Juan Diego: Difference between revisions

77 bytes removed ,  1 month ago
→‎Historicity arguments: Removed unnecessary clause, it's totally possible to belief Juan Diego existed without the supernatural story
(→‎Historicity debate: Shortened dispute tag)
(→‎Historicity arguments: Removed unnecessary clause, it's totally possible to belief Juan Diego existed without the supernatural story)
[[File:Basilica_of_Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_(interior).JPG|thumb|right|450px|Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe (interior)]]
Leaving aside any question as to the reality of supernatural events as such, theThe primary doubts about the historicity of Juan Diego (and the Guadalupe event itself) arise from the silence of those major sources who would be expected to have mentioned him, including, in particular, Bishop [[Juan de Zumárraga]] and the earliest ecclesiastical historians who reported the spread of the Catholic faith among the Indians in the early decades after the capture of [[Tenochtítlan]] in 1521. Despite references in near-contemporary sources which do attest a mid-16th-century Marian cult attached to a miraculous image of the Virgin at a shrine at Tepeyac under the title of [[Our Lady of Guadalupe]], and despite the weight of oral tradition concerning Juan Diego and the apparitions (which, at the most, spans less than four generations before being reduced to writing), the fundamental objection of this silence of core 16th-century sources remains a perplexing feature of the history of the cult which has, nevertheless, continued to grow outside Mexico and the Americas. The first writer to address this problem of the silence of the sources was Francisco de Florencia in chapter 12 of his book ''Estrella de el norte de Mexico'' (see previous section). However, it was not until 1794 that the argument from silence was presented to the public in detail by someone – Juan Bautista Muñoz – who clearly did not believe in the historicity of Juan Diego or of the apparitions. Substantially the same argument was publicized in updated form at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries in reaction to renewed steps taken by the ecclesiastical authorities to defend and promote the cult through the coronation of the Virgin in 1895 and the beatification of Juan Diego in 1990.{{efn|Brading claims Florencia was the first writer to address the Franciscan silence.<ref>{{harvp|Brading|2001|pp=103f}}</ref>}}<ref>for Muñoz, see {{harvp|Brading|2001|pp=212–216}}; for the factionalism surrounding the coronation project between 1886 and 1895, see {{harvp|Brading|2001|pp=267–287}}; for the Schulenberg affair in 1995–1996, see {{harvp|Brading|2001|pp=348f}}.</ref>
The silence of the sources can be examined by reference to two main periods: (i) 1531–1556 and (ii) 1556–1606 which, for convenience, may loosely be termed (i) Zumárraga's silence, and (ii) the Franciscan silence. Despite the accumulation of evidence by the start of the 17th century (including allusions to the apparitions and the miraculous origin of the image),{{efn|The earliest known copy of the tilma is significant in this regard – a painting by [[Baltasar de Echave Orio]], signed and dated 1606, reproduced as Plate 10 in Brading.}}<ref>On the acheiropoietic iconology, see Peterson, pp.130 and 150; also, Bargellini, p.86.</ref> the phenomenon of silence in the sources persists well into the second decade of that century, by which time the silence ceases to be prima facie evidence that there was no tradition of the Guadalupe event before the publication of the first narrative account of it in 1648. For example, [[Bernardo de Balbuena]] wrote a poem while in Mexico City in 1602 entitled ''La Grandeza Mexicana'' in which he mentions all the cults and sanctuaries of any importance in Mexico City except Guadalupe, and Antonio de Remesal published in 1620 a general history of the New World which devoted space to Zumárraga but was silent about Guadalupe.<ref>On Balbuena, see {{harvp|Lafaye|1976|pp=51–59, 291}}; on de Remesal, see {{harvp|Poole|1995|p=94}}.</ref>