Talk:Saint David
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Saint David is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Vandalism removed
I am removing the sentence "St David is the bomb" from the text as there are no known instances of St David exploding. That and the statement is POV. Shearluck 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] contradiction
There's a contradiction of dates in this article. Quoting:
- He lived during the 5th century A.D. (date of death march 1st probably 601).
"Fifth century" properly applies to the years from 401 to 500. If David had died in AD 601, he would have been considered a figure of the sixth century.
Could one of the Cymru recheck these dates? I'll eventually get around to this, but I never seem to have enough time, & I'm not sure if the sources I have at hand could resolve this problem to my satisfaction. -- llywrch 18:42 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster Second International has "ab. 500-600", so i am changing it accordingly. --Jerzy(t) 11:31, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
What is the basis for the reference to Pelagianism in Rhygyfarch's time? I thought Pelagianism was a 4th-6th century teaching, long ignored by 1050.
((Pachiaammos))
According to the "New Advent" Catholic Encyclopedia:- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04640b.htm
- "a tenth-century manuscript Of the "Annales Cambriae", which assigns his death to A.D. 601. Many other writers, from Geoffrey of Monmouth down to Father Richard Stanton, hold that he died about 544, but their opinion is based solely on data given in various late "lives" of St. David"
Maxx 15:31, 2004 Nov 10 (GMT)
[edit] Canonised by Calixtus II or not?
In his book Twice to St. David's (1995), David James writes that "the cult of David was recognised by Pope Calixtus II; strictly a recognition and not a canonisation of the founder [David]." What's going on here? aliceinlampyland 18:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC).
- More grist for the mill... The Catholic Encyclopaedia (1914? - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04640b.htm) states "St. David was canonized by Pope Callistus II in the year 1120", but by the time of the writing of the text at http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=220 this had been watered down to "his cult was approved in 1120 by Pope Callistus II". It would be interesting to know more about the history of canonisation in the church. Was there a formal process in the twelfth century in the same way as there is today? --Casper Gutman 09:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Virgin Birth
Over at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-w-std.html they claim that St David was conceived when a saintly woman, Non, was raped by chieftan named Sant. Anyone have any ideas on what's up in that area? User:Wat Tyler
- Not sure about the "virgin birth" heading above - I've never seen anyone claim that about St David (though I'm no expert!). As for the claim Wat relates above, it doesn't seem to disagree in any big way with the article as it stands. Sandde vs. Sant is pretty close, and I fancy "conceived through violence" in the article is a nice way of avoiding the word "rape". I wouldn't avoid the issue myself, if that's what the story is it should be related clearly. --Casper Gutman 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Herbs
We say that his monastic rule prescribed the eating of only bread with salt and herbs. Sorry to make such a fuss about something so minor, but I am a little worried about what is meant by ‘herbs’. Today we mostly use the word to refer to aromatic (and/or medicinal) herbs like thyme and sage. I suspect here that it may have been intended to refer more broadly to ‘greens’. It would be a bit odd to allow fenugreek leaves while banning spinach (and leeks). —Ian Spackman 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stigmata?
The (nineteenth-century) image used to illustrate the article appears to show a stigmatized right hand. Is this right? If so so it would predate any claim made on our current Stigmata page by several centuries. —Ian Spackman 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's a jewel on his glove. Walgamanus 08:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks: now I can see it. —Ian Spackman 12:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
