Talk:Peter Bartholomew

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CloutCuckooLand.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I have a primary source in front of me, Roger duke of Lunel's diary. Roger was in the crusade, under the command of Raymond of Toulouse. Since I do not speak French, I have the translated copy. A direct quote from a primary source seems to confuse some other sources, hence my hesitation to add or remove anything from the current article, which I assume is well researched. Here's the quote, it should be said that Roger was Bartholomew's lord. "This morning. very early, the peasant boy Bartholomew came to me with a curious request. 'I must see Lord Raymond at once,' he said. I told him I had no time for such nonsense, for I was even then organizing parties to search for food. Bartholomew grabbed my sleeve. 'Sir,' he said, 'I have seen the Christ.' ... I rode up to [Raymond]... I told him that my squire begged to speak to him... 'Boy,' Lord Raymond said, 'what have you to tell me?' ... 'Christ Jesus, our blessed Saviour, and saint Andrew his holy disciple, will reveal to me the resting place of the Holy Lance, with which pierced our Saviour's side upon the cross. And he commands you to go to Bishop Adhémar and tell him of this, that we may search for it. For with his help alone we can be saved from the danger that threatens us, and our army will proceed in triumph to Jerusalem.'" From this extract I call into question the title of "monk." It seems Bartholomew was Rogers squire. Not only that, but Roger refers to him as a peasant and Raymond calls him "boy," so seemingly he was no Monk, according to this source.

Then Roger describes how word spread through the army that Bartholomew would find the Lance, and on June the 15th, the army gathered outside a cathedral, Roger was inside and describes what happened. "The bishop [Adhemar] said 'Well boy, what have you to tell us?' 'The resting place of the lance,' he replied. 'it has been revealed to you?' the Bishop asked. 'oh, yes, Your Grace,' Bartholomew said with a radiant smile. 'It lies within.' Bishop Adhemar glanced around. 'In the cathedral?' 'Beneath the floor. I shall show you the spot if you will.' Adhemar stepped aside and allowed the boy to pass. We all followed him into the church and the doors were barred behind us. Bartholomew knelt below the high alter, one hand pressed to his heart, the other pointing to the floor. 'Just here.' he said. Adhemar called for knights, and half a dozen came in. The bishop directed them to pull the stones and dig... By midday the trench was as long as the alter and well above the knights' heads. At last the bishop called them to stop. They laid down their tools and crawled out, panting and wiping the grime from their faces. 'Bartholomew,' Adhemar said. 'It's not here.' The boy shook himself as if roused from a dream. He smiled at us with great tranquility. 'Digging cannot bring it to light,' he said. 'prayer can.' We glanced at one another, then following Adhemar's example, we dropped to our knees... [prayer is said] Bartholomew, who had not knelt, cocked his head at these last words as if they were familiar to him. 'Yes,' he said, stepping to the edge of the trench. 'The bottom of the pit. Look. There it is.' We all got up and pressed to the edge, and indeed, there at the very bottom, a point of metal protruded from the earth."

To me this disproves much of the hoax theories, I think it should be mentioned that there were over 12 knights looking for the lance in the pit, and none could find it. It seems pretty impossible to me that someone could have placed the lance in the pit during the excavation, or even the prayer, since it was so deep, it would have been noisy to get in and then out again. I believe there was already a lance in there, but how it could have been overlooked by everyone until the prayer was said, cannot answer. Anyway, I got these quotes from Stephen Rivelle's translation of the diary. The Bryce 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a novel...Adam Bishop 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, though I'm pained to admit it, since I loved that book so much.The Bryce 12:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite funny there are people actually debating whether or not Peter was honest.. He obviously had the lance tip in his possession from the get go, and that perfectly explains why none of the other Crusaders could find it. Occam's Razor strikes again, devastating as ever. Also, he clearly died a fraud. He claimed to be divine, they tested him by having him walk through flames in accordance with the Bible, he was burned severely, and died of his wounds days later. How can you actually debate his honesty, given all the facts that we know? His parlour tricks may have restored the Crusaders' morale in this siege, Joan of Arc was just as integral in the Hundred Years War, it does not mean they were being honest, and their fates are reflections of that truth. I think certain people are trying to pass fiction off as fact, even calling a fictional novel a "diary" because of their own religious beliefs and outright ignorance, though they have to jump through hoops to do it. These same people are dictating what did and did not happen in real historical events. This is dangerous and dishonest, and can lead to the outright revision of history. There are no theories Peter was a liar, all the evidence and common sense should lead those of us who are not religiously biased to believe that, whereas those claiming he had divine visions need to provide some information that gives merit to that idea. They call it the burden of proof. Besides, we should have just as much faith in these ancient divine representatives as we do in modern messiahs and prophets. Look up General Butt Naked if you want a fine example of people using God, the Devil, and divine visions for their own purposes. I think this all falls back on modern Christians perpetuating the claim that the Crusaders had God on their side, which can be matched with just as many unfounded and absurd claims from the Muslim armies. Neither party seemed to check with their holy books when they were slaughtering civilians, using religion as an excuse to war and consolidate political power over the Levant. If anything, if there was any divine communication, it seems God was intent on having them wipe each other out! If only He had succeeded! Hell, if you believe God dictates military victories, how do you reconcile with the massive success of ISIS? Wait! I have a vision! It's of a world where fiction is secondary to fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.242.43 (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Was Peter from Marseilles?
Gibbon refers to Peter as the "Priest of Marseilles". Should this be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopyfeathers (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)