Talk:Martyrdom of Pionius

so far

So far I have looked at five books and read till my eyes crossed. Mostly they have been literary discussions: autobiograpy--before there was such a thing as autobiography, where this fits in the development of early Christian literature and culture and Foucalt of all things, Polycarp, the cult of the saints and early relic adoration, and it's hard to see what might be relevant. Opinions?Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think, with such a small baby of an article, the best approach is just to assume that everything (that specifically mentions Pionius) is relevant, and then, later, if the article gets to unweildy, we could cut the least relevant things out. So I'd say, just add anything you think will add to the article. Because we can know so little for sure about Pionius, I think the way that this fits into the development of early Christian literature, anything by Foucalt, probably anything like that would be relevant. Alephb (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I did what you said! Edit the result as you wish. Oh--I left out Foucalt--it was too far down a side road with a dead end in my mind.  :-) But do as you please about that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

When?

If you know when this was written down, it would be a good addition to the first sentence, "is a 3:rd century(?) account". Also, wikipedians sometimes object to "account" in this context (while "narrative" is mostly if sometimes grudgingly accepted), I was thinking "hagiography" but that may be wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with account, narrative, hagiography, whatever. All of them seem appropriate to me, but if cutting out the word "account" could save us later trouble, go for. Knock yourself out, as we Americans say. I don't know when it was written down, except that it had to be after 250, because that's about when the events described occur. It would also have had to have been written before before 325, I think, because Eusebius, if I remember right, relied on it. I don't know of a source for that information off the top of my head, though. Alephb (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered merging this with Pionius? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, p504 of Ehrmans Forgery and Counter-forgery says probably around ca 300 CE[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to merger, there's probably an argument for it. It's hard to say, though. I suppose, as a technicality, I could argue that Pionius is about the person, while Martyrdom of Pionius is about a particular literary work about the person. I have a lot of trouble knowing what the real scope of the Pionius article is, because as far as I can tell only one sentence in the entire Pionius article has any kind of specific citation. So I'm not sure whether the Pionius article actually has anything well-sourced enough to make a merger feasible. Even the one footnote that names a source doesn't seem to directly support the sentence it is attached to, and I don't even understand exactly what the footnote is saying. So if I were to try to merge them, I'd be very tempted to start by deleting practically every sentence in the Pionius article, leaving us with nothing to merge. Alephb (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If we did at some point have a well-sourced Pionius article, I think there'd be a very strong argument for taking everything from Martyrdom of Pionius and just making it one section of the Pionius article. Alephb (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe Pionius should be redirected to this article since his life is only known by the Martyrdom of Pionius. All the references at Pionius are referring to this text as well. Plus, the Pionius article has some minor copyright violations. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected Pionius to this article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"birthday" of Polycarp

The meaning of the quotes (scarequotes?) is unclear to me. Is it something else than birthday or does the text actually say birthday? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, is there an english translation of the text that can be used as a WP:EL? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I put "birthday" in quotes because the source put it in quotes. My guess is that the implication is that we are speaking not really of Polycarp's birthday in the modern sense, but of the anniversary or his martyrdom. I do not have a source to back up that instinct of mine, though, so I just went ahead and duplicated what I saw in the source. Alephb (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

PS. I've dug just a little more and found Lightfoot using the quoted phrase "true birthday of Polycarp," which, though also vague, reinforces the sense that this is not a birthday in the usual sense that we're talking about here: [2]. Alephb (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

PPS. I still haven't found an English translation, but I'd like to. Alephb (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it the account itself that says "true birthday of Polycarp"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I assume so, but I do not know so. Alephb (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The term birthday refers to the day of his death as his spiritual birth into the next life. I found three different English translations of the full text. [[3]] , Eusebius--the Church History: A New Translation with Commentary by Paul L. Maier, isbn # 0-8254-3328-2, but the best one is by McGiffert--done in 1890, reprinted recently as "historically significant" here: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in praise of Constantine [[4]] and here [[5]] as History of the Church by Charles Augustus Goodrich Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I forgot! This also contains a translation--it's a little stilted. Mauricio Saavedra Monroy", The Church of Smyrna: History and Theology of a Primitive Christian Community, isbn=978-3-631-66235-9, I used pages=154,the footnote there, and pages 155,157-160 Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You have beat me at Googling. That is very helpful. Alephb (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent Work!

