Talk:Ignatius of Antioch

Proper use of AD

"In his Chronicle, Eusebius gives the date of his death as AA 2124, the 11th year of Trajan, i.e. 108 AD."

What are the conventions here re: C.E./B.C.E. vs. A.D./B.C.? If we are using A.D. rather than C.E., then the letters ought to precede the year rather than follow it. So:

"...AA 2124, the 11th year of Trajan, i.e. A.D. 108"

, or else

"...AA 2124, the 11th year of Trajan, i.e. 108 C.E."

. 131.183.93.184 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear God man! The criticism you give about this article on Ignatius is that the author didnt put the A.D. before the year,but after the year?! OH MY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.246.4 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

131... has a valid point: Failing to realize the meaning of AD and hence putting it after the date degrades culture. If Wikipedia aspires to be a professional encyclopedia, it is important to always put 'AD' before the date, and to never use BCE/CE until its dating is corrected to actually refer to a point whereby we shared a 'common era' (e.g. WW1 or the WWW). Because BCE/CE is dishonest and incorrect, I propose we continue using BC/AD. -- Newagelink (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Note: I'm not comfortable about my identification of Philadelphia in this article with Amman; I seem to remember that there was a Philadelphia in Anatolia (which is mentioned in Book of Revelations), but so far there is no Wiki article about it, nor is it mentioned in the Philadelphia (disambiguation) page. (I'm adding this information from memory, without any of my references at hand.) -- llywrch 16:40 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

What's the deal with the fact that he wrote in run-on sentences? Mydotnet

I was wondering this too. Many ancient languages did not use literary/organizational things like sentences. Ashleyisachild

Ancient Greek did indeed have sentences. They just aren't organized the way modern English ones are. Translations (which will always be approximate at best) simply reflect this reality. --Preost 02:16, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ASDamick. Ancient Greek is in all capital letters, no spaces and no periods or accent marks. But the grammar was more advanced than modern English: there are words and nouns and verbs ... and sentences.

Ignatius did not write in Ancient Greek. He wrote in Koine, which had different cases of letter, and punctuation. If anything, a translation from Ancient Greek would likely have a more recognizable form, since the division between sentences would be made according to the translator's best judgment. A translator depending upon Ignatius's division of sentences, however, would produce a translation with sentences following Greek conventions rather than modern English ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.50.124 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

---

I have translated Theophorus "vessel of God." would 'instrument of god" be more accurate in this context? I have added a good deal more and a Catholic Encyclopedia link. Better vet my additions. --Wetman 19:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

changed "Adam" to "Abraham" to reflect Jerome's chronicle.Second Dark (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Theophoros

Theophoros literally means "God-bearer." It comes from the word meaning "to carry." In Greek usage, something that is _____phoros is something that carries _____. For instance, a rassophore monk is a monk who wears a rasso (a kind of garment). In Orthodox Christian theology (the Church which still seems to pay the most attention to Ignatius), at least, there is a strong sense that Christians are all called to be bearers of God, i.e., theophoroi, bearing God inside of themselves.

Yes, I was looking for a sensible rendering of -phoros. So "vessel of God" is acceptable after all.--Wetman 19:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer "bearer of God," but "vessel of God" works, as well. Preost

Category:Catholic martyrs

I've now twice removed the anonymous addition of the Catholic martyrs category. The reason is that it's somewhat anachronistic to claim a 2nd century bishop of Antioch as a "Catholic martyr." Such a distinction as "Catholic" hadn't really taken by that point, and the almost necessary association that would be made by inclusion in such a category would be to the modern day Roman Catholic Church (especially since the category is a sub-category of Category:Roman Catholics), which Ignatius certainly would not have had a sense of himself belonging to, certainly not as something which is so clearly out of communion with the church he was bishop of.

If any such distinction is to be made, he would be an "Orthodox martyr" rather than "Catholic," especially since he tends to be much more highly regarded by Orthodox Christians than by Roman Catholic ones. A whole patriarchate of the Orthodox Church regards him as their patron. But of course when St. Ignatius was martyred, the two churches were still one. To claim him for either "side" is implicitly to deny that.

