Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife

message: While I'm inclined to agree, "seemingly cannonical" is a bit snide, isn't it? --cpritchett42 02:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that just seemed to stick out at me there.   I totally agree though, its wholesale acceptance as being taken directly from the bible is an interesting look at what people will incorporate into their lives with the right amount of fanfare. I also find it interesting that Anne Catherine Emmerich was beatified the same year that the movie was released, but that may be purely coincidence.  I'm not very familiar with the canonization process, but I assume she was on the list "in queue" to be beatified long before. --cpritchett42 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older Comments

message: Francis, I'm with you on the sentence about the marriage/missionary thing - at least until I see something sourced on it, and Ihave taken it out.  It is much easier to deal with a thing at a time, rather than a wholesale reversion.  Any other specific questionable assertions we can get out of the way?  Because I really am with you on wanting this to be what we can source, and think we probably see things pretty similarly, and just have differing editing styles.  (btw, I added a sentence in the lead about the historicity of her life - making clear that we are largely talking about later Christian legend.  I am in no way attached to that particular wording, but feel something to that effect should be stated.) Pastordavid (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comments above again, you missed every point I made, replaced them by points I didn't make and replied to these. And then you didn't even read the argumentation I gave. What you're doing is called straw man argumentation. Note that the one showing disrespect for contributions by others is you. In your massive reverts you continue to delete over and again things I put in the article years and months ago and that were stable since, until you came along. I don't think I have to take lessons there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis: Please remember that you do not own articles on Wikipedia and that all users are free to edit articles and to add information that may have been lacking. Furthermore, you should always assume good faith with regard to other editors and their contributions to the articles -- making insulting comments is not conducive to proper scholarship. If you want to publish your own articles on Pilate's wife without the interference of other writers, then please feel free to start your own blog. But please (and this is not the first time it is being requested) -- show respect for other people who are contributing to the Wikipedia article (not the Francis Schonken article) on Pilate's wife. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've about had it with your false accusations. Please explain why you show disrespect for my contributions. If you can't do that, concentrate on content (and references of course) of the article you want to improve. Your rants have quickly become a nuisance, and are not successful in improving the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Francis, you have been repeatedly asked to show civility in this discussion.  I am more than willing to work with you (not against you), but I will not tolerate having you describe my writing as "bloat," my conversation as "rants" and my participation as a "nuisance."  There is no place here for rudeness.  Please show respect when communicating with your peers. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Relics of Repentance," in the introduction to its American text from Issana Press, cites what has been deleted from this article: "Historical references suggest that Claudia was the granddaughter of Augustus Caesar and the illegitimate daughter of Julia, Augustus' only natural offspring."  Thus, that information will be back in the article when the page protection is lifted -- with this as a reference. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really rather this information not be readded. A religious tract is not a reliable historical reference, and despite the claims it makes, there is in fact zero historical evidence that the wife of Pilate was in any way related to the Emperor Augustus. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: PS  This link to Augustus is also cited in Antoinette May's novel: [].  Yes, I know it is NOT a historical reference, but the point is this aspect of the story is going to keep popping up.  I cannot see how it can be ignored - there has to be some sort of balanced compromise. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable

message: Okay, as part of the consensus building, I just revised the In the Arts section. I added the book by H.D. that we all seemed to overlook.  The radio play was taken out (there was no source and it doesn't appear to be available to the public today).  I put back the reference to Jesus Christ Superstar with a reference source to the song "Pilate's Dream."  And since we are not violating WP policy (as per WP:CIMDB), the film references are back. 
Let me know what you think, and if this works we can then get the rest of the article in place. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just revised the "purported letter" section of the article, and my additions are backed by the referenced sources.  I sincerely hope that anyone who strongly objects to that revision will state his explanation here first, for the sake of maintaining consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First revisions under consensus 

message: In view of the new and improved Mrs. P article, I am putting this up for WP:GA consideration.  I think the changes and compromises worked to our advantage. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:GA 

