# Was Polycarp really a disciple of John?



## Davidius (Jul 30, 2008)

What do you think?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 30, 2008)

> Was Polycarp really a disciple of John?



That's what they taught us in Church History in 1978. Has something changed?


----------



## Davidius (Jul 30, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> > Was Polycarp really a disciple of John?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they taught us in Church History in 1978. Has something changed?



 I guess I just thought that was really neat, and was wondering about its validity.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 30, 2008)

They taught us that in Church History here at PTS...


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 30, 2008)

Davidius said:


> What do you think?



Davidius,

His letters and those of other 2nd Century disciples seem to indicate as much.

Adam


----------



## Davidius (Jul 30, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think?
> ...



Do you know which letters in particular would indicate this? And who are the other 2nd century disciples you mention?


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Jul 30, 2008)

The Apostle John died in the 90s AD. Polycarp lived 70 AD- 156 AD. He made his debut with the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (110 AD). (feasible) 

The church father Irenaeus wrote, "I can tell the very place which the blessed Polycarp use to sit when he used to preach... and how he used to report his association with John and the others who had seen the Lord, how he would relate their words, and the things concerning the Lord he had heard from them, about his miracles and teachings." (without a doubt)

Irenaeus was Polycarp's disciple. Very similar to John Mark being Peter's disciple.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 30, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



Irenaeus in Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3, paragraph 4 says that "Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by the apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church of Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time". Irenaeus also mentions that John was in Ephesus (as you know, in Asia) until the "times of Trajan", meaning that John was among the apostles that appointed Polycarp Presbyter at Smyrna.

Eusebius says much the same in his Ecclesiastical History, book 4, chapter 14.

If there were others, perhaps someone else can fill in the details.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## shackleton (Jul 30, 2008)

I don't know if this is off topic or not but, if Polycarp was a disciple of John is it safe to say Polycarp would have know when John wrote Revelation and then would have passed this info onto Irenaeus who was Polycarp's disciple? 

I ask this because I have been studying the book of Revelation lately and the date of its writing. Most modern scholars say the book was written late based on something Irenaeus said in one of his writings. If it was written late that seems to be a pretty big chink in the preterest argument. So if Irenaus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John does that mean he would be privy to that info?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 30, 2008)

I knew Polycarp and that's what he told me.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 30, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> I knew Polycarp and that's what he told me.


----------



## jogri17 (Jul 30, 2008)

You ever wonder if the apostles had kids (at one had to have one) and there is a descendent somewhere out there right now of one of the 12? maybe one w/ 666 on the forehead? Just a thought. That would be cool.


----------



## Casey (Jul 30, 2008)

jogri17 said:


> You ever wonder if the apostles had kids (at one had to have one) and there is a descendent somewhere out there right now of one of the 12? maybe one w/ 666 on the forehead? Just a thought. That would be cool.


Another kind of apostolic succession, eh? Next thing Ratzinger will do is pronounce _ex cathedra_ that he's actually Jewish, not German, and start digging through some genealogies.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 30, 2008)

*Apostolic Fathers (History book quote)*



> After the time of the apostles the foremost leaders in the church were the _Apostolic Fathers_. They were called Apostolic Fathers because they are said to have been taught personally by the apostles. They lived in the first half of the second century. We know the names of five of them. They were Clement and Hermas of Rome; Ignatius of Antioch; Polycarp of Smyrna; and Barnabas, probably od Alexandria. There were two others whose names we do not know.



From: *The Church in History *(by B.K. Kuiper), The National Union of Christian Schools: Grand Rapids, MI. 1951 page 48.

Interesting account from this book:

Polycarp and Marcion:



> Polycarp, bishop of the church of in Smyrna, at one time made a visit to Rome. Marcion and Polycarp had known each other very well back East. When Polycarp happened to come across Marcion on the street, he was going to pass without speaking. Marcion stopped him and said, "Don't you know me anymore, Polycarp?" "Yes," answered Polycarp, "I know who you are. You are the first-born of Satan."



What more proof do we need that he knew John? If that's not the reply of someone associated with "the Son of Thunder," I don't know what is!


----------



## Kevin (Jul 30, 2008)

shackleton said:


> I don't know if this is off topic or not but, if Polycarp was a disciple of John is it safe to say Polycarp would have know when John wrote Revelation and then would have passed this info onto Irenaeus who was Polycarp's disciple?
> 
> I ask this because I have been studying the book of Revelation lately and the date of its writing. Most modern scholars say the book was written late based on something Irenaeus said in one of his writings. If it was written late that seems to be a pretty big chink in the preterest argument. So if Irenaus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John does that mean he would be privy to that info?



On the contrary, this is (In my humble opinion) the sole arguement agenst the preterist position. The Preterist has an impressive volume of internal & external evidence for the earlier date. The anti-preterest position rest almost entirely on a single cryptic remark by Polycarp that can be interpreted to mean that either John or his letter date from the period in question (ca. 90 AD).

For the full story see Gentry "Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of Revelation"


----------



## Kevin (Jul 30, 2008)

Davidius said:


> What do you think?



Yes he was. I know of no credible source who doubts this.


----------



## staythecourse (Jul 30, 2008)

I was taught the same. When I'm feeling small I often say to myself "Play the man!" Tradition has it it was heard from heaven meant for him as he was about to meet the beasts of the Colosseum.


----------



## shackleton (Jul 30, 2008)

Kevin said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if this is off topic or not but, if Polycarp was a disciple of John is it safe to say Polycarp would have know when John wrote Revelation and then would have passed this info onto Irenaeus who was Polycarp's disciple?
> ...



I just finished reading an extensive amount of info on Preterism including Gentry's book's and one by DeMar. I am just curious why most of Christiandom believes in a late date. The arguments seems to be strong for Pretereism but most scholars do not hold to it. I guess it is not always best to judge truth based on the amount of people that believe it.


----------



## Grymir (Jul 30, 2008)

I've read a ton of early writings, so many I've forgotten who and they all say the same. Irenaeus in Against Heresies and especially Eusebius do mention them, along with a little bit in Clement's writings if I remember correctly. Of course, now you are learning why we say that if the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me! Paul gave his to Polycarp, who passed it down to DMcFadden. Honest! Just ask DMcFadden about the time he kept it safe from the Secret Barthian Knights!


----------



## bookslover (Jul 30, 2008)

It's a strong historical tradition. At this historical distance it can't absolutely be nailed down, of course.

He must have originally been a fisherman. I mean, with a name that means "many carp" and all...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 30, 2008)

Who the heck wants to purposefully fish for carp????


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 31, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Who the heck wants to purposefully fish for carp????



Poly did.


----------