In any event, "Christian martyrs" is good enough, it seems to me. To claim Ignatius as a "Catholic," especially as some subset of "Roman Catholic," is to do injustice to the historical reality. —Preost ^{talk contribs} 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

That doesn't say much though. The Orthodox most certainly consider themselves Catholic, in the literal sense of the word. Just calling Roman Catholics, "Catholics", is a relatively new thing, and calling Orthodox, "Orthodox", is a new thing. Roman Catholics most certainly consider themselves orthodox, in the literal sense, and Orthodox consider themselves catholic, in the literal sense. It is more accurate to call Orthodox "The Eastern Catholic Church" (except that title already is taken by Eastern Rite Catholics), and the Catholics, "The Western Catholic Church," because arguably, the Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (before it fell of course, and even after the schism) could legitimately call themselves Roman Catholics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.188.55 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But he is *honored* by the Catholic Church, whether he should be specifically seen as Roman Catholic or not... so maybe he fits into both Catholic, Orthodox, and Christian martyr? 75.68.77.207 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be put back. Ignatius of Antioch is on the Roman Catholic calendar as a martyr and saint. They do a Eucharist on his feast day, and the priest comes out wearing red. Are we going to remove everyone who lived before 1054? I think they should be included on both, along with a number of others. Carlo (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Ignatius of Antioch is considered a saint of the whole Christian church -- the so-called 'small-c catholic' -- in fact, there are almost no disputes involving his rank among any of the churches, ancient or current. (That is the only 'catholic' that existed in his time.) 'Capital-C Catholic', ie., the Roman church, is properly applied only to those who came during or after the Catholic/Orthodox split, many hundreds of years after Ignatius. Rlongman1 15 March 2011

---

I just removed a rather long passage that appeared to be an apologia written by a Seventh-Day Adventist - a long, convoluted attempt to "prove" that Ignatius was not actually advocating Sunday worship, when he obviously was. Carlo 02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just removed a slab of quotations that did nothing more than to confirm that, yes, Ignatius did use the word "bishop". -- llywrch 04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disciple of apostles?

To give some insight ,according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Ignatius of Antioch, along with his friend Polycarp, were with great probability auditors of the Apostle St. John.

What is the basis for the following: "Ignatius, who also called himself Theophorus ("bearer of God"), was most likely a disciple of both Apostles Peter and John."? It sounds like christian guesswork and/or wishfull thinking 62.79.77.252 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you think it's hard to believe: Peter and John were real people, and Ignatius was a first-century bishop of possibly the most important city in the early Christian Church, Antioch.

The idea that he was the disciple of John comes from the Martyrdom of Ignatius, which purports to have been written by those who accompanied him on his journey to Rome. He is also close to Polycarp, whom Irenaeus - disciple of Polycarp - says was a disciple of John.

The idea that he was a disciple of Peter I had not heard. I guess it comes from his being a bishop of a city that Peter was previously (one brief one removed) bishop of. It doesn't seem unlikely, but I don't see much solid to back it up, so I changed that part. I'll clean it up as soon as I figure out how to properly footnote. Carlo 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The ideas you mentioned came from Christians in the 4th & 5th century, some declared, one anonymous. Here is an extract from my website, http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html which I am trying to have posted as a link:

"The seven letters are considered quasi-canonical by the Catholic Church (& some other ones) and the historical justification for many of its doctrines. One of the reasons would be Ignatius' alleged acquaintance with Jesus' disciples, as first "revealed" centuries later by bishops John Chrysostom (347-407) & Theodoret (393-457).

From the "Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Ignatius of Antioch":

"St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587).

Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53)."

"Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch"

And from the 'Martyrium Ignatii', ch.1:

"Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character""

This Wikipedia page is unfortunatly one-sided.Bernard

Saying Ignatius WAS a student or disciple of x, seems quite misleading to me. I've changed it so it is less certain since that's the truth of it... --ShadowFusion (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why "auditors" - what is meant by this? Can we use a clearer term or be more explanatory about their probable dealings with/relationship to the apostle ? Orlando098 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'tradition' re Ignatius' connection to the apostle John must have its ancient sources referenced in the notes, if not the text. But its attestation is rather strong, compared to most ancient reports on people, churchly or otherwise. Not only is it referred to in others' works, Ignatius' own works constantly draw on John and John's way of thinking as evidenced by John's Gospel. Ignatius and Polycarp may have, indeed, been part of the "Johannine community" spoken of by Raymond Brown. It is one of the most secure things that can be said about him, aside from his connection to Polycarp (which is itself a connection to John) and his being Bishop of Antioch for a time (how long is not secure). The connection to Peter is far weaker, and is doubted by most of the historians I've read. (Rlongman1)

References

Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html for review. Please, if any reader think it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

Page needs work I think.

