Talk:Holy Lance

message: I had always thought that when it said that blood and water came from the wound in Christ's side, it meant that his blood and plasma had already started to separate (meaning he had been dead for a while.)  I don't know if that's true, but it's what I've always been taught.
::that's the truth. It was the standard proof of death 92.15.192.51 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood and water?

message: Note: Twentieth century speculations, fantasies and legends woven round this theme are separately treated at Spear of Destiny. Please discuss Nazis and the like at that entry.
-----
:The problem is not with the Nazis (this time). But with lance which is part of the Imperial Regalia. It doesn't look fitting that it is not even mentioned in this article. --Pjacobi 13:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: I merged Spear of Destiny here. (What a nightmare!) I tried me best to rewrite the history section to make it clearer but some of the stuff was confusing or contradictory.
I remove all sentences marked with  (with one exception):
* Artist Jeffrey Vallance created an artwork in which he made several duplicates of the Lance and distributed them around the world, intending to confuse the identity of the true Lance for future generations. 
*Scholars believe the lance in Etschmiadzin is not actually a Roman lance but the head of a Roman standard . 
:This [the Armenian lance] was never in any proper sense a lance, but rather the head of a standard, and it may conceivably (before its discovery under very questionable circumstances by the crusader have been venerated as the weapon with which certain Jews at Beirut struck a figure of Christ on the Cross; an outrage which was believed to have been followed by a miraculous discharge of blood.
*1424 Sigismund announced: "It is the Will of God that the Imperial Crown, Orb, Scepter, Crosses, Sword and Lance of the Holy Roman Empire must never leave the soil of the Fatherland."
*When the army of Napoleon approached Nuremberg in the spring of 1796, many were terrified that Napoleon would seize the Spear and rule the world with it.
*Though a number of historians cast doubt on Hitler's obsession with the Spear as it was reported by Trevor Ravenscroft et al, recent work by researcher and author Alec MacLellan has unearthed material from Ravenscroft's original source that seems to validate some of the stranger assertions.
*There are many prototypes and analogues of the spear in other legends, it can be compared to the ancient Irish weapon, the Spear Luin, and is similar to the Grail legend's "Bleeding Lance", which was eventually claimed to be the Spear of Destiny.
Two references are to a M. Mely, but I can't figure out who he is so I removed them:
*M. Mély published for the first time in 1904, an accurate design of the Roman relic of the lance head, and the fact that it has lost its point is as conspicuous as in other, often quite fantastic, delineations of the Vatican lance.
*Raynaldi, the Bollandists, and many other authorities believed that the lance found in 1098 afterwards fell into the hands of the Turks and was that sent by Bajazet to Pope Innocent, but from M. de Mely's investigations it seems probable that it is identical with the relic now jealously preserved at Etschmiadzin in Armenia
There was a wikilink for Nicetas but that leads to a disambiguation page and none of the people there are said to have lived in the 600's.
I hope this helped! Tocharianne 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the merge

message: I always thought it was a roman standardized military pilum that that longinus used, one would think that roman built weapons would have been more abundant in that time period and location, and the pilum article sugests it was used from well before christ to well after, so i think it would be good idea to picture a pilum in the article.
:I agree.  It always struck me as a bit absurd that the legend involves a lance, a weapon not commonly used until many years later.  Roman soldiers, such as Longinus is described as being, would not have been carrying a spear as we traditionally view them, but rather a pila, either a pilum major, or a pilum minor.  While it is certainly possible that a spear was used, it is much more likely that a pilum was used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.227 (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would probably depend on what sort of soldier was in the crucifixion detail - a legionary would likely be carrying a pilum but if they were auxilaries or locally entered troops then a spear is entirely possible. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The GF always calls that a "lancea" (the discovery of the Holy Lance is here, chapter 25). It calls every spear a "lancea", actually; I don't think "pilum" appears in the entire text. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original word was λόγχῃ which means lance or spear. The Vulgate uses lancea. So lance is a correct translation if not the only one. That doesn't necessarily get us closer to an exact description of the actual instrument used though. About that, we can only speculate, but it's not really relevant to the account. What is relevant, although John wouldn't have realised it, is that the blood and "water" (actually serum) confirms what the Romans already knew - Jesus was dead. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  pilum 

