 source as well (Batovici) - it's nothing new, but useful as another layer of verification. Also, see above, but I've uploaded a new map and verified it against recent Atlases, and have more pictures of scholarly Atlases if really required. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

        Support: almost all of this article is well outside my area of expertise, but it certainly has the look, feel and flavour of an FA, and I'm satisfied with all the amendments and fixes made during this (lengthy!) review. Credit to SnowFire for their patience and good humour with the process, and I hope they feel it has been of benefit to the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka

• The citation style of the article is inconsistent. Several sources referred to in the "Reference" section, are not listed in section "Bibliography" (for instance, Metzger). Some references are rather notes (I refer to, for example, references 16 and 43). Do not verify a statement with a note (for instance, this is the case in the two last sentences in section "Date of authorship").
  • I explained my citation style above in discussion with UC, and it's consistent and keeping with WP:CITEVAR. I'll copy-paste what I wrote there:
    • The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag.
    • Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.
  • Metzger is used in more than one spot but it's not mostly on the Apocalypse of Peter, while the sources listed in Bibliography are. I'd rather keep it as is unless you feel this is truly a problem, but I'd be curious why it's a problem - clicking a Metzger page range will show the Metzger book just fine.
  • On long references: 16 isn't really appropriate as a note, IMO. It's a "see these original sources for more" which is exactly what a reference is. I've reserved notes for "prose that a reader might be interested in, but keeping it in the main article would distract the flow on a minor point and it isn't strictly required." A bunch of links to old journal articles is useful IMO, hence including it, but it's clearly a reference. 43 is more borderline, but that is again a reference IMO. I'm trying to avoid the antipattern many articles use of, when there's scholarly dissension, just citing both and letting the reader figure things out by saying up front that you can see different slants at different references. I could see a reverse complaint where if I only had the scholarly references, someone might complain about text-source integrity that actually, this other reference says something slightly different than what the text does. A more fully explained reference fixes the problem IMO. I believe my style is valid per CITEVAR where explaining some references does not automatically qualify something for footnote status. WP:EXPLNOTESECT explicitly says that having a notes section at all is optional, and there are FAs that entirely eschew a notes section and stick everything in references, including detailed note-like references. Given that, I have to assume that there is discretion on the article author to choose what qualifies for a note and what qualifies as a reference.

• • I would not expect explanations in references. I think the present method is not fully in line with WP:CITEHOW
    • A simple "Lastname Year p. 100" is the basic case, sure, but I would say that WP:FOOTQUOTE covers this - "Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting." For ref 43, say, I don't think Lapham's view on the transfiguration parallel is so significant that it merits discussion in a full reader-facing footnote, but that including Lapham as a reference unadorned could create a complaint that it's missing subtleties in the position. There's no perfect fix here, but having a somewhat fuller citation is basically harmless and not at all unusual, and makes a lot of sense for articles with strong references yet sometimes contrasting results.

• • The notes in "Date of Authorship" all have detailed references (5 refs in the Bar-Kokhba note, say). I suppose I can replicate all of them again in-prose, but I really don't see the point, and it makes it harder for a well-meaning reader to actually get sent to the note of approachable prose I want them to read, rather than the reference that they probably don't care about. I checked 3 FAs at random, and all 3 of them were using notes-with-references-in-the-note as well, suggesting this isn't an unknown style (and not just "middle of the paragraph" stuff - I'm talking notes at the end of the paragraph, with the ref in the note).
• Introduce people when they are first mentioned in the text: Richard Bauckham > the theologian/Biblical scholar Richard Bauckham; Gaston Maspéro > the Egyptologist Gaston Maspéro, etc.
  • Unfortunately, if you read Undercover Classicist above, he recommended doing precisely the reverse of this in his review and not introducing anyone unless it's surprising or out-of-field, and so I just went around removing some of these recently. I can't comply with both requests. If someone wants to offer a third opinion, I'll vary it up with whatever the majority says, as I think this is purely a stylistic preference where both ways can work.

• • @UndercoverClassicist: your thoughts? I would like to know who Richar Bauckham, Gaston Maspéro, etc in the article because their name provides no information about their relevance. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a few schools of thought on this -- to me, the overarching principle here would be the FAC mantra that "if it's consistent and it works, it's fine". Personally, I used to be in the school of "introduce everyone", but discussions at some FACs here (from memory, this was prominent at Beulé Gate) have pushed me more towards not generally introducing people where that introduction would be "this person is the sort of expert you'd expect to see quoted here). Some of the reasons for this are:

• False distinctions -- particularly in a field like this one, there aren't bright lines between e.g. "theologian/religious historian/scholar of Judaism", and choosing one epithet over the other can give a misleading impression that two people are coming at this from very different angles, or else misrepresent the field. Even worse, titles like "scholar" or "writer" sometimes disguise the fact that the person isn't really an expert in this topic at all.
• False precision -- if we implicitly endorse someone as "the historian X...", we give readers the sense that they are all equally qualified and worth listening to, which isn't often the case. The oft-cited user essay on this point uses the example of David Irving, who would need a lot more context than that.
• Repetition -- readers will generally assume that we don't quote people who aren't worth listening to, so if the introduction does nothing more than say "this person is worth listening to", it's tautological and adds needless words (and so takes away from the article's clarity). This is a similar argument to why we don't write things like "a notable fact is..." or "it is important that...".

With that said, if the person being quoted is not a run-of-the-mill current expert, there are good arguments for introducing them -- particularly if:

• The article is very interdisciplinary, and people are coming at it from very different perspectives (see Ove Jørgensen, where I had to introduce practically everyone to be clear if they were a classicist, a ballet scholar or a personal acquaintance of the subject).
• The view is particularly dated, or otherwise considered obsolete.
• They are being used as something other than an academic expert: this came up a lot in Homeric Hymns, where classicists/philologists/literary scholars were generally not given epithets, but people like Ezra Pound, who passed judgement on the topic from a different perspective, were introduced to make clear that their expertise was different from that of the (many) academics mentioned elsewhere.

