Talk:Synod of Whitby

Alleged?
"The Synod of Whitby was an important alleged synod" Alleged? Alleged because it didn't get mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle? What's the doubt here that's so well-founded that the definition is undercut with "alleged."? --Wetman 11:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Both actually - as it says at the end, Bede is the sole source, unusual for synods of the time. No letters to/from the Pope, no mention in saints' lives, etc. "alleged" is probably not a good choice of word - "a synod described by Bede as having occurred" or some such would be better. We simply have no way to know if this was a big event, or if Bede embellished what was basically a hallway argument. Stan 14:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Incredulity in the use of sources doesn't constitute factual basis. If you can show that historians believe Bede to be independent of Eddius and not an inventor out of whole cloth then I will cede the floor to you.  He has been accussed of putting many speeches fully formed in the mouths of people who said no such things.  Not an uncommon event in his time period, but one that should give you pause in accepting whatever he says as fact. Wjhonson 21:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The gist of Bede's story - that the Romano-Frankish side won on the questions of calculating the date of Easter and the correct style of the tonsure - is clearly true. The rest - who said what, whether it was a real synod (hmm, it clearly wasn't, where are the Papal records ?) or just a meeting - is Bede's interpretation. The "Consequences" section needs fixed up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'd even go that far. It seems that Bede merely picked up what Eddius had said and embellished it with long speeches.  I'm trying to find an online source for Eddius but no luck so far :)  Maybe someone knows of one. Wjhonson 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The accounts aren't that different. Bede's is longer, but includes details which suggest he had a longer account, or that Eddi reduced his (i.e. Bede mentions the presence of James the Deacon, who would surely have been there). The speeches, of course, are what Eddi and Bede would have liked people to say, rather than what they did say. The actual arguments weren't new, especially not on the dating of Easter. I think the translation of Eddi's work is copyrighted still, the Latin isn't on the internet anywhere that I can see. It's included in the Penguin Age of Bede. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm sure there must be an older translation of Eddius that has fallen out of copyright. It just may not be online anywhere yet. Wjhonson 00:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Right enough. The British Library catalogue shows an 1878 translation by "S.W." (possibly one Susanna Warren who wrote for the SPCK as the catalogue shows other books by an S.W. on religious themes in the 1870s). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal
I took this, and the word "alleged", out:
 * The Venerable Bede in his History of the Church, described the proceedings in detail, but he did not write his account until seventy years after the events he describes, and it is likely that he is completely dependent on Eddius, thus not constituting an independent source. A shorter account was given by Eddius. The main differences being long quotes that Bede puts into the mouths of his characters, which are fictions based on what he hopes they might have said. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, makes no mention at all of the synod, nor do contemporary Papal records. If the Synod of Whitby occurred at all, it was poorly documented.

There is no controversy whatsoever, and no Anglo-Saxonist thinks the Synod "may not have happened", nor is there any reason to think that Bede wholly depends on Stephanus (who was likely not Eddius, btw). Plently of people who knew those at the synod were alive and in Bede's circles. This is just silly and ignorant of the scholarship. Lostcaesar 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You ignore the discussion above don't you? Wjhonson 08:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no papal records of any such Synod. The two sources, one dependent are our *sole* records of the event ever occurring. Wjhonson 08:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No Anglo Saxonist thinks the synod did not happen. Look at Plummer's commentary on Bede, or Wallace-Hadrills, or Sherly-Price's.  Look at the works of Stenton, or Wood, or Corning, or Stancliffe, or Sims-Williams, or Thacker, or Goffart, or any other early medievalist.  Look at Cubbit's book on Anglo-Saxon church councils.  Lostcaesar 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The removal of the criticism says basically we can't point out the weakness in the sources. Every source can stand some criticism and these sources are pretty weak in that regard. Wjhonson 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Saying the synod happened does not mean we take the sources at face value.  This is something for us to work on.  Lostcaesar 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the sources are the problem here but the definition of "synod". It's true that pretty well all the secondary sources accept that there was a meeting to discuss or to resolve divergences of practice. However, Bede seems to portray the whole thing as a royal initiative, stemming from disputes in the ruling family. I'm sure there can be debate about exactly what "synod" means but surely it has to be an ecclesiastical event, convened by some recognized authority within the church. It looks as though this wasn't. Sjwells53

