Talk:Saint Peter

Why not mention Peter was married?

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

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

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

Dubious claim

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

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

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

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

Can someone revert vandalism

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

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

Which you know from what source?

Page number

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

Saint Peter

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

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

Changing lead image

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

Image A

Image B

For Image B:

1. Neutrality (Image A is an intrinstically Roman Catholic (RC) image, as it was made in the 17th century by a RC painter depicting St Peter in (most likely) anachronistic RC vestments and holding the keys of Heaven; while Image B was made in the early 6th century in the Byzantine style, when both the RC and Eastern Orthodox (EO) Church were one; in other words, it is acceptable to more people than Image A, refer to the Jesus article's lead image and its discussion)
2. Already used by other language Wikipedias (Currently, Image B and its variants are used as the lead image on 8 language WP articles for St Peter himself, used elsewhere in ~6 Peter articles as well as the lead image on Serbo-Croatian "Peter (name)" and various language WP articles on encaustic painting and Image B itself. This means it has already been considered as a suitable (lead) image by various editors of different backgrounds)
3. Notability (Image B has its own Wikipedia article in 4 languages (albeit not yet in English, refer to Image B), while Image A does not have its own WP article anywhere (verified by looking at its global usage on Wikimedia Commons)
4. Age (Not much of an argument, but as previously said, Image B is over 1000 years older than Image A)

Image B1

Image B2

Image B3

Image B4

Against Image A:

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

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

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

B2 is better, as it automatically loads as a lower resolution image when opening the article. I happen to have this icon hanging in my home, so I am a fan of it over the painting. From an encyclopedic standpoint, it's really no better or worse than the other options. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough; I wasn't aware WP autoloads it at a lower resolution, so besides that (and that I cropped Image B2 similarly to Image B3, to create Image B4; the current new lead image), I, nor I hope anyone else, should have any issue with the new lead image. Cheers! 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 16:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a significant color difference between Image B and Image B3. Image B is clearer and has higher contrast. I recommend using a cropped version of Image B. EXANXC (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Changed my mind. It looks like Image B3 is better because it has a higher resolution than Image B. EXANXC (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• The reasons given in the nom are pretty poor, except for B being much earlier, and it is also much closer to the very consistent "look" of Peter from the earliest images of him, in both East and West. I'll leave which version of B to others. I certainly don't accept that Catholic or Orthodox images are not acceptable or non-neutral. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Image C

• Image A is one of a set of Twelve Apostles by Rubens which are used as the lead images for all eleven other articles. That said, I've never thought the painting of Saint Peter was a very appropriate choice as a lead image for his article, because it isn't a typical example of his iconography. A more typical depiction (particularly in the colours of the drapery) is Image C, which has previously been a lead image of this article.
  I've noticed a tendency in earlier discussions like this to prefer older images, which has resulted in the current lead images at Jesus (another icon from Saint Catherine's Monastery) and Mary, mother of Jesus (an icon of about the same age). I think those choices are for the best, on the whole, but I'm dubious of any suggestion that older means more authentic; all three icons are from about 500 years after their subjects' lives. In my opinion a typical representation that allows one to identify other artistic depictions of the person is far more important than any attempt at a historically accurate image. For that reason my first preference is Image C, where Peter's main attributes, the keys of Heaven, are shown very clearly. (They're in Image B, too.)
  I see that a crop of B2 has now been used, which I've added above as B4. That would be my second preference, for the same reasons that the icons have been used at Jesus and Mary, mother of Jesus, but I think the colours should be lightened if that one is used. Ham II (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for adding Image B4 for future reference. I was planning to do so but you beat me to it!

Regarding me bringing up the age, its related to my point on notability. Obviously, it isn't a contemporary likeness of Saint Peter, but regardless it still depicts Peter with his notable attributes (silver hair, connected beard, keys of heaven and halo), perhaps not as clearly as Image C but still visible.

Another thing is that Image C shows facing to the right, which doesn't seem ideal as a lead image, when there are better alternatives in this regard (Image B shows Peter looking towards the viewer, Image A still shows his body facing somewhat to the viewer)

Regarding the Rubens' paintings used on all the Apostles' lead images, it's a neat thing, I must admit although it simultaneously doesn't bring about much diversity in artwork. Perhaps this collage of only Rubens' paintings would work well in a table (like this one), but not as a hidden "easter egg" collage only someone paying attention notices by hovering above the wikilinks of the Apostles.

Lastly, the colours can absolutely be improved in Image B4, although I do not have the knowledge to do so while simultaneously keeping the very high resolution. Perhaps someone experienced in photo editing can do so.

Cheers! 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'd also be happy going back to C, perhaps cropped shorter. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)