That's quite a lot of verbiage to say "it's really a moot point", but I hope it helps. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I still think that introducing the scholars mentioned in the article is the best method: if a scholar is to be named in an article for whatever reason we should not be forced to make a research for them and a scholar's name itself is not informative. Encyclopedic approach itself leads to simplifications: we are summarising the content of lengthy scholarly studies. I would ignore the "oft-cited user essay" for it has only been visited 41 times this year (5 times on the same day indicating that somebody referred to it in a discussion [5]). Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why are not the titles of works/texts italicised?
  • See MOS:NEITHER, where "religious texts" aren't italicized. e.g. Revelation, not Revelation.
• The first section's title does not reflect the text.
  • I've switched the title to "Authorship and date" if that helps better make clear the scope.
• The Apocalypse of Peter seems to have been written between 100 AD and 150 AD. 1. Another cited source writes of a different timeframe (Metzger (1987), p. 184). 2. None of the two years mentioned in the sentence are certain. 3. Rephrase to avoid PoV language.
  • For 1, I wasn't citing Metzger there? He's writing a 3-page short summary. I'm trying to use the highest quality sources for the main topic, which means scholars who have dedicated a bit more space to ApocPeter. There is already some dissension here that is already discussed (i.e. Bauckham arguing for a more specific dating); I didn't feel Metzger's narrower range was worth going into because he doesn't explain why at all and he's not an ApocPeter expert. It's just a difference, that happens all the time, it'd blow the article up to 5x the length if every small scholarly difference was discussed. (Metzger is a fantastic source overall on the topic of the formation of the canon, but the scholarly estimates of when precisely ApocPeter was written? Probably not. More sources say 100 as the start date, or even earlier if the 4 Esdras reference is discarded as too weak.)
  • For 2, I absolutely agree, but that's why I wrote "Seems". I guess you're arguing for a "circa"? But having both "seems" and "Circa" would be essentially repeating, and including only "circa" would be too subtle for some casual readers who might not catch the abbreviation.
  • For 3, I don't see anything POV here at all. If this means "seems" again, to be clear, the authors themselves acknowledge a range of possibilities. Text-source integrity requires communicating this uncertainty in text.
• These Ethiopic versions appear to have been translated from an Arabic version, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original. Who says this and why?
  • First off - I refactored this section during the FAC, and I think the ref to this got shuffled around. I've replaced it; Bauckham p. 162 covers it (as well as p.254, but that's just repeating it). I also threw in a ref to Müller 1991 (Which is a bit more acknowledging of the possibility of it not being accurate.)
  • As for who says it: Everyone, pretty much. Beck writes "if the Ethiopic text of the Apoc Pet was translated from Arabic, as many have suggested" (p. 161 of his thesis) and then cites 7 full sources. While it's not proven (no Arabic manuscript exists; Müller writes "That the Ethiopic translation could be very old, and made directly from the Greek, remains a possibility"), most scholars seem to accept it as the most likely, and it's not controversial to my knowledge. As to why: well most of the scholars don't go into this, just pass by as accepted knowledge. Since I haven't seen any scholars argue against it, I didn't go into detail, but used the weaker verb "Appears" to indicate it wasn't conclusively shown.
  • As for why: This is a frustrating question! Lots of scholars said this as already noted, but the references often go to just other scholars saying it too (and one to a very bum reference... the 2010 paper on Z'RL cites Bratke 1893, who was fruitlessly searching for an Arabic-Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter via mishmash of quotes before d'Abbadie was publicized, i.e. worthless). Well, from SnowFire, Buchholz talks about how essentially many works in Ethiopic came from Arabic translations, so it wouldn't be weird. And the Ezreal thing already mentioned in-article seems like it'd fit with coming from Arabic / Islam. But I'm not seeing a lot here. The best I can say is that C. D. G. Müller was specifically an Ethiopanist and linguist of languages of the region, not a scholar of religion who happened to be interested in an Ethiopic document, and if he thinks that the document was probably a translation from Arabic, I'm fine with deferring to him. (And he's a recent-ish source, writing in the 1980s.)

• • I think the sentence could be rephrased to avoid PoV language: "According to scholarly consensus/Most specialists think that/.... these Ethiopic versions were translated from Arabic rather than from the original Greek text."

• • • • Done, but I'm not a fan of this as a general principle. Most of the article is an attempt at describing scholarly consensus, and I don't want to imply other sections aren't - that should be the default on Wikipedia when not attributing a fact.
        • As a general principle I am not a fan of this either but if reliable sources verifies the statement we should inform our reader that they are reading a well established theory, not only the assumptions of one single scholar or an editor. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• The d'Abbadie manuscript is estimated to have been created ... By whom and why?
• ...the Lake Tana manuscript is from perhaps the 18th century According to whom?
  • These are both in the reference already given for the sentence. Buchholz cites Carlo Conti Rossini for dating the d'Abbadie manuscript (a 1912 article just ~2 years after Grebaut's publication), and Ernst Hammerschmidt for dating the Lake Tana manuscript (the same 1973 Hammerschmidt paper already mentioned in another reference, actually). I can add these details to the reference if desired but I figured that as an overview article rather than a book, these details are too much in the weeds. In general, the style I've gone for is to only cite people who are arguing for controversial positions, and state uncontroversial stuff as fact with "who said this" in the reference. (The dating of Akhmim was attributed in prose only because there are a wide range of estimates there, so those more specific estimates had to be attributed.)

• I do not want to read references to have basic info. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. That said, in side chatter, there's already quite a lot of "scholar X said this" in the article (and if you check the page history of the cited scholars, you'll see that I created the Wikipedia articles on them). So it's something I personally am interested in, but my impression is that general readers are only interested if there's actually a nerd fight to be had (e.g. Martha Himmelfarb criticizing the ghost of Albrecht Dietrich), not just simple attributions of who said something noncontroversial first.