2 issues
On the following paragraph, there are certain problems:
 * An other difference and source of controversy was the way of internal organisation. The Ionan way of organisation was more like a network of independent monasteries with the local abbot as highest autority, while the Roman way was becomming more centralised and had the Bisschop of Rome, the Pope, as its supreme head.

First, the Synod of Whitby did not address ecclesiastical structure. Secondly, Northumbria's highest ecclesiastical authority was Aidan, a Bishop. Third, the chief protagonist for the Roman position at the synod, Wilfrid, had an extensive network of monasteries. Fourth, the council did not address the position of the pope, rather it took it for granted, as far as can been seen. So what does this add - I do not see the relevance.

Next, in the following sentence, the bold section was deleted, which I wish to restore:
 * The Synod of Whitby was a eventh century Northumbrian synod where King Oswiu of Northumbria ruled that his kingdom would calculate Easter and observe the monastic tonsure according to the customs of Rome and most of Western Europe, rather than the customs practiced by Iona and its satellite institutions.

Granted, there was varriation in "most of Western Europe", and Easter calculation had been a matter elsewhere (though the matter reached Northumbria late), but notice at the synod how a representative of Kent (Romanus), Gaul (Agilbert), and Rome (the Northumbrian Wilfrid who studied there, also see Ronan's role, an Irishman who studied in Rome). Thus we have Kentish and Frankish interest, plus Wilfrid who spend time in Gaul and had connections in Ireland (e.g. the Dagobert affair). We have sources that discuss the shrinking position of Ionan in a sea of Roman practice (see Brown's quote near the end of the article). Lostcaesar 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "most of Western Europe"? Augustine of Canterbury was the first Archbishop, Roman style, sent to Ethelbert of Kent by Pope Gregory the Great in 597. Columbanus and his disciples had been spreading celtic practices all over Francia from 590 onwards. So in 664, at the time of de synod of Whitby "most of christian Western Europe", including Ireland, was oriented to Celtic christianity. The influence of Rome was very restricted in the West. Therefor I take that sentence away. Harry Stoteles 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Columban monasteries in Gaul already had the matter of Easter arise in the 630s, so by 664 it was resolved, and at any rate they were not a majority among the Franks where Roman observance was the norm. Southern Ireland had accepted the Roman Easter around the 630s as well.  The difficulty over Victorian or Dionysian tables was minute and both agreed against the Celtic-84 tables which were used only by Iona by the 660s.  Let us take into account Italy, Spain, and the Franks on the other side of the Rhine also in our determinations of Western Europe.  I say either find a source that says the Roman Easter was not observed throughout Western Europe or return the sentence.  Lostcaesar 08:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just have a problem with you using the notion Western Europe in relation to the 7th century. Western Europe could relate to the East-West Schism of 1054 or to the 20th century Cold War. A current understanding of Western Europe includes the following countries