message: The section "Howard Buechner" contains the following statement: "Buechner was a retired Colonel with the U.S. Army who served in World War II, and had written a book about the Dachau massacre, which he had witnessed." The a WP article about the massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre#Buechner_controversy says that he was NOT an witness: "Buechner did not witness the alleged incident himself". The claim that he did witness the events needs to be sourced. On the other hand, the claim that he witnessed the events at Dachau can be removed without doing any damage to the article, I think. Hi There 07:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Howard Buechner And What He Did Or Did Not Witness

message: Wasn't it also mentioned in the movie Hellboy?
(Correct - It is mentioned by Bruttenholm whilst he is showing Myers around the complex.  It is also visible, but not actually mentioned, in the background in a display case.  A_man_alone (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellboy 

message: Further to the above, the Holy Spear certainly features in Wagner's Parsifal. However, Lucy Beckett in her Richard Wagner: Parsifal says that it is Wagner himself, while working on his plot outline in 1865, who identifies the spear(s) in Eschenbach's Parzival with the spear that wounded Christ. Beckett argues that in Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival the grail is a pagan object and that it was only later completions of Chretien de Troyes's Perceval where it becomes a Christian artefact. For this reason the bleeding spear in Parzival and the weapon which wounds Anfortas in that poem cannot be the Holy Spear.  (There is a continuity problem in Wolfram concerning the bleeding spear and Wagner is working on how to resolve this problem at the time he equates it with the Holy Spear.)
Wagner's use of the spear probably should be mentioned in the article.  No doubt (i.e I haven't a source) Hitler's interest the spear arose from his being a fan of the composer's operas.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percival/Parsifal and the  

message: The lance also figures in at least one of the King Arthur stories. This should be mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: King Arthur

message: I just think that there should be a section due to the media presentations of the artifact, Most notable being the game titled Spear of Destiny and the movie Constantine. --Clonehunter1 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Spear of Destiny video game, Hellboy, Constantine movie, DC Comics' WWII-era Justice Society...
Not to mention Neon Genesis EvangelionGojirob (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spear of Destiny in Pop Culture Section  

message: Given the articles about Peter Bartholomew and the Siege of Antioch in 1098, there should be some mention here.  There was a paragraph until this edit, but even if it is not mentioned under Echmiadzin lance, it should be somewhere in the article.--Rumping (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Bartholomew and the Siege of Antioch

message: Since the Longines section states ...making the spear's "correct" Latin name Lancea Longini, shouldn't that term be included in the lead's "also known as" list? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.k.a. list 

message: Is  intended to be the Holy Lance from Vienna (Charles is a Holy Roman Emperor from the Hapsburgs) in ?
If so, the Equestrian Portrait of Charles V should appear in the article because it is a depiction of the lance by Titian and it's included as a show of Charles in its imperial glory.
Error (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles V 

message: I've just made a pass through the article and feel comfortable removing the copy-edit template. Lots of citations are still needed, though. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing copy-edit template 