• Mention that the Bodleian library is in Oxford. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Despite some pushback above, thanks for taking a look and doing a review! Happy to answer any questions or discuss the above further. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka: Made some changes (diff). SnowFire (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka: Ping again - any other feedback? I think I've answered most of the above, just tell me if I missed something. (And some sort of cautious approval with the disapproval of the "Context Considered Harmful" essay / style is fine too - if there's ever a wider consensus shift there, I'm sure the article will update as well to put back the word "scholar" in front of various people's names.) SnowFire (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I doubt that the word "scholar" is missing in front of various scholar's name. I would surely be more specific. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Borsoka, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay but I was uncertain. By now I concluded that I support the promotion of this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks now without a single support for promotion. I'm afraid it's at the risk of archival if there's no significant progress over the next three days or so. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod

• Pretty clearly there, after a good going over by others. Just a few nitpicks:
• Is there a convention that we don't italicize the titles of even apocryphal New Testament texts? New Testament apocrypha is a mess in this respect. Things like The Shepherd of Hermas should certainly have italics.
  • I'm mostly going off MOS:NEITHER which seems to recommend no italics as a Wikipedia convention. As for what the sources do, it's a mess - some italicize, some don't. In general, I think the Wikipedia standard is attempting to draw the line at "did people take this seriously as scripture" vs. works that might have had religious opinions, but nobody took as even an attempt to be "apostolic" (e.g. Dialogue with Trypho for a contemporary example). And if that is indeed the line, than ApocPeter and Shephard of Hermas both don't qualify, as they were indeed taken as scripture. (Even stuff like 1 Clement was in old copies of scriptures!) The expansion under "religious texts" says that "relatively obscure" religious texts can be italicized, but then also talks about books published in modern times - e.g. stuff like The Urantia Book. On balance, I think the current guideline suggests no italics, but happy to discuss a sharper standard on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works if desired?
    • I don't really agree with this, though clearly the area is messy. I think the style used at our articles should probably be followed, so The Shepherd of Hermas. Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Well, chose our poison, consistency within this article or consistency with other Wikipedia articles. I'd rather have what's within one article consistent and not italicize, it seems jarring - especially in areas like the lists of works when nobody was sure what later centuries would deem apocryphal and what wasn't yet (e.g. Eusebius does not know that Jude will become canonical but Barnabas won't, so he certainly isn't setting out such a distinction). That said, I have switched it over anyway, but I think it reads weirdly. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• "and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture" also sounds very odd to me. There are links for the appropriate "Greek culture", but a reword is also needed, or a cut.
  • On adding a link: Hmm, I'm not so sure! We aren't sure where this was written, so the kind of Greek culture would vary between Egypt, Judea, Christian Rome, etc. I'm open to suggestions - as mentioned to UC above, the idea was to hint to casual readers what "Hellenistic" means (since casuals read the lede but nothing else), but I give up for now and just cut it. Happy to hear any suggestions for alternative ways to sneak in what Hellenistic means.
    • Well, Hellenistic period is the obvious one, but repeats the H word. Maybe "and later Greek philosophy from the Hellenistic period"? Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Done, although I cut "later" as that might make it sound like the work was inspired by "later" philosophy in the sense of after the work's creation.
• the link from "extant" to Ancient literature seems pretty useless. "Surviving" is often a better word choice than "extant".
  • Removed link (I don't think I was the one who added it). And while I agree in general, I think "surviving" reads a little oddly here - it's used in the next paragraph but with "earliest surviving" which I think provides more context, so I think "extant" hopefully works. (But can still change it if you really feel strongly.)
• "After inquiring for signs of the Second Coming of Jesus" - is "inquiring" the right word here? Or explain who is inquiring.
  • Expanded to "the disciples." And yeah, they inquire ("And we asked him..."). My only worry is that now we're suddenly introducing the disciples in the lead when they barely matter (they appear as just background flavor as an entourage for Peter), but oh well.
• "and details both heavenly bliss for the righteous and infernal punishments for the damned" odding phrasing - participles needed and "sets out" or something.
  • Usual "I'm an American" comment goes here, but it sounds fine to me? I ran your comment past a person who once was a professional copyeditor I know and he wasn't sure what the complaint was either. "Details" is an unusual verb but not unheard of.
• ridiculous imo to object to the Divine Comedy being described as "famous", but whatever.
• Personally I'd put all or most of notes 2 & 3 into the main text. Maybe n. 4 too
  • Hmm. I'm tempted, but there is a reason I did it this way... for the somewhat-casual reader reading sequentially, the part they're interested in is "Contents". But as mentioned above, the manuscript history is unfortunately necessary to cover first, so that "Ethiopic vs. Akhmim vs. Rainer" debates make sense. As such, I've tried to have those sections be written tightly and concisely so that the general gist is acquired, and why I stuck the deeper scholarly debates in footnotes. It's extra tricky because the scholarly debates on the specifics of authorship require knowing something about the contents, which we haven't read yet if we're a hypothetical reader reading sequentially! If this was a book, it'd be something like "Intro -> Contents -> More about Authorship" but I don't think Wikipedia style is to have an "Authorship, part II" in analysis. As such, moving it into a footnote (I'm using the noisier, longer "Note 1" as well to signify this isn't just a citation) lets the content be in the article in the expected section, but without disrupting the flow. Well, that's my argument at least. Do you think that's good enough reason here, or would you still rather have more info moved out and into prose?
• link "risen Christ"? Also "Moses and Elijah", "Elysian field" at first mention, "Sibylline Oracles" at 2nd rather than 3rd mention, Clementine literature at 1st, Alexandria,
  • I was trying to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, but don't feel too strongly about it, so added the Risen Christ & Alexandria link. Moses and Elijah are already linked? Unless you meant them together, but that's just the Transfiguration which is also already linked. Elysian field is linked at first mention in the prose (rather than in the quote, since it's in both the quotes). Sibylline Oracles are linked at first mention in "Authorship and date". They aren't linked in "Prayers for those in hell", but I think you're referring to the link in the quote - but I don't think such links in a quote attribution "count" per usual standards on say image caption links not counting either. Clementine literature is linked at first appearance in "Manuscript history", then linked again in a separate section (in compliance with the updated WP:DUPLINK guidelines) in "Later influence" but again first appearance in that section.
• "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of apocalyptic literature in genre" reads a bit oddly - "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of the genre of apocalyptic literature" perhaps?
  • Those read identically to me, but I don't feel strongly, so sure, switched.
• "was on determining its predecessor influences" reads awkwardly imo
  • I'm not a huge fan of the existing phrasing myself, but it's a relevant point - a works "influences" can mean both forward & backward, and I want to specify it was specifically the earlier influences that this scholarship was interested in. But they can't be called "predecessors" directly as that's highly contested and probably not accurate, they're just influences. Open to suggestions, but I think the somewhat awkward "predecessor influences" is at least precise to what is being meant.
• "possibly a loose callback" - too slangy
  • It's an overloaded word that has other problems, but if you dislike callback, I've switched to "reference" instead. (But I'm somewhat worried about it being misread as the encyclopedia sense rather than the literary/traditional sense.)
• "with a high Christology" - is this a term often used? Perhaps needs explaining. I doubt the link will help much.
  • This one we're stuck with - it's an academic term, but it's definitely the one used. Both Beck ("The use of such titles in these chapters reveals a high Christology") and Buchholz ("These titles are evidence of a high christology") specifically use the term, so not much to do other than wikilink it for people to look it up. I think the context and the term itself gives a pretty good guess to what it means.
    • Ok Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• "is generally dated to the last quarter of the 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD)" slightly jarring maths failure here. Just use the dates?
  • It's historical guesstimate ranges in this case, was not intended to imply a precise 25-year period nor a precise 30-year period. That said, changed, went with "late 2nd century".
    • Ok Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• You are right not to be pressured to change your citation method.