·	the United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ·	the Republic of Ireland ·	the Benelux countries: Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands ·	France and Monaco ·	Germany ·	Greece ·	Switzerland ·	Liechtenstein ·	Austria ·	Malta ·	the Italian peninsula: Italy, San Marino, and Vatican City ·	the Iberian peninsula: Spain, Portugal, Andorra, and Gibraltar (a British Overseas Territory) ·	the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. Harry Stoteles 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's fair enough for sure - what would you suggest? Maybe "Latin Christendom"? Lostcaesar 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for now I would suggest he following: "The Synod of Whitby was a seventh century Northumbrian synod where King Oswiu of Northumbria ruled that his kingdom would calculate Easter and observe the monastic tonsure according to the customs of Rome" and the rest of the sentence I would modify in this sense: "...rather than the customs practiced by Iona and Celtic Christianity in general". Harry Stoteles 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you think we should state the Oswiu's motivation was to conform with the greater Christian world as he understood it, rather than just "Rome"? That was one of the arguments presented, according to both Bede and Stephen.  Lostcaesar 06:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion that the Ionian tradition is the Orthodox tradition, and the Synod of Whitby is where England moved from Orthodoxy to the heretical Roman Catholicism? Harold was the last Orthodox King. I find it fascinating how the true Roman Empire gets written out of history in favour of a remnant based in a conquerd city - Rome, whilst the role of Constantinople gets written out of British history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh and this article should be very high importance in all categories as it is the point of regime change! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't the Pope just apologise for all of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Was King Harold a saint?

This is much harder to establish, since he was glorified neither in the East nor in the West. However, if it can be established that he died as a martyr in defence of Orthodoxy, further proof of sanctity is not needed, according to the tradition of the Orthodox Church."http://saintbasilchurch.org/6.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

removed text
I removed this text from the "background" section:
 * >, according to Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, volume 3, section 79, The Time of the Easter Festival: "The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord."

I removed this because it seems a less-than-relevant digression that interrupts the prose. We are explaining why Ionan practice was variant from that of Rome, and why that was a problem. This passage does not contribute to that end. It, instead, gives a possible reason why Easter came to be celebrated on a Sunday. One might imagine that the process was more complex, but this is certainly not the place to indulge in such an analysis. The problem is that we interrupt the prose with "according to Author, Lengthy Title, Reference, Lengthy Quote" on a divergent theme from the rest of the paragraph. If this must be stated, and I don't see why it should, then it would at least have to be much briefer. But the real question is, what is its relevance - that is, why relevance is the motivation for the change in antiquity? How does it pertain to Whitby? After all, Ionan and Roman calculation both celebrated Easter on a Sunday - giving this detail risks confusing the reader with a fact that has nothing to do with Whitby. Lostcaesar 09:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly is not a "Lengthy Title" nor a "Lengthy Quote". It is highly relevant BACKGROUND which belongs in a BACKGROUND section. That it "interrupts the prose" is merely your notion that it conflicts with your POV, which is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article, see What Wikipedia is not. It is from a Reliable sources and highly relevant to the BACKGROUND of this article. I'm restoring the deleted text to the article. 68.123.72.127 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is my pov, since you doubt my sytlistic concerns? Lostcaesar 07:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be an old issue but, because I am going to take the passage out, I will explain here. I found this passage unhelpful. The Easter calculation question was an issue for two reasons, one because different sets of tables each purported to correctly calculate the date as per Nicene, and two because one group preferred its calculation method over the councils. No one in the seventh century British isles was debating the merits of Niece's decision or the council's reasons. It was enough that the council had made its decision. No text mentions Judaism in regards to the debate in any significant way. No one cared to argue, pro or con, with the council's reasoning, or even seemed to be aware of it. As such, the explanatory passage is a distraction and irrelevant. Ritterschaft 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Legacy
198.169.119.202 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is not the legacy of Whitby also the subsequent adoption of other Roman practices, such as men-only as leaders? Unless someone who knows can show that the Roman church has female leaders at the time.
 * Was the legacy also not to bring the church in the British iles under the more centralised control of the Romans? Or is this seen as a much later authoritarian development?

The whole article smacks of a Roman Catholic bias as the Synod has been proven to have been called to bring the Celtic church into line with the Roman church and that the "Ionian"(read Celtic) church was often accused of "Judaism" (anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, vol.1, p.341) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairrobb (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about adding this and the reference?--Fremte (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The extract on p. 331 (not 341 in my copy although mine is the 2nd edition) is from the Historia Norwegiæ and refers to the papar on Orkney. Not really relevant to the Synod of Whitby. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)