Talk:First Epistle of Peter

From Theopedia

Great post. I found this page which has some quotes from theologians that might be helpful and worth adding. -Aaronshaf 11:18, 4 Dec 2004 (EST)

We probably should make a seperate page for the authorship of 1 Peter (and other books, as the content enlarges). Also, I suggest the following order of content:

1. (Simple and straightforward) argments for traditional authorship
2. Arguments for non-traditional authorship
3. Rejoinders by those who support traditional authorship.

Even though this may cause some redundancy, I think this would be best given that most folks won't read but a paragraph or two on a web page before zinging somewhere else. It's tough to cater to the two crowds (perusing laymen and those willing to do more research), but we'll educate folks more that way. Grace and peace! -Aaronshaf 13:04, 4 Dec 2004 (EST)

I like the organizational structure that you've chosen. Nice and straight forward. At what point should we move the information to a new page? 5 paragraphs? I think that the information regarding authorship that we have now could stay on the same page, but if we add much more it'll need moved to a new page.

When we move the info to a new page (from this article, or other articles), I think we should leave a paragraph that sums up each of the opinions very simply and then link to the seperate article after that paragraph. I've seen similar things on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Cpark 15:32, 4 Dec 2004 (EST)

I second that thought. A summary is helpful. -Aaronshaf 23:45, 4 Dec 2004 (EST)

Using quotes

Quick thought: Don't you think quotes from respectable folks would help the credibility of Theopedia's content? What do you guys think. I'm thinking that... the more sources cited, the better. -Aaronshaf 23:51, 4 Dec 2004 (EST)

Seeing as you left most of the quotes on there... I should rather ask... why didn't you think that particular quote was good for keeping? -Aaronshaf 23:54, 4 Dec 2004 (EST)

I agree that quotes add credibility. Generally speaking the more sources that we cite, the more accurate we can be, or view ourselves as being. Consensus among scholarship is excellent. I removed the block quote for two reasons...1)I summarized it so there are no need for it. In addition the quote would have been larger than the actual section, which is a no-no (there are obviously other sections in this article that have quotes bigger than our own text, which perhaps we need to think through and work on). 2) We already had a quote or two from that person in the article. So, I thought it was less needed. Perhaps we should look for various quotes...of smaller size (a sentence or two) to include throughout the article.

Also, on a similar issue...how do we want to cite things? Should we simply footnote things? Or should we use a name citation, ie..."Blah...blah...blah" (Smith) and then simply include the information for whatever work by Smith at the bottom of the page? I did that in point 4 under rejoinders. Or cite things the way you have, with book title and page number(s)? Cpark 14:20, 5 Dec 2004 (EST)