Btw, if we can get this finished by Thursday it would be good, as then I'm away for 10 days. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• • @Johnbod: Thanks for the review! Made some changes (diff). (Sorry about the delay, got absolutely slammed at work yesterday.) SnowFire (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: Some more edits - diff. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Ok, thanks, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "It is the earliest-written extant document depicting a Christian version of heaven and hell in detail." This is clumsy and misleading. I thought at first it meant an original 2C document. Why not " It is the earliest detailed depiction of a Christian version of heaven and hell."
  • Including "extant" is important because at least some scholars think that there indeed might have been preceding versions (Himmelfarb) that have been lost to time.
  • It isn't misleading either, although I will grant that it is a somewhat complex situation (but that's the fault of the situation, not the sentence). All of our most ancient manuscripts of this period long postdate when they were originally written. That said, scholarship is usually more interested in the original date of writing of such works, not the date of the oldest surviving manuscript that happens to include them. Saying "earliest-written extant" is correct because it means that of extant works, it was authored the earliest (regardless of the 5th & 6th century fragments we have from later). Leading with this information is correct and offers due weight to what the sources are most interested in, the date of authorship. I've substituted "document" for "work" if this will make this interpretation less likely, although we have a close repetition of "work" now, so it's not ideal.
  • As for "clumsy", I don't see a significant difference between "depicting" and "depiction". It reads fine to me as is. Switching "in detail" to "detailed" can subtly change the sense, too... "in detail" is a sop that there are some brief depictions of hell elsewhere that are earlier (e.g. in the Revelation of John), but this work goes into detail (i.e. full chapters devoted to it). "Detailed" doesn't portray this as strongly; to me, something can be called "detailed" but only be one or two sentences long, if it's just evocative or the sentences are crowded.
• "The text is extant in two diverging versions". "diverging" is the wrong word. It means moving apart. Maybe "different"?
  • That's the intended word. If you read further, scholarly speculation is that there was an original ApocPeter (perhaps partially preserved in the Rainer / Bodleian fragments), and it diverged into different "editions" by editor, the Ethiopic version (which made some changes to the hypothesized original) and the Akhmim version (which made a lot of changes to the hypothesized original). So yes, the editions did indeed split and become further apart literarily.
• "The Apocalypse of Peter is a forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante". This does not seem fully supported in the main text. You say there that the Apocalypse of Peter influenced the Apocalypse of Paul, which influenced the Divine Comedy, but "forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante" implies a larger set of medieval works.
  • The body writes that ApocPeter is a "Christian katabasis, a genre of explicit depictions of the realms and fates of the dead", which the Divine Comedy is also. When the word "forerunner" is used, it's mostly as a sop that later journeys to the afterlife would make some significant revisions, but they're both still broadly a katabasis. It's including the full range of later katabases in that statement (e.g. ApocPaul), not just the ones of Dante's day. (Although, as a side note, even if a reader somehow did interpret it as about medieval katabases specifically, then it's still accurate - there were indeed medieval examples, albeit more obscure than Dante - the Legend of the Purgatory of St. Patrick for one. I agree the body doesn't go into detail on specifically medieval katabases, but that would seem off-topic.)
• "After reading the French translations, the English scholar M. R. James realized in 1910 that there was a strong correspondence with the Akhmim Greek Apocalypse of Peter, and that an Ethiopic version of the same work was within this cache." This needs clarification. What does a "strong correspondence" mean in this context? How could it have told him that there was a version of the Apocalypse in the cache?
  • It means that the passages were very similar, so similar as to suggest it was not a quote but a full translation of the same work. You can read James's 1910 article in the reference if you're interested in more - it's public domain / on Wikipedia library ( JSTOR link). He does a side-by-side of the Akhmim Greek with Grebaut's French translation. I don't think any clarification is required - this is just the normal meaning of correspondence, and James uses that word exactly (e.g. "Here begins the equivalent of the description of Hell which we possess in Greek. The opening words are corrupt in the Ethiopic, but the correspondence is unmistakeable.") James had previously argued in journal articles that he thought it was likely there were some fuller copies of the Apocalypse of Peter (which he'd already studied via patristic quotations & Akhmim), and here's a source that matches patristic quotations very well and Akhmim tolerably, so maybe we've found a translated version of the original Greek Apocalypse of Peter.
• "the Lake Tana manuscript is estimated by Ernst Hammerschmidt to be from perhaps the 18th century". "from perhaps" is clumsy and ambiguous. Does is mean around 18C or maybe 18C but maybe from a very different period?
  • It sounds ambiguous because it is ambiguous. I'm just reflecting the source here. Here's a fuller quote from Buchholz: "The manuscript is not dated, but its style of letter formation is quite different from that in T (the d'Abaddie manuscript). Hammerschmidt ventures to guess the eighteenth century but follows this with a question mark to indicate how uncertain is the date." Hammerschmidt himself isn't certain, so "perhaps" is required to accurately represent his position.
• More to follow. Done to end of Later influence. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look! Replies above. SnowFire (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion, your use of language is sometimes clumsy and confusing, but other editors obviously disagree, so I will discontinue this review and leave it to them. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• Apocalypse of Peter Akhmim Plate vii.png - PD
• Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg - CC BY SA
• File:Bodleian fragment Apocalypse of Peter MS. Gr. th. f. 4 (P).jpg - PD
• File:Eugène Delacroix - The Barque of Dante.jpg - PD
• File:Ethiopic Prologue Apocalypse of Peter.jpg - PD
• File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 1 and 4 color.png and File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 2 and 3 color.png - PD

