Talk:Polycarp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Polycarp is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on 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, please 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] Request
However, few scholars today maintain that the Fourth Gospel was written by one of the Twelve.
- It is very non-obvious to me how this sentence relates to the subject of this article. Could you please expand? --Brion
[edit] Regarding John
Before my correction, the article stated as a fact that John, one of the Twelve, wrote the so-called Gospel of John. This cannot be maintained. See e.g. Raymond E. Brown's two-volume commentary on that gospel (1970ff) in the prestigious Anchor Bible series.
S.
- No it didn't. It stated:
-
- Polycarp was a Christian bishop of Smyrna in the first and second centuries. He is generally recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. He was a disciple of John the Evangelist, who was one of the first twelve Apostles. One of his disciples was Ignatius of Antioch.
- I don't see anything there about who wrote what gospels, by name or by number. --Brion
-
-
- Please look at John the Evangelist.
- It is true that in e.g. Roman Catholic liturgy the two "Johns" are regarded as one and the same person. But that has little to do with scientific (Church) history.
- Please look at John the Evangelist.
-
S.
-
-
-
- Shouldn't that note go in John the Evangelist, then? I still haven't the foggiest idea what it's doing in this article. --Brion
-
-
[edit] Comment
Sorry, I didn't put the note there: it was there, stating the matter as a fact. My contribution was just to point out that it is tradition, not historical fact.
If we are to continue this debate, it would help if you would make your personal opinion clear to me.
S.
- I have no opinion at all on the matter; virtually everything I know about the early history of Christianity comes from having seen Jesus Christ Superstar. Since the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform the uninformed, consider me the ideal test audience. :) I find this part of the article to be a complete non-sequitur. Allow me to break it down bit by bit, using the current version:
Polycarp was a Christian bishop of Smyrna in the first and second centuries.
- Polycarp was a bishop in a place called Smyrna, in the relatively early days of Christianity (first century or so after Christ)
He is generally recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
- Polycarp is considered a saint by several major denominations.
According to tradition, he was a disciple of John the Evangelist, who was one of the first twelve Apostles.
- Tradition says that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Evangelist.
- further detail: John the Evangelist was one of the first twelve apostles.
However, few scholars today maintain that the Fourth Gospel was written by one of the Twelve.
- Fourth Gospel? What the heck are you talking about? What does this have to do with Polycarp, or Polycarp's being a disciple of John the Evangelist, or John the Evangelist's being one of the twelve?
One of Polycarp's disciples was Ignatius of Antioch.
- Polycarp had a disciple, named Ignatius of Antiooch.
- Born: 69
- Died: 155
Surviving writings include The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians. Also surviving is an account of The Martyrdom of Polycarp.
- Polycarp wrote these two documents which are still extant.
As you can see, I'm quite thrown by a sudden mention that some numbered gospel's authorship is disputed, and thought not to have been written by one of the twelve. Why should I, reader of an article on Polycarp, care about whether the fourth gospel was written by one of the first twelve apostles, possibly John? How does whether John the Evangelist (or someone else) wrote the 4th gospel relate to the sentence "According to tradition, [Polycarp] was a disciple of John the Evangelist, who was one of the first twelve Apostles." --Brion
-
- Sorry Brion, - It seems to me that you lack the most elementary knowledge about the New Testament. I have not the time or energy to explain these matters here. Please do what you like with the Polycarp article.
- Sorry Brion, - It seems to me that you lack the most elementary knowledge about the New Testament. I have not the time or energy to explain these matters here. Please do what you like with the Polycarp article.
Sinverely yours S.
-
-
- Well then, I'm removing the sentence in question until somebody who is interested in making comprehensible encyclopedia articles can explain why it belongs there. --Brion
-
[edit] Further Comment
Quote:
S: However, few scholars today maintain that the Fourth Gospel was written by one of the Twelve.
Brion: *Fourth Gospel? What the heck are you talking about? What does this have to do with Polycarp, or Polycarp's being a disciple of John the Evangelist, or John the Evangelist's being one of the twelve?
End Quote
My understanding (and guessing) of the sentence probably is that the Fourth Gospel here is the Gospel of John, the author of which can be either of the following three:
- John the Evangelist, traditional view.
- one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, an alternative of the traditional view, probably what S. meant by saying "few scholars today maintain that...."
- a disciple of John the Evangelist, most likely Polycarp.
[edit] Evangelist?
Evangelist?
I've just read the page about Polycarp and noticed myself that it still says: It is probable that he knew St. John the Evangelist, the disciple of Jesus. As seems to be said above, surely it is merely a matter of church tradition only that John, the disciple of Jesus, was an evangelist (ie. author of the gospel that bears this name. Evangelist = gospel writer). The majority of experts on church history these days consider John's gospel to have been the last of the gospels to have been written, and that it reflects developed Christian theology, not the reminisences of an eye-witness. So what are the facts here? Is Polycarp supposed to have known the original John, and if so, on what evidence? Or is it just that he probably knew the person who wrote the gospel? Either way some editing seems required. Perhaps: It is probable that he knew St John, the disciple of Jesus.
As an aside, I must say this sounds surprising to me anyway, since surely John would have been very aged by the time Polycarp was around.
Revilo098 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page name
Why was this moved from Polycarp to Saint Polycarpus? Polycarp is by far the more common name (500,000 google hits vs. 59,000 for "Polycarpus". There are now all kinds of redirects.--Cúchullain t/c 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I moved it back.--Cúchullain t/c 19:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Importance of martyrdom
I added some details about the importance of Polycarp's martyrdom, which seemed appropriate to the article. --LawrenceTrevallion 01:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Switching the Evangelist for the Presbyter
The official RC view, which is presented in this article as factual history, conflates John the Evangelist with Polycarp's teacher John the Presbyter. Jerome did not make this mistake, which has been introduced effectively to draw Polycarp a generation closer to the Apostolic tradition. This is the root of the confusions reflected in posts above.
The more accurate, sourced article John the Presbyter is not reflected in the dogma presented as history here. No mention of John the Presbyter was at Prester John, or "Presbyter John". I have added a disambiguation there. Am I cynical to expect a spate of "revisions" to be made now at John the Presbyter? Let us see.--Wetman 00:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
