| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deacon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Transitional deacon page were merged into Deacon on 11 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Plinius about ministrae - a part of Deacon article
editIn the text we have now: Female deacons are mentioned by the Roman author Pliny the Younger in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan dated c. 112:
I believed it was necessary to find out from two female slaves (ex duabus ancillis) who were called deacons (ministrae), what was true—and to find out through torture (per tormenta)
This is the earliest Latin text that appears to refer to female deacons as a distinct category of Christian minister.
This is a wll known way to read Plinius. However, in the article "Pliny’s Tortured Ministrae: Female Deacons in the Ancient Church?" by John Granger Cook in the book "Deacons and Diakonia in Early Christianity (ed. by Koet&Murphy&Ryökäs, Mohr Siebeck 2018, pages 133-148) the writer arguments: "Although Pliny may not have perceived the ministrae to be “priestesses” of the Christian group, there is ample evidence in the literary and inscriptional material surveyed above to believe that Pliny would have associated various cultic and priestly duties with the term ministra." (page 147) According to this professor, to combine "ministrae" with "deacons" is not the best combination, if possible at all. 2001:14BA:5E93:ED00:CC4C:4ED0:4811:DD2B (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Awards
editHi, @Pisarz12345: please note that you have violated the three-revert rule in adding the section "Awards" to the article. There are some significant issues with this addition. The initial addition was unreferenced, apparently plagiarizing content from this website. Since that original addition, citations to appropriate references have been added, but in the section heading itself rather than alongside the content the references support (see WP:CITEFOOT: "Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings"). Additionally, there are commas where they don't belong. Perhaps most glaringly, there is no purpose for this contextless list, as the same material is already covered sufficiently several paragraphs earlier. I recommend that Pisarz12345 remove the 3RR violation containing the MOS issues and redundancy. Do feel free to append the citation to the patriarchia.ru source to the end of the paragraph beginning "Diaconal vestments are the sticharion", though, as that paragraph is currently unreferenced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)