All images are appropriate and captioned. They have alt-text and are formatted correclty. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review by IntentionallyDense

I will be doing the source review for this article. I usually do this by filling out a table as I go. I will ping the nominator when I'm done but anyone is welcome to make comments as I work. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Section	Status	Sources I couldn't access	Comments
Authorship and date	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Manuscript history	Done	Skipped the ones I couldn't access	I spotchecked this section and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Contents	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The Second Coming	Done	Your eyes will be opened : a study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter	I wasn't able to access the one source but otherwise everything was verified. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Punishments and rewards	Done	I just used the Bauckham 1998 ref and that verified everything	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Prayers for those in hell	Done	Spotchecked with sources I had	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Influences, genre, and related works	Done	none	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Predecessors	Not done
Contemporary work	Done	None	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Later influence	Not done
The punishments and lex talionis	Not done
Christology	Done	Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter	I was only able to verify about half the sentence because I couldn't access the other source but I'm going to assume in good faith that the other half is verified by the other source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Angels and demons	Not done
Literary merits	Done	"The Recovery of the Apocalypse of Peter".	Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Theology	Not done
Debate over canonicity	Not done

• I'm going to take a bit of a break with this source review till the IA is back online since quite a few of the sources appear to be accessible through the archive. If this is a problem or if the IA doesn't come back online in a timely manner I can continue to just download pdfs of the books but that is very time-consuming. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Seeing as archived books still are not back up I am going to go ahead and vote Support for the source review. While I didn't source review each section I found absolutely zero issues in any of the other sections which leads me to believe that I would not find issues if I continued to look. If anyone feels my vote is premature let me know but it is very rare that I don't find a single issue when doing source reviews. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Srnec

The following are suggestions after a quick read:

