Back to A Different Lens

Juan Diego, canonised in 2002 as the first indigenous saint of the Americas, carries three contested facts. Read individually, one carries the entire developed argument and the other two are consequences of that same argument rather than disputes of their own, the shape this pool's own Sodom and Pelagius page already established.

The One Argument, in Two Camps

historicity carries the whole case: "Two camps, both in print. Stafford Poole (1995) holds that the tradition cannot be traced behind the accounts of 1648 and 1649 and that Zumarraga, who appears in the story, never mentions it. Defenders hold that no paper trail is to be expected for an indigenous commoner of that generation and cite earlier documents, chief among them a pictorial manuscript dated 1548 which surfaced in 1995 and whose authenticity is itself disputed." Its own description confirms the same shape from its own side: "no document of the sixteenth century names him, and the accounts that do were published in 1648 and 1649."

Two Facts That Come With the Tradition, Not Against It

lifespan says outright that it is not a second dispute: "The dates come with the tradition, and rest on the same accounts whose reliability is in dispute," giving "Traditionally 1474-1548." origin-place carries no note at all, "Cuauhtitlan, in the valley of Mexico, as the account places him." Neither fact is independently contested; both are simply what the same disputed sixteenth-century tradition says, and they stand or fall with the one real argument rather than adding a second or a third.

Where To Read More

• Juan DiegoSaintsOne genuine two-camp historicity argument; a lifespan and a birthplace that ride on it rather than disputing anything of their own