Juan Diego - Sources

Sources

The two primary sources to the life of Juan Diego are from 1648 and 1649. The first account, Imagen de la Virgen Maria, Madre de Dios de Guadalupe, Milagrosamente aparecida en la Ciudad de México, was written in Spanish by the priest Miguel Sánchez. It relates how Juan Diego witnessed the apparitions, how he informed Bishop Zumárraga, the miracles of the tilmahtli and the roses, the apparition to Juan Bernardino (Juan Diego's uncle), and how the shrine to Guadalupe was instated. According to contemporary sources this was the first time the apparition story was told to a wide audience. Some historians have suggested that Sánchez built his account on an indigenous oral tradition local to the area, a variant of the earlier legend of the appearance of the Virgin of Los Remedios. The Virgin of Remedios was a popular saint to whom several miraculous curings were attributed, among them the curing of an indigenous herdsman near Tepeyac and of a construction worker in Tacuba. The stories of the Virgen de Guadalupe and Virgen de Los Remedios have several similarities, and have often been confused. Historians have suggested that the Nican Mopohua can be understood as a variation of the legend of the miracle of the Virgin de los Remedios.

The second source which is more famous than Sánchez' and goes into more detail about Juan Diego is the Huei tlamahuiçoltica (which include "Nican Mopohua") written in Classical Nahuatl by Mexican priest and lawyer Luis Laso de la Vega and published in 1649.

The historic veracity of both sources are considered questionable by many historians. The primary doubts arise in the dearth of sources about the apparition and consequently about Juan Diego in the 117 years between the time given for the apparition and the first publication of the story. Also the fact that the story was described as being previously unknown by those who read its first publication. Furthermore the fact that Bishop Zúmarraga who figures as a prominent character in the account has not left any mention of either Juan Diego or the apparition in his otherwise ample correspondence is a problem for the credibility of the accounts. The problems with the historicity of Juan Diego was recognized as early as 1883 by Joaquín García Icazbalceta historian and the biographer of Archbishop Juan de Zumárraga, in private letter to the Mexican Bishop Icazbalceta concluded that there was no historical basis for the character of Juan Diego.

In 1995 a deer skin codex pictorially demonstrating the apparition and the life of Juan Diego appeared in the possession of Xavier Escalada, a Jesuit writing an encyclopedia of the Guadalupan tradition. This unprovenanced document, previously unknown to historians and archivists, became referred to as the Codex Escalada. This was at a time when the process of canonization was at a halt and historians and theologians were beginning to voice doubts about the veracity of the legend. The Codex seemed to provide ineffable proof of the historicity of the accounts of Sánchez and Laso de la Vega. To further strengthen its force of proof it bore the signatures of the important historical figures Antonio Valeriano and Bernardino de Sahagún which seemed to date it unequivocally to the mid 16th century around the time of the apparition. The Codex, however, was studied by approximately twenty experts in various specialties, including the Physics Institute of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and anthropologist, linguist, and scholar of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures, Charles E. Dibble of the University of Utah, as well by experts in graphology from the Bank of Mexico; the findings all indicate authenticity of the document and 16th century origin. Destructive radiocarbon dating, which might have established the age of the codex, was not permitted. The sheer timing of the Codex' appearance was seen by some historians as suspicious, and the source is not regarded by them as an historical document but rather a crude nineteenth-century forgery, full of anachronisms and errors.