• Like Johnbod, I disagree with MOS:NEITHER and would prefer italics for the titles of works. I don't think extending a convention usually applied to the books of the bible beyond that is clarifying. (Obviously, this won't hold the article back.)
• From note 1: it is sometimes referred to as the "Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter". Does this mean that it is sometimes referred to as either the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the Ethiopica Apocalypse of Peter
  • It means exactly what's inside the quotes, parentheses included - so literally "Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter". I think it's weird too.
• The first line links apocalyptic literature, but shouldn't it be the more specific apocalypse?
  • It could really be either - I think the current distinction between those two articles isn't how I'd distinguish them and they both seem to be talking on the same topic at the moment. But sure, switched to apocalypse, although it's a bit of an easter egg link now.
• Congratulations on earliest-written extant work. Concise and clear. I'm baffled by the criticism above. Should "version" perhaps be "vision"? Or perhaps "account"?
  • "Account" works - seems mostly synonymous, I think any of version / vision / account are accurate.
• No link for Jewish apocalyptic literature, but we do have Jewish eschatology.
  • Noted, but not quite the link I'd prefer - ApocPeter is a bit on the "end times", but I wouldn't call it the major focus, while the eschatology article seems to have that be the main concern. It'd be another link to apocalypse or apocalyptic literature.
• [[Hellenistic philosophy|Greek philosophy]] of the [[Hellenistic period]] looks like it should just be a link to Hellenistic philosophy.
  • This one's changed around a lot in the above back-and-forths, and I would agree with the suggestion deeper into the article. However, it's the lead, the section that casual non-scholarly readers read, and I think it's important to include the word "Greek" somewhere here as a clue for a casual audience who won't recognize "Hellenistic" or know that Greece is "Hellas". I'm fine with other suggestions, but that's the reason for the current longer phrasing.
• by Peter through Christ. After the disciples inquire about signs of the Second Coming of Jesus I don't think we should switch betwen Christ and Jesus like this in the lead.
  • Was just trying to avoid close repetitions. Changed to spell it out as "risen Jesus Christ".
• a forerunner of the same genre Somewhat awkward to have a nameless genre.
  • Do you think it's worth repeating "katabasis" here? My assumption was that we should reduce the number of technical Greek words in the lede, as the scholarly name for the genre isn't really the important thing and readers probably know Dante more than they know katabases.
• No need to use the technical term terminus post quem and then avoid the corresponding terminus ante quem.
  • Wasn't avoided, just the sentence " All of this implies it must have been in existence by around 150 AD." was clear and sufficient already IMO. That said, went and added it.
• Where there are multiple footnotes, they are not always in numerical order.
  • This one I'll push back on. WP:CITEORDER specifically says that numerical order of references isn't important and there's no consensus that numeric order is even desirable.
    • I was unaware of this.
• Other scholars suggest Roman Egypt as a possible origin. Redundant to the first sentence in the paragraph. Consider incorporating some of the two long notes in this paragraph into the main text.
  • This section was adjusted some after some back-and-forth above where I put in a direct, substantive statement on the state of scholarly opinions of origin rather than implicit DUEWEIGHT. It is a bit repetitive as a result. I moved a sentence from each of the notes into the main to flesh things out a bit more.
• when the manuscript was compiled Should this not just say 'copied'?
  • Hard to say! IMO, "compiled" is more vague. At some point, someone made the modifications to the Akhmim ApocPeter, and maybe it was the scribe who created this manuscript, rendering it not exactly a simple "copy." I think being vague is a little better here.
    • To me, "compiled" means "put together", as in when the manuscript came to be bound. This could be long before a particular text was written in it if the text was added to a blank page. Or it could be long after a text was written, if the manuscript is a composite. So to me, the date of compilation is only relevant here if it is the same date as the "copying" of the text. Unless we are dealing with a manuscript that can be called an autograph, I think "copy" is correct.
      • I don't think either of those scenarios are very likely. As the article notes, the Apocalypse is right next to a fragment of the Gospel of Peter, implying the whole manuscript was created as a set, rather than pages being filled in later. I get the impression that for liturgical books, a practice of leaving blank pages to fill in later like a diary or a ledger would be rare. Even if something weird did happen - so what? I don't think very much is lost if it turns out that the papers were written in the 6th century, but they were bound into a new manuscript in the 8th century. The "written" part is the interesting one and what's being referred to from context.
      • As another example, take 2 Maccabees, which openly says it's an epitome of another work. It's not an autograph, but some passages seem to have been copied verbatim from the original, lost history. Yet calling it a "copy" of Jason of Cyrene's history would seem to be more misleading than helpful - the writer of 2 Maccabees was sometimes an author themselves, and sometimes an epitomist compressing other text. Even if we presume that people really into old manuscript creation would agree that there is a sense of "copy" that still applies to heavily modified documents, I think this is where writing for a general audience comes in. The casual reading of "copy" in 2024 for many will assume something a lot closer to "faithful reproduction, perhaps with occasional scribal error" like a copy machine. So why use a word that at least could be read as implying something else when we have a word that doesn't have that implication?
        • I agree that the "written" part is the interesting one, but "compiled" is not a word that implies writing.
          It's not an autograph So it's a copy and "copy" is the right word. Not a copy of Jason of Cyrene, but of 2 Maccabees! It is not works that are copies, but manuscripts.
          • I think we may have gotten side-tracked somewhere here. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm still not sure we're on the same page here. Let me throw the long reply on the word "compiled" and its definition and implications I wrote I had in the trash and offer this: I really, really don't want to use the word "copied" here as I don't think it's necessarily accurate, and might be misleading to casual readers even if it is accurate. And you clearly don't want to use the word "compiled". Is there any other word you'd accept? "Created"? "Written"? "Produced"? (I temporarily threw in "written" as copying is also writing, but am flexible.)
            • "Written" works.. Personally, I am rather zealous about distinguishing between works ('the Bible') and physical objects ('this Bible in my hand'). An alternate rewording acceptable to me would be There are a wide range of estimates for the date of the writing.
          • (Okay that's not quite accurate. The one part of the long reply I'm tossing I'll still include - in the case of 2 Maccabees, it's guaranteed the 1st/2nd century BCE author/epitomist was long dead by the time we have a 5th century CE Septuagint copy. In the case of the Akhmim manuscript, we simply do not know who wrote the combined [Gospel of Peter + Apoc Peter] or when, ergo it is at least possible that the Akhmim manuscript was in fact written by the creator/compiler/author, albeit one duplicating existing sources.)
• In the form of a Greek katabasis or nekyia I don't like asking the reader to pick a link. Also I'm a little confused. The work as described does not seem to me to fit either category. Specifically, both katabasis and nekyia seem to conflict with a discourse of Jesus to his faithful, unless Jesus is regarded as similar to a spirit in a nekyia.
  • It's less about Jesus and more about the vision / visit to the land of the dead - i.e. it's the people in heaven / hell who are the nekyia equivalents. As far as making a choice, Beck writes "The terms nekyia, katabasis/descent, and tour of hell all apply to different and, at times, overlapping texts that share common features." Maybe I should add that the genres are overlapping to clarify why we're mentioning two to the reference? Would that be enough? Just don't want to side-track too much.
• hypothesized by many scholars to be later additions In light of what has been said, this clause is redundant. Perhaps it should be stated explicitly in the Most scholars believe that the Ethiopic... paragraph if the Rainer and Bodleian texts are superior to the Ethiopic where they diverge.
  • I think talking about it above in the Manuscripts section with the "Most scholars believe that..." sentence would be a little premature. The Rainer & Bodleian fragments are pretty short, so the ability to compare them only comes up for a few passages, and we might as well discuss those passages in one place rather than flash-forward to it IMO. By discussing it in "Prayers for those in hell", there's context for why these fragments are considered a better fit.
  • As far as redundant, I agree that an attentive reader should be able to take a good guess that this is the case from context, but I don't think we've confirmed it or stated it outright. As in, hypothetically this sentence could have been followed up with "but while the manuscripts differ here, scholars think the Ethiopic is actually original and Akhmim removed these lines". Which would be surprising, but not strictly contradicted by anything above. So it isn't redundant to clarify that isn't the case and it's considered not in the original IMO.
    • I raised this issue because it forced me to go back and check what's what, since I clearly remembered the Ethiopic text be called superior yet here it was being trumped by a Greek text. I think we need to qualify the comment about the Ethiopic text where it is made, is what I'm saying. Not that we have to flesh out the details at that spot.
      • I think it already is qualified, though. The manuscripts section writes Ethiopic is "closer to the original text" - closer doesn't mean "perfect". That said, I've changed it to "usually closer", but think this is double-qualifying.
        • The point is that we have different witnesses of the Greek text that are not treated the same, yet the passage in question ignores one of the Greek texts, leaving its status unclear (until later).
          • I have added a further brief sentence on the matter in the Manuscript history section.
            • Excellent.

That brings me to the influences section. So far so good. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look! Replies in-line above. diff with some of the changes. SnowFire (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, is there more to come here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Concluding...