I hadn't looked at this article in a bit (due to being busy with several other things), but it is much improved. Alephb (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Aww--really? Thank you. I am scrounging up a few more details here and there--may add a little more. It actually turned out to be really interesting--and not being a classics scholar or an ancient historian I freely admit that I had never heard of Pionius before. It was enlightening. Thank you for inviting me to participate. Maybe we can do another one when this is done? Or--when we are done with it anyway... I am learning Wiki-talk...it's an unusual mode of speech found only in an isolated primitive online community...Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jenhawk, that made me smile! But, you (?) have written "Monroy includes" and I´m about to go berserk and smash my computer about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I had never heard about Pionius before either. Literally everything I know about him I've learned working on this article. A user called User:JudeccaXIII sent me a list of things he suggested I might like to write, and here and there I've written a couple. My list of obscure articles to write grows faster than my list of articles I've written, so I could absolutely use whatever level of help people will offer.

When you think about Wikipedia, think about the conflicts book authors have with editors. And yet, regular authors know that the editing process will eventually be done. Wikipedians, however, cannot look forward to that, ever. Their work will be forever subject to change. And not by professional editors who do this kind of thing for a living. By literally any random person on the internet who feels like it. This is why we are such a vicious and grumpy tribe. Alephb (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs--no computer smashing! If you do that everytime I err you will be taking out loans to cover the cost of working with me! We cannot have that! Did that make you crazy because it doesn't say what it's included with? It was the wording of the source--but I should have caught that too. I have now altered includes to concludes--is that acceptable or is your computer still in danger? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Nonono, it was the Monroy, remember Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_199#People_we_quote_and_paraphrase? And I restrained myself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh my gosh--looking at this I realized I quote him four times without ever explaining who he is! It must have been in the stuff I removed! I will fix it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it better? I am deeply concerned for your computer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Don´t worry about. To be clear, I think SMcCandlish makes a good point that while there should be a description, it should if possible be short and relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not exactly what I would call short... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, "Mauricio Saavedra Monroy, Augustinian priest, theologian, and instructor in Patristics at the Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum of Rome and Saint Augustine Cervantina University of Bogota" could use a trimming. "Priest and theologian", perhaps? Lagom is best, as we say in Sweden. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I will make it so. What's Lagom? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It was wikilinked and everything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

include this?

One of the odd little things about this literary work--that is not a history--is that it is supposedly written by Pionius himself, which since it speaks in the third person throughout up to the end and then includes aspects after Pionius' death, would be a little tricky even for those of us who believe in life after death. We don't believe in composition after death--get it? De-composition? Okay fine I can hear the groaning from here. Anyway, should a discussion of authorship be included? Pseudepigrapha and attribution and what that means and all that crap?Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn´t it the same with biblical texts traditionally attributed to Moses, that includes his death and burial? Perhaps it´s a Manual of Style ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, what is a "disencounter"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A disencounter is what happens when an unhappily married couple spends less and less time together, until they're basically strangers. Alephb (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A disencounter is what happens every time I encounter Jytdog... :-) or maybe that's something else... Yes, there is argument over the authorship of the Pentateuch. Part of that is an aspect of the arguments over dating it and that may be about to be overturned by that Canadian--Petrovich--that's it--I am so terrible with names but I am sure that's right. Petrovich has translated stele no one else could by using Hebrew thereby showing Hebrew is older than anyone previously believed. It's going to overturn a lot in the next generation--but science--and religion--are very slow to accept "You've been wrong". Chances are they will still say the Pentateuch wasn't literally written by Moses himself--that's my opinion. But it was not uncommon for students of a famous master to continue to record his teachings after he was gone and attribute them to their source--which is why there are disputes about some of the letters of Paul also. They did not view authorship like we do since they did not view written sources like we do--the verbal instruction was what mattered and where they got it. That is pseudepigrapha in the Bible--but that probably does not apply here, so I am unsure what to do with it. Simply mention that it claims one but demonstrates the other? Is that sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This [6] Petrovich? Interesting! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes! That's the one--isn't it fascinating! They will tear him to shreds for awhile I'm sure--like they did Einstein at first--and who knows if it will be born out, but in looking at the pictures--it seems obvious! Totally believable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So what's the vote on discussing authorship? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

