Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

People born 300 years before they were actually born?[edit]

In the text it says " five Slavic disciples were ordained as priests (Saint Gorazd, Saint Clement of Ohrid and Saint Naum) and as deacons (Saint Angelar and Saint Sava) by the prominent bishops Formosus and Gauderic." and the "Saint Sava" entry here links to the article about Saint Sava, born in the second half of the 12th century (and dead in the 13th). Mind you, this is all happenning in the late 9th century of the common era.

Can someone please explain that?

Obviously it’s a mistake: the link referred to a different person. I have therefore deleted it. I don’t think there is any point in having even a red link for the Sava who was a companion of SS Cyril and Methodius, as nothing else is known about him. Лудольф (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Origin of Saints Cyril and Methodius[edit]

The article previously stated that the the two saints were born in Salonica, which was a Byzantine city, and therefore presented them as Byzantine which is the most accepted view. However, the article has since been edited to state that there is dispute about their ethnic origin, an old and moot controversy in Byzantine studies. Salonica never became part of a Slavic state, and there is no contemporary source, Greek, Latin or Slavonic, stating that the saints were of Slavic origin. The sources that claim that Cyril and Methodius were Slavs are Slavic chronicles and vitae of dubious objectivity that date many centuries after their birth. These sources have been given unnecessary credence because the saints are so venerated in Slavic countries and Bulgaria's and Serbia's relations with Byzantine and post-Byzantine Greeks have been at times so hostile that the saints HAD to become Slavs. Serious contemporary Slav historians usually do not insist on this nationalistic myth because the evidence behind it is dubious (see for example But other sources that are not based on very good research continue to quote that the saints must have been Slavs. A good Wikipedia article should weigh the veracity of sources and not treat them all equally. I suppose it would be just as reasonable to insert in the article on Obama that his origin is disputed--he may have been born outside the US, or he may be Muslim; because some people believe so, it must be so. The article on Columbus fortunately still presents him as Italian. Many Spanish and Portuguese amateur historians whould claim otherwise, but fortunately the Wikipedia editors have not been foolish enough to give them much space. The fact that the same has not been done here is a sign of poor Wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)