• You really like semicolons.
  • I saw you removed more in your copyedits. To be sure, I too argue for short, simple sentences myself (including above - e.g. I was arguing against some of the extra detail in expansions that have happened) and have split up over-long sentences in other articles, but these semicolons weren't just used randomly. There were a lot of "linked thoughts", and using separate sentences without a "continuing on..." connector can make it read abruptly or unclearly for why we're bringing something up. Neither version is strictly wrong but this comes down to stylistic preferences rather than mistakes, and I'd prefer to keep at least some of it as is. (For example, if we don't use a semicolon, then in the two fragments on the Matthew influence, it can read as a bare assertion followed by randomly talking about a Beatitude quote from Matthew. If we get rid of the semicolon, we'd need a new intro to the split sentence like "As evidence, blah blah Beatitude quote.")
• Personally, I do not like the mixed citation formats.
• I think In the form of a Greek katabasis or nekyia should be nixed where it is and dealt with under "Influences, genre, and related works", where katabasis is linked again. I still find the piling up of genre terms a little disconcerting.
  • While this is mostly discussed in the Genre section, I think this is relevant as a summary overview of "Contents" as well. If a novel is both a murder mystery and a spy thriller, I think it's fine to open with that in an overview of the plot as well as discuss it again if reviewers had more detailed opinions on genre. Or for more contemporary examples, articles on epistles in the New Testament will generally state that yes, they're an epistle when summarizing their contents. I don't really see why this is disconcerting, at least to most readers.
• emphasizes the strong Jewish roots of the Apocalypse of Peter as well I wonder if this is really an "as well" or an "on the other hand"
  • There's nothing contradictory about it deriving from both. Apparently some older scholarship did believe there was a sharp divide where a work was either one or the other, and never-the-twain shall they meet (and by older I mean like "19th century" level older, so applicable to Dietrich but not really others)... i.e. there was some sort of "pure" Judaism untouched by Greek beliefs out there. But the consensus is that this wasn't really true - all Judaism in the era was touched by various Hellenistic beliefs. (And interestingly, there are some who argue that Greeks were influenced by Judaism a bit, too.)
• cosmological interpretation as a prophecy of Jesus's entry into heaven I do not understand the word "cosmological" in this context
  • I can cut it if desired. It just means "metaphysical"/"spiritual" in this sense, i.e. that it's talking about heavenly gates rather than say Jerusalem's earthly gates.
    • Would cut.
      • Done.
• predecessor influences reads awkwardly to me, yet is used twice
  • Do you have another suggestion? The problem is "influences" unadorned could mean things that the author was influenced by, or later works that were influenced by it, so some sort of qualifier is necessary.
• I don't think the link at lost earlier writings is needed.
  • Removed.
• Why say eternal destruction and link to annihilationism? I would just say "annihilation". I think it's clearer.
  • Jost, the source, uses both "annihilation" and "eternal destruction" in his article, so I think both are fine. To me, "Annihilation" more strongly signifies the scientific meaning, i.e. matter colliding with antimatter, than a theological one. Meanwhile, "eternal" and "destruction" are both common words, so they seem clear enough to me and preferred.
    • It was not clear to me that "eternal destruction" meant annihilation until I saw the link. To me "eternal" implies ongoing, so eternal destruction could refer to the torments of Hell rather than their end.
      • Thanks for the feedback, but I'm hoping / assuming this is a style preference suggestion, not a problem. The two are synonyms. Annihilation isn't "wrong" of course but neither is eternal destruction. (Jost, the source, writes: [Exemplary for this stands the Apocalypse of Peter. This no longer speaks of "eternal destruction" but now explicitly of "eternal punishment"].) It is a valid phrasing. If you found it unclear but were cleared up by the wikilink, then it worked out? Some amount of this is to be expected, I have to click terminology links myself too even in topics I know a lot about. If we changed it the other way around, then someone else could say that they weren't sure what annihilation meant in a theological context and had to click the link to find out, and we'd have endless synonym-swaps. I don't think "eternal destruction" ("they will be destroyed, and the destruction will last forever") is any less clear than "annihilation".
        • Is "annihilation" clear-er?
• At footnote 65, is Beck the one refuting Adamik? Should be made clear.
  • Correct, Beck says this. Beck is approvingly citing Kraus & Nicklas. I expanded the footnote a tad.
• One change that the Apocalypse of Paul makes is describing personal judgments to bliss or torment that happen immediately after death, rather than the Apocalypse of Peter being a vision of a future destiny that will take place after the Second Coming of Jesus. I do no think this sentence is grammatical. One does not make "judgements to".
  • I am open to alternative suggestions, but do not agree that the current form isn't grammatical. "The court monitor described judicial sentences to parole or prison that happened immediately after the trial" reads fine to me. "Sentence" and "judgment" are synonymous enough here, so if "a sentence to prison" is grammatical, so is "a judgment to prison."
    • They are not comparable. And is suspect most uses of "sentence to" are verbal.
      • That ngram is conflating "sentence" as a verb with "sentence" as a noun (note the "a" in my examples). Change it to "a sentence to prison" and ngrams still pops up usage. Which suggests that this form is grammatically valid (a valid form should still be valid if we swap in some synonyms).
      • That said, I'm not tied to the current wording either. I've rephrased it to spell it out; take a look.
• The Apocalypse of Peter thus was the forerunner of these influential visions of the afterlife: Emiliano Fiori wrote that it contains the "embryonic forms" of the heaven and hell of the Apocalypse of Paul, and Jan Bremmer wrote that the Apocalypse of Paul was "the most important step in the direction that would find its apogee in Dante". As written, this sentence has a synth-y feel.
  • I guess, but it isn't actually SYNTH - Fiori writes "just as Dante's divine comedy" and Bremmer's article is titled "From the Apocalypse of Peter to the Apocalypse of Paul", so both Fiori and Bremmer agree that there's something to a Peter->Paul->Dante train and mention all three. The reason why two separate scholars are cited for each half is just to show this isn't a controversial connection and multiple scholars think there's a connection there, not to chain together some SYNTH.
  • (As a side note, this used to say "Directly or indirectly, the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife." as I feel that was an accurate summation of scholarly thoughts on the matter. UC's review above felt that this was too opinionated to state in Wikivoice, hence switching to two cited quotations instead, which also works IMO.)
• The article does not tell us where the chapter and verse numbers come from. Are the chapters original or at least Ethiopic?
  • The chapters and verses are not original, but are constructs of the modern era (same as the normal Bible, actually). Different scholars have used subtly different chapter & versifications of the Ethiopic ApocPeter as well, starting from Grebaut's base. As best I can tell, most later scholars (e.g. Bauckham, Beck) use Buchholz's 1988 versification, but I don't think anyone talks about this directly, not even to state "By the way these verses are not original", perhaps because it's considered obvious to scholars.
• while girls who do not maintain their virginity before marriage (implicitly also a violation of parental expectations) have their flesh torn apart. This is possibly an instance of mirror punishment or bodily correspondence, where the skin which sinned is itself punished. The text also specifies ten girls are punished – possibly a loose reference to the Parable of the Ten Virgins in the Gospel of Matthew, although not a very accurate one if so, as only five virgins are reprimanded in the parable, and for unrelated reasons. This passage raised more questions than answers for me. Why the shift from "flesh" to "skin"? Why imply inaccuracy in the text on the basis of a parallel drawn by scholars? What does specifies ten girls even mean?
  • On flesh vs. skin: it's just reducing close repetitions.
  • On ten girls: See conversation with UC above. Originally that said The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished with quotation marks to emphasize that the word "ten" is in the actual passage, but UC argued that this will be read as scare quotes even if they aren't scare quotes. I'm not a fan of the current phrasing either and would be happy to put back the quotes if you think that would help clarify the intent.
  • On inaccuracy: To back up a moment - busted references exist, e.g. someone trying to reference Shakespeare or Homer but messing it up and/or changing things. If an author has a notable novel where two characters named Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are sent on a mission to England, an analysis might write "This is a reference to Hamlet, although unlike Hamlet the two are given cushy government jobs and not executed in this story." Also, busted references happen all the time in classical literature from people trying to recall quotes from memory or just vaguely making allusions. So what's going on here is that scholars are puzzled at why the passage says "ten" when other sinners are generally unnumbered, and the best guess they have is that it's a bad reference to the Parable of the Ten Virgins since we think the author knew the Gospel of Matthew. But if I just write "it's a parallel to the Parable of the Ten Virgins" in the Wikipedia article with no further qualification, that will make it sound like an accurate reference, and it really isn't. So that's what the passage is trying to express. Given that, do you think the current wording works?
    • My problem is that we don't know if the author was trying to be accurate and messed up or if he was doing something else. I don't think an author "vaguely making allusions" intentionally can be accused of inaccuracy. I'm wondering if this passage is too much detail for the article to handle, but I leave it to your judgement.
• M. R. James is linked three times in the text. There are quite a few multiple links but I don't know what the standard is.