While Petrovich is totally believable to lots of people who can't read Hebrew and can't read hieroglyphs, there's a series of complications that have resulted in him continuing to be viewed as silly by scholars. I would request that any further discussion of Petrovich -- if anyone wants to -- happen on people's individual talk pages (feel free to use mine or your own if you like), because Petrovich tends to be a repeated "problem area" for Wikipedia editors. There have been whole multi-month conflicts involving Petrovich here before. Alephb (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is just a casual conversation Mom, no one's getting bent out of shape over it because we don't know squat-- maybe he's a crackpot, how should I know? And neither of us care that much I assure you. Just a fun sideways chat. Now I am singing, "make it so, make it so, make it so..." No more chatting. Only serious work. Aye aye Captain. Anyway--what about the original question I asked many lines ago? Authorship or no authorship? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough. I'm not really qualified to evaluate Petrovich myself. It's just that, more than once, I've seen the name come up immediately before a talk page goes straight to hell for a while. We are on a talk page somewhat less likely to lead to a struggle session, but I just get nervous when that name comes up. Oh, if there's reliable sources that discuss authorship, I'd say go for it. Alephb (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's so lovely to work with someone who has a sense of humor and does not have an inflated sense of themselves. You are easy to accommodate--no going to Hell for us, okay? Did Graebergs send you that video of Jean Luc Picard--my main man--singing at Christmas--get him to--you will get a kick out of it--and my reference. Understand being irreverent toward Jean Luc was a strain for me... Okay, yes on the authorship issue, and one more question on the sociology section. I have been struggling with how much discussion on persecution itself to include--at first I had some, but it seemed inadequate and misleading because I explained it piece-meal then when I did try to explain it better, I turned around and deleted it all because it seemed off topic--this is Pionius--period. Is that a good conclusion--leave it out-- or should I put some back? Rodney Stark has an absolutely fascinating discussion based on using economic terms as analogy for early Christianity's rise and it explains persecution really thoroughly. How far afield should sociology go? Is persecution in general too far? I think maybe yes. A lot of what's in the sociology section of the Bible and violence doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual topic to me--and I don't think it adds to the quality of the article-- so I am trying to learn what's copacetic here, and specifically what your vision for this article includes--if you are not seeing cross-eyed instead by now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw the video. To be honest, I don't usually go at an article with a "vision" for it. I usually just find random facts here and there and try to turn them into an article. You two have done much more with the article than my impatient brain would have managed. I probably would have moved on completely to other things, leaving a couple-paragraph stub in place. It's hard to say exactly how much of something that is arguably on topic to put in an article. On the one hand, context is good -- it's great if the article can understand how Pionius fits into Christianity, into ancient history, into the sociology of religion. On the other hand, it is possible to go further afield. I really don't know exactly how far to go. If I saw a particular slice of text you were thinking about adding I might have a clearer opinion, but exact degree of on-topicness is more an art than a science. Alephb (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Saint?

