Talk:Polycarp

message: 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
It is Polycarp not poly-crap.  Look at the picture  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.188.205 (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Quote:
S: However, few scholars today maintain that the Fourth Gospel was written by one of the Twelve.
::: What is your proof that few scholars maintain that John was written by John?  Have you defined "scholars" and taken a poll?  (EnochBethany (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: What is your proof that the majority of experts on C. H. consider that & deny eye-witness?  Have you defined expert & taken a poll?  Are not the majority of supposed experts in this area RCC & E Orthodox boys?  You reckon they agree with you?  I have taught C H on graduate level; & I don't agree with you.  What do you mean by "church tradition"?  Do you have a lot of primary sources which are not written by men who claimed to be Christians?  What do the superscriptions or postscriptions of the mss say as to author?  What do the writers closest to the time say about author?  One typical argument which falls as a dud, is claims about what the majority of the scholars say (no one named; no poll taken). (EnochBethany (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelist? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I moved it back.--Cúchullain t/c 19:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: I added some details about the importance of Polycarp's martyrdom, which seemed appropriate to the article.
--LawrenceTrevallion 01:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of martyrdom 

message: 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)
thread_title: Switching the Evangelist for the Presbyter

message: With the previous statement "being at odds with the Biblical evidence" is incorrect. When you look at all the Deciples they were all Jews. They worshiped on Sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night) so Polycarp who studied under John would have learned of Sabbath. So the (Acts 20:7) talked about is a Saturday night meeting going on until Sunday day. (Evening to evening {look at how the Bible starts} Evening and morning are the first day, evening and morning is the second day, etc) Gods day starts at evening) So with this look real close at all those texts. 1 Cor 16:1,2 is talking about laying aside money (yes for an offering) but to the Jews Sunday was another work day, they shut down their businesses on Sabbath (friday night before dark and then could count their assets saturday night after dark) This is not a church collection. Mark 16:9 says on the first day of the week. If you look carefully it does not say Sabbath.. The women were going to do work on the first day of the week. To prepare Jesus' body for burial that would have been work... As the commandment says "you shall do no work......" on the Sabbath day...
:The previous paragraph was added to the main article on March 30, 2008 by an unregistered user. --Bwpach (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion moved from article

message: The article declared that Polycarp is regarded as a saint also in the Lutheran churches - if someone could verify that. I'm from a Lutheran background and I have always been taught that there are no saints in the Lutheran Churches. 84.251.103.19 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheran Saint? 

message: Under "The Great Sabbath" section, it says: "...Nisan 14 (the date that Polycarp observed Passover) cannot come before the end of March in any year."  This is not true, unless "the end of March" simply means "late March."  In fact, Nisan 14 is on March 29 this year.  http://www.hebcal.com/hebcal/?year=2010&v=1&month=3&yt=G&nh=on&nx=on&i=off&vis=on&d=on&set=on&c=off&geo=zip&zip=&m=72&.cgifields=nx&.cgifields=nh&.s=Get+Calendar
173.29.208.175 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passover Dating 

message: User Bulgary16 and user at IP-address 71.3.182.105 please stop making edits that obscure that John the Evangelist, John the Apostle and John the Presbyter are not universally believed to be one and the same person. And don't remove references. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be point of view neutral. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits and reversions concerning the identity of John 

message: "Surviving accounts of the bravery of this very old man in the face of death by burning at the stake added credence to his words." 
What is the point of this sentence? I would argue for its removal as it adds nothing as far as I can see.
--Skepp, 05 March 2013  —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Importance" section 

message: The link to Wikisource goes to deleted material.
71.163.117.143 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  link rot 

message: Irenaeus does not call anyone pope. I deleted the claim about Anicetus.   I searched Irenaeus and didn't find "pope" anywhere.   Also I searched for Anicetus in Irenaeus and never found Anicetus called anything like "pope."  Irenaeus does call him Bishop of Rome.  The article gives no reliable secondary source either to support this claim.  And referring to anyone that early as "pope" is definitely a violation of NPOV.  Of course RCC scholars will say there was a pope, and of course many non-RCC scholars will deny that a pope existed that early.  (EnochBethany (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "pope" where not supported by reliable 2ndary source. 

message: The article lists his birth year (uncritically) as 65 in one place and (again uncritically) as 69 in another. Which is authoritative?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.45.52 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date?