"He died as a martyr in the arena." Despite exhaustive searching, admittedly with limited resources, I am unable to find any evidence that he died at Rome.

NBeddoe 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question Eusebius the historian, referenced in the article, apparently wrote that he had evidence Ignatius "became food for wild animals" in Rome. It is believed from Eusebius that this occurred during the reign of Trajan.

The rest of the events in Rome seem to be from a document of questionable authenticity called "The Martyrdom of Ignatius", discussed in the article under "Martyrium Ignatii" - the Latin title. A translation of that document can be found online here from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0123.htm Chrisbak 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is taking a position which is too supportive of biased historians. Outside of Eusebius we have no reason to tie the Ignatius of the letters to being a Bishop. I think we need at least a paragraph or two addressing the issue what we actually know very little about him other than that he wrote 7 letters unless we consider 4th century sources reliable. jbolden1517^Talk 15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not accurate. In the Epistle to the Romans, Chapter II, he refers to himself as the Bishop of Syria. Carlo (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The seven Ignatian letters are not necessarily by one author - critical analysis by Bernard Muller. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And who is Bernard Muller? Carlo (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bernard who?-LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.246.4 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Lord's Day

In regards to the quote in the article following the line "St. Ignatius is claimed to be the first known Christian writer to argue in favor of Christianity's replacement of the Sabbath with the Lord's Day:" I believe I should mention that some scholars have considered that rather than "Lord's Day" another possible translation would be "Lord's life", which is important as that changes a key part of the passage. I'm uncertain as to how to work this into the article, however. Lord Seth (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of this quote is, I'm sure, the subject of academic debate. But it looks like the point here in the article is that he is _claimed_ to argue for the replacement of the Sabbath with the Lord's Day. IMO discussion of alternative translations here is inappropriate. 131.183.93.184 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It the context of the passage, especially since he mentions that the Lord's way is in contrast to those who Judaize and observe sabbaths, it looks as though he is advocating Sunday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.177.26 (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I found another quote from Ignatius in his letter to the Magnesians that clearly states that the Lord's day is the 8th day:

"And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, 'To the end, for the eighth day,'" Epistle to the Magnesians Chapter IX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.171.60 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Authenticity?

I don't see the doubts about the authenticity of the Ignatius letters as a whole mentioned in the article. There appears to be an old tradition within criticism that doubts whether any of the letters were really written by Ignatius. Here is an paper stemming back from the late 1800s that considers these spurious, for instance:

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/KillenIgnatius.pdf

Perhaps there has been more modern evidence for the authenticity of these letters, but in that case it would be interesting to include a discussion in the article. I know very little about this topic, so perhaps someone who knows more about this topic could give their impression? Martijn Faassen (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion about this topic. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-letters-of-ignatius-and-polycarp.html Martijn Faassen (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That there is scholarly debate about the authenticity of all the Ignatius letters is a fact and it seems clear that the article should mention that. I was trying to find information about the issues in the debate and when if I just read the Wikipedia article I wouldn't even know there is a debate.--Davefoc (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There have only been about a half dozen people that mounted serious arguments against the authenticity of the letters. The consensus is without a doubt that the middle recension is authentic. If you are curious about the arguments against authenticity, the most important of the recent doubters are Hubner, Lechner, and Joly. If you can read German and French, then you can go read up on the arguments. If not, Allen Brent summarizes the major positions in a chapter of his book "Ignatius of Antioch: Martyr, Bishop, Something." All that to say, feel free to mention that there are a few doubters, but it is not like there is a huge contingent of scholars arguing for the inauthenticity of the letters. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the authenticity debate died down somewhat in the 20th century there was much controversy in the 18th and 19th century - certainly more than "half a dozen people" disputed the Ignatian Epistles. For Victorian-era discussions in English see:

• Article Ignatius in the Encyclopedia Biblica
• W.R. Cassels' Supernatural Religion and A Reply To Dr Lightfoot's Essays
• W.D. Killen's The Ancient Church and The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious.
• R.C. Jenkins' Ignatian Difficulties and Historical Doubts
• Also of interest: Herman Detering's 1 Clement and the Ignatiana in Dutch Radical Criticism

