This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
After the appearance of Paulinus is described, there is the following statement:
Bede probably obtained this description from James the Deacon, one of Paulinus' associates, who still was alive in Bede's time.
Yet in Ecclesiastical History, Bedes plainly states in Chapter XVI that Paulinus' appearance was described to him by Deda of Partney. Is this disputed? Besides, James the Deacon died when Bede was a child, so it's not possible for the description to have come direct from him. Emma May Smith (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've edited this a bit to make it clearer that it was probably a chain of transmission in operation - it appears to have come through a number of sources before reaching Bede - Deda probalby got it from James, is the idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Bede says that Deda obtained the description from an old man who was baptized by Paulinus at Tiwulfingchester (Littleborough, Nottinghamshire), so there's no need for James the Deacon to have been involved. I don't know if Bede's account is now disputed, but I don't see why it should be. What does the cited source, Blair World of Bede, actually say? Emma May Smith (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The offending sentence has been removed, that's easier than spending way more time on the sourcing information in the article than the actual length of the description. As an aside, I did double check the information against the cited source for my first reply....the implication that Blair makes is that the information came from James the Deacon ultimately - but he doesn't explictly state so .. so rather than worry about it, it's gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this has become negative for us. I only wanted to ensure that the information we give out is correct. The statement went against what I understood from elsewhere, and thought it best to ask for clarification. We're working together, not in conflict. Emma May Smith (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I seem cranky, but I've got another Featured Article on the main page today, which tends to ratchet up the stress levels, and I'm trying to do some other reviewing work also... along with a sick dog and a hyper kitten. Just a stressful day. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)