message: *Ehrman/Pleše's translation of "The Handing Over of Pilate" is based on Tischendorf's edition, which was based on five manuscripts, two from the twelfth, two from the fourteenth, and one from the fifteenth century. They tentatively date the composition to sometime in the fourth or fifth century. "Procla" is named twice in their translation (sorry, I do not read Greek, but they do give the Greek text as well). Pilate says in a prayer:
:"Lord, do not destroy me with the wicked Hebrews; for I could not have lifted my hand against you if it were not for the nation of godless ews, as they were starting a rebellion against me. But you know that I acted out of ignorance. Do not, therefore, destroy me for this sin I committed, and remember no wickedness against me, Lord, or against your slave Procla who is standing with me here in this the hour of my death. For you appointed her to prophesy that you were to be nailed to a cross. Do not hold her, too, accountable for my sin, but forgive us both, and number us among your righteous ones." [...] Then the executioner severed Pilate's head, and behold! An angel of the lord took it. When Procla his wife saw the angel coming and taking his head, she was filled with joy and immediately gave up her spirit. And she was buried with her husband.
:So here we have a text exonerating -- indeed, glorifying -- Pilate along with his wife, and the context is very clearly anti-semitic (Ehrman/Pleše introduction to the text discusses this; it is not OR).
*Ehrman/Pleše's translation of "The Letter of Pilate to Herod" is based on Montague R. James on the basis of a single fifteenth-century manuscript, but it is also "found in a Syriac manuscript of the fifth or sixth century". James apparently dated the original composition some two hundred years earlier than the Syriac manuscript, and Ehrman/Pleše don't cite any other theories or give any reason to disagree. Although I cannot tell the difference between Koine Greek and other languages written with the Greek alphabet, the fifteenth-century manuscript Montague used also apparently included a Greek copy of "The Letter of Herod to Pilate", which Ehrman/Pleše state unequivocally was originally written in Greek. The fact that an early Syriac copy exists indicates (at least to me) that, if the Syriac copy left out the name, critical scholars would probably leave it out in their critical editions of the Greek text. "Procla"'s name appears three times in their translation:
:My own wife, Procla, came to believe because of the visions in which he appeared to her when I was about to hand him over to be crucified because of your advice. [...] While everyone was watching and observing him, he became aware of their presence and spoke to them: "Do you still not believe in me, Procla and Longinus? Are you not the one who watched over my suffering and tomb? And you, woman, did you send a message to your husband about me?" [...] When he said these things [eschatological prophecy about how believers will not perish and how Jesus had set loose the birth pangs of death and slain the many-headed dragon], my wife, Procla, heard them, along with centurion Longinus, who had been entrusted to watch over the suffering of Jesus, and the soldiers who accompanied them. They all came, weeping and grieving, to proclaim these things to me.
*I give this level of detail to show that, in light of this evidence, it is unlikely that what Corley and Webb say about late medieval legends being the first to name her can be taken on its face. Likely, they were careless with their choice of words, and didn't mean to imply that these legends were the first to name her; this seems more likely all these name-drops in medieval manuscripts of two Roman-era texts being solely the result of medieval insertions of a name invented in the late medieval period (especially considering that two of the manuscripts consulted for the "Handing Over" were copied in the twelfth century). I'll do a bit more research on Pilate's wife's coverage in the "Gospel of Nicodemus" later.
:Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources giving the name "Procla" 

message: I'm not sure what to make of this. Do you own a paper copy of the book, or did you look at a GBooks preview, or some such? I posted the exact text I intended to include in the article, with the same cites, further up this page. My GooglePlay eBook edition, which has the 2011 copyright date on the contact info page and no other date apparently visible, has on "page 506" nothing but original text by the two UNC scholars who compiled the book in 2011 on it. In any case, it's possible that the page numbers in my copy are in error -- can you check the scholarly introduction to "The Letter of Pilate to Herod", which is chapter 30 (the eighth-to-last) of the book, and fix the page number(s) to cover the following two blocks of text? The text says , anyway, which would seem to support pretty much everything in that sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I got as far as 517 to show up in the preview, so I can vouch for the whole introduction being on that page (read: just change 506 to 517). I'm pretty sure the Greek text is on pages 518 and 520, with the English on 519 and 521, but note 2 appears roughly half-way through the English text, which almost certainly takes up less than a page and a half (read: no matter how the font differs, it's almost certainly 519). The latter is a guesstimate, but I'd still say put 519 and WP:COMMENT that there's a small possibility that it's on 521. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. It was only 518 that wasn't in the preview. Note 2 is definitely on 519. I'll go ahead and fix it now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, was just able to see p. 519 too now. However, the 2nd footnote on that page says "Cf. Matt. 27:19", Cf. being an abbreviation of Latin confer, meaning "compare". The document containing something that can be "compared" to a verse in Matthew (according to the authors of the 21st-century book in their translation of the purportedly ancient text), is not the same as the original author of the Greek document "referencing" the Evangelist. So the current phrasing in the Wikipedia article isn't too sound WP:OR-wise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. How about "contains a passage that is comparable to Matthew 27:19"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "The apocryphal Letter of Pilate to Herod mentions the message Pilate's wife sent to her husband, comparable to the account of Matthew 27:19, and portrays..." is maybe a bit less vague than "contains a passage that..." without specifying what is in that passage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that works. Honestly, I was having the opposite concern (I hate using primary sources, even on modern popular culture articles). But if you're cool with it, I am too. I normally wouldn't consider writing something vague like the above, except that "Matthew 27:19" is cited in the second sentence of the body and quoted in full thereafter (and if we're honest, it probably should be mentioned in the lead as well). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

text: That said, since it's a 3rd- or 4th-century composition (E&P cite an 1893 book by M. R. James and nothing else, indicating that they agree), it seems like a near-certainty that the author was familiar with Matthew and was "referencing" it, so if a source can be found that directly supports that, I think the original wording is still the best. (On a completely unrelated note: I missed it because the chapters are apparently out of order, but the text is Syriac, not Greek. E&P strongly hint that the text was originally composed in Greek, but that's off-topic for this article anyway.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Failed verification" tag?