MOS:BTW says "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in file captions. But as a rule of thumb, link only the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

James is a central figure in all three of those references, so I would prefer to keep those links- he was truly the main English-language scholar of the work for its formative decades. I'm very much on the side of the reform to MOS:DUPLINK that allowed more repeat linking - especially on mobile, people can read whatever section they like first, and aren't guaranteed to read section-by-section in order or to scroll back up. I'd actually repeat link more if I was solely going off my own preferences. (But regardless, think this is within the letter of "once per section".)

• The last paragraph, Although these references..., is a little long.
  • Hmm, I think that might be an unlucky line-break making two paragraphs blend together? That's the second-to-last paragraph for me - should be a break before "One hypothesis..."
• It would be nice to replace the Ethiopic transcription with an actual photo of an Ethiopic manuscript.
  • I had similar thoughts myself a few months ago, and you can see I uploaded File:Ethiopien DAbbadie 51 131 recto.png in August. https://www.nasscal.com/manuscripta-apocryphorum/paris-bibliotheque-nationale-de-france-ethiopien-dabbadie-51/ says that ApocPeter starts on "131r" and you can see that the page is clearly marked with "131" in the upper right. However, I don't actually read Ethiopic and can't verify that the Apocalypse of Peter actually starts here. I looked for similar words by sheer shape-matching to what's in Buchholz and couldn't find it either. Whether I'm just really bad at the Ge'ez script, or there's some kind of prologue before it gets to the actual ApocPeter, I don't know, but I'm not comfortable with using it unless I'm sure it's actually right. (Side comment: This article before I took a look at it linked an image of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, i.e. completely the wrong document, back in 2021 [6] , and this incorrect image had spread to other language wikis. So there's something to the idea of "Don't use an original in a language you don't speak unless you're sure." )
    • I did this at Legend of Hilaria. I sought confirmation from the WikiProject Ethiopia, but to no avail. I think my reading of the Ge'ez is correct...
      • Yours looks fine, although that's a much clearer photograph. FWIW, I do suspect it's just the top left of 131r but that some of the characters were different and taken from the Tannasee 35 manuscript instead, which threw me off. But I'm even worse at reading the Tannasee 35 manuscript and can't find the start of the ApocPeter there either, even when told which page to look. Ugh.
• Please vet my copyedits and see some replies above.
  • Most of them looked fine - I put back two semicolons per above though. If you feel strongly, I'm happy to separate the sentences again but then would prefer to include a linking introduction per above.
    • Maxim of relevance. I think people understand that two consecutive sentences in a paragraph are linked. How 'bout them Yankees?
      • Grice is another set of things that work better in conversation than in textual form IMO! (I put one of your splits back.)
        • Not knowing whether you are a Yankees fan or watch baseball or are an American, I did not know if my Yankees joke would go over well considering a recent fifth inning...

That's a complete read-through. Srnec (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Srnec: Thanks for the latest batch of comments. I made some changes at diff. For some of your comments above, I'm flexible and happy to change things, but wasn't 100% sure if there was a change that would actually improve things - happy to discuss on any concrete proposals, as firing off a random rephrasing didn't seem like it'd necessarily help. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I noticed you restored original scholarship where I had "early". My reasoning was that there is really only going to be one particular work of scholarship that is the original one, all the rest are just "early".
    • Hmm, while I'd argue "early" is a relative time term that is a bit vague. I think this is too strict a reading of "original" (it's modifying an implicit era that covers the time after the Akhmim discovery) but don't feel deeply about this, so switched back to "early".
  • The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew but no other Other what? This is only clear if you know the gospels situation.
    • "Bob appears to be familiar with the Bondink of Carpaz but no other" means Bob knows no other Bondinks, even though I-the-reader don't know what Bondinks are and will have to click the wikilink to find out. That said since you feel strongly, I put the link to gospels back in even if it makes for a slightly less punchy line.
      • I think the difference is that "[foreign word] of [foreign word]" clearly indicates that "of" is a functional English word, but "[familiar English title of a well known work that happens to include 'of']" doesn't read the same. If I had written the article, I'd have thrown the MOS to the wind and italicized Gospel of Matthew, so perhaps I just read it differently.
  • While both the Apocalypse of Peter and the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation) are apocalypses in genre, the Revelation of Peter puts far more stress on the afterlife and divine rewards and punishments, while the Revelation of John focuses on a cosmic battle between good and evil. Odd switching from "Apocalypse" to "Revelation". Why? Srnec (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
    • I am trying to really drive home the point that {Apocalypse of John = "Revelation"} as most people don't know this. Calling it the "Revelation of John" here reinforces the parenthetical gloss earlier and clarifies it. It also more subtly lets us emphasize the alternate "Revelation of Peter" title when appropriate - in Greek, these two works have the same title, while due to linguistic happenstance they have different common names in English. I want to make it unlikely someone reads the article and thinks "Huh, the Apocalypse of Peter is kinda like the Apocalypse of John, which is some obscure work I haven't heard of before."
      • I think this is rather subtle...
• @Srnec: Thanks for the feedback. Some more edits here. SnowFire (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being promoted. Srnec (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.