This[7] is probably not a source we should use, but should we note that he is (at least) a catholic saint? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good point, I agree--also, a question--all the sources I used capitalized the D in De St.Croix and you have changed it to de St.Croix--do you just know that's how he wrote it or do you have a source or what? We should at least be sure we get his name right!Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I copypasted the title of his WP-article, have not checked sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

My instinct is "de" for a Nobiliary particle, The Guardian agrees:[8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I accept your instincts as infallible then obviously. Screw those other sources!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my confidence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

:-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Guys, I apologize. I have looked everywhere I can think of to look and while I can find Pionius listed --with his story repeatedly--on list after list of Saints, nowhere can I find what the date of this was or which Pope officially named a saint. Can you be a saint without officially being named one? I don't think I can include this if I can't find accurate info on it. Can either of you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. The dubious-but-quite-possibly-correct Pionius page above links to something they call pre-congregation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also Canonization#Procedure_prior_to_reservation_to_the_Apostolic_See and Congregation_for_the_Causes_of_Saints#Pre-Congregation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "In christian literature, he is (often) referred to as "St Pionius"." [9]

Well no date being available would be why I can't find one! Is it okay do you think to use that reference? I never found anything that said anything approaching an explanation like that anywhere I was looking--Googlebooks, etc. --so can you use a poor quality source when that's all that's available? And since you found it would you do it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you just need a source that says he is an official saint in Eastern Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism I think this Oxford University Press source should work: [10]. He has both eastern (Orthodox) and western (Catholic) feast days, so we could say something like, "The feast day of Saint Pionius is kept on March 11 in Eastern Orthodox churches, and on February 1 in the West." I think having a feast day is good enough for making it clear that both branches consider him a saint. Also, if there's any more need for one more opinion in the historicity page, the source I just linked to flatly says the Martyrdom of Pionius is reliable. Alephb (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! Please put that in! Also, I found something usable I think--if needed--although it doesn't sound like we do now. Rituale Armenorum: Being the Administration of the Sacraments and the ... edited by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare says Pionius was listed in the "Syriac Breviary" which written in the fourth century, so he was already a saint by then. His name is on the calendar translated on page 529 as having a feast day on March 12. Perhaps the Catholic reference could be used as explanation if needed to back it up? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Splendid. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Whoever Cited Arik Greenberg

Is any part of this sentence a direct quote? (If so, I'd like to get some quote marks in there.)

L. Arik Greenberg says there is an underlying thematic unity between the Hellenistic Noble Death tradition...and Christian martyrological texts by drawing upon the Philosopher's Death paradigm.

And if not, why the ellipses? Alephb (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine, rub it in--ellipses unintentional, quotes intended, one of the results of writing in my sleep... fixing now! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you want references criticized, here's another bit: Mauricio Saavedra Monroy, Augustinian priest, theologian, and instructor in Patristics says "the Martyrdom of Pionius records the "progressive disencounter (the ongoing process of separation) between the Jews of the day and the Christian minority." "Much recent work has focused on the identities of Christians and Jews and their fashioning through mutual interaction" which was so often hostile. Where do the quotes stop and start. Are they all from the same page? Is the "ongoing process of separation" explanation from the original source, or is it a Wikipedia note to explain? Alephb (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay that's such a mess it's just funny! The parenthetical comment was an add in for you since you said you weren't familiar with the phrase--I figured if you weren't most people wouldn't be--can I not do that on Wiki? Do I need to use brackets instead? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

My guess is brackets, but I don't know if it's policy. It's just what I see The Community doing. Alephb (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, part of the problem there was two quotes in a row from different people--moved one to the front of the paragraph--that should make it clearer. I will go change the parentheses to brackets indicating an insert. Thank you. It crossed my mind but I should have checked it before just picking one. If I am going to write and correct later I am thinking I should start using my sand box more! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Eh, it's just little stuff. If you feel more comfortable in the sandbox, fine. But most Wikipedians make mistakes like that all the time. There's also the "preview" function if you want to look at what the edit looks like before making it. Alephb (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Two outstanding questions still remain for me. The two back-to-back Monroy quotes -- are they from the same page? And does Monroy put "progressive disencounter" in quotes? Alephb (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Whoever Cited Bart Ehrman in the Intro

I'm guessing that the 300 AD citation is to page 504, but in my country I can't seem to access that page of the preview. Is that correct? If so, I'll add the page number in. Alephb (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

504 is correct sir, the exact phrase is "Probably written sometime around 300 CE". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)