message: The current intro paragraph doesn't actually say anything about the Holy Lance as written. I don't know enough about the material to correct. As written it says:
  The Holy Lance (German: Heilige Lanze), also known as the Holy Spear, Spear of Destiny, often mistaken for the Lance of Longinus, and Spear of Longinus, which is the name given to the lance that pierced the side of Jesus as he hung on the cross, according to the Gospel of John. Many churches throughout the world claim to possess this lance, although none of the claims have been proven.
This talks more about what the Lance of Longinus is than the Holy Lance immediately after telling me that the Longinus is the one I don't care about. Maybe 2 sentences to avoid clause mistakes?66.87.113.132 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that is confusing. I have reworked the lede to hopefully make it clearer. I've also removed some spurious wording e.g. of course none of the claims have been proven; at this remove they are probably unprovable - that's why they're called claims. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph Unclear 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Holy Lance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081230030230/http://www.atlanticproductions.tv:80/recentbroadcast.html to http://www.atlanticproductions.tv/recentbroadcast.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was the Holy Lance of Antioch the inspiration for the Holy Hand Grenade? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good spot, please add it to the article.  2001:9E8:4608:D500:E95B:FC9:A6DB:31C8 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Hand Grenade Of Antioch 

message: Just noticed that Charlemagne's sword Joyeuse is said to have a pommel made from the Holy Lance in legend; worth mentioning? --ERAGON (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joyeuse 

message: The 'holy lance' of Echmiadzin is not even a lance, and is made of a pig iron unavailable until 1300 AD or later. It has no feasible claim of authenticity besides generic 'relic' status. The mere fact it is not a lance should eliminate it alone--besides the questionable provenance of the item--it appears to be a weapon known as a partisan that has had another partisan's head attached to it and has been hammered into the shape it is. That said, as someone who comes from a family of smiths, I can't help but also want to point out the hideousness of it's construction. It's definitely not a Roman pila or pilum. It is definitely not any kind of weapon that I have ever seen. But rather, it is a poor attempt at a relic that seems to have been cobbled together by a blacksmith with no skill in weapon making who had never even seen a bloody lance before. It was probably created to improve the churches standing and provide an attraction and created by a blacksmith more akin to shoeing horses and making nails from the looks of it. Agendabender (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Echmiadzin should be excluded. 

message: I question the validity of the removal of the entire "In popular culture" section by user Harizotoh9 on 26 June 2018. The stated reasons for the deletion are "trivia" and "recentism." Wikipedia's definition of recentism doesn't seem to apply in this case, and the categorization of this section as trivia seems opinionated. I propose the reinstatement of this section. The News Hound 04:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if with independent sources meeting WP:RS that make it clear that the material is significant. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale deletion of the "popular culture" section 

message: Article presently states
"The point of the lance was then enshrined with the crown of thorns in the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. During the French Revolution these relics were removed to the Bibliothèque Nationale but the point subsequently disappeared.[6]"
Cite [6] is The Catholic Encyclopedia. I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Catholic_Encyclopedia/BFA_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) and none of the search terms I used ("Chapelle", "Bibliotheque", "Lance", "Longinus") returned any corroborating information. 
GiantPineapple (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No evidence that a piece of the lance disappeared from Bibliotheque Nationale 

message: Since I see the "in popular culture" section has been removed, I should probably lay out my goals for how to address that stuff, particularly in relation to the "Spear of Destiny".
My intent, after working on this article, is to expand the The Spear of Destiny (Ravenscroft) article to summarize all the misconceptions and nonsense introduced by Caulfield and/or Ravenscroft.  (For example, I can't find any reference to anyone calling the lance "the spear of destiny" before Caulfield in 1960, which surprised me when I first began this research.)  Readers should be able to use the two articles to determine which stories about the Holy Lance are based on traditions and history, and which things were made up in the 60s and 70s.
I think the Spear of Destiny stuff is notable, insofar as it changed/warped the public perception of the Holy Lance. So this article should (briefly) acknowledge the cultural impact of Caulfield and Ravenscroft's inventions, and then point readers to the Spear article.  It's the Spear article, not this one, should describe the various Spear of Destiny references in films, comics, video games, etc.  When Indiana Jones tries to stop the Nazis from getting a spearhead wrapped in gold, it's not particularly relevant to the Holy Lance(s) described here, but it's a testament to the lasting influence of Ravenscroft's book.
If there are any concerns about this approach, I'd appreciate the feedback.
--Jim Into Mystery (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Spear of Destiny and popular culture