Muzilon (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was mainly referring to the more recent book length efforts of the last century or so. I certainly did not say nor was I attempting to communicate that only half a dozen people in their entire history thought them false. The quality and detail of say Joly's arguments are vastly superior to some of the essay length treatments of the generation that preceded him. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've amended the article to say that seven of the epistles are "generally regarded as authentic" rather than the flat statement that they "are authentic". Muzilon (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"generally regarded as authentic"  Christ, those religious people that feel entitled withouth reading academic text, to declare such statment really shows they are not scholar and must for themself declare its true. 

"generally regarded as authentic by christians who only speak english" is more correct.

what church can claim him

People have said it is wrong for catholics to say he was catholic. I believe that any church today that was part of the church then should be able to claim him as back then there was only one church and it has branched. So the Catholics and the orthodox, in other words any denomination that is from the original church should be able to claim him.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and probably Lutherans and Anglicans would all claim Ignatius (I'm sure I'm leaving out others). Most Protestants (low church) would probably reject Ignatius' views on the Eucharist and perhaps a few other teachings that come from the few preserved writings of Ignatius. I'm not sure if on Wikipedia we could classify Ignatius under a denomination since that would violate POV rules, although there is probably some truth to your statement. Perhaps instead we could list what churches claim him, or believe him to be a saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.174.185 (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As one skeptical writer drily noted, the Ignatian Epistles "abound with exhortations to obey the bishops. No wonder then that they are defended by episcopalians and disputed by presbyterians." Muzilon (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mar. 15 2011 : The page has apparently been haphazardly altered, taking out much important information and even showing some text code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlongman (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

February 11, 2012 (Feast Day of Saint Ignatius) The article mentions Saint Ignatius being martyred in the Coloseum, however some sources indicate it was in the Circus Maximus. This should be checked with an authoritative hagiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.214.198 (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be accurate, everyone who trusts the real Lord Jesus as Savior is part of the catholic church, the Body of Christ. And this Body of Christ is no denomination, though persons in denominations may be in the Body of Christ (if they are not just playing at church). It is wrong to say there WAS 1 Church & it has branched into multiple Churches. Such a claim confuses denominations with Church. The NT never uses ekklesia for any denomination. Now you may speak of what the papal organization claims -- but his denomination is not "The Church." As to "saint," biblically all Christians are saints (else people are ain'ts). There is no special group of super holy men in the NT called "saints." As to Iggy, IMHO, he was a paranoid megalomaniac, a Diotrephes (3 John). The title of this section assumes an error when it says, "what church can claims him" -- there is only 1 church & never will be another, so far as revealed in the Word. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC))

The fate of Ignatius

This article on Ignatius is particularly weak, for it does not explain what Ignatius was charged with,even if he was indeed charged,nor what crime he was accused of. Wikipedia standards please! In short, why was he (Ignatius) sent to the colosseum in the first place? Perhaps our Spanish speaking friends could furnish an answer...

– — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontificateus (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 

The Letters of Ignatius do not provide this information. It is, in fact, a source of great debate in the scholarly community. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This should be stated explicitly in the article I think. An obvious question is what was the alleged reason for his execution and if that is unknown the article should state that.--Davefoc (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Syriac

Ignatius seems to have been a native speaker of Syriac. Is there any direct information about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

According to what source? If you are basing your opinion on the Curetonian Syriac (aka the short recension), the scholarly opinion is virtually unanimous that the Syriac is an epitome. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The source for the martyrdom story states that it is a legend, so I have altered the article accordingly

The source given for the martyrdom story is [1], which states "There is a legend that the emperor Trajan himself, who wintered in Antioch in the year 115, examined the aged Bishop Ignatius in the year 115...According to the legend, Trajan ruled that Ignatius should die. He was bound and conveyed to Rome, to be devoured by wild beasts in the Colosseum...According to tradition, (Ignatius) reached Rome on December 20, the last day of the games, and was brought at once before the prefect, to whom the Emperor's letter was delivered. At the prefect's command, the prisoner was hurried off to the Colosseum, where, we are told, two fierce lions were let out and Ignatius was at once killed..." and refers to these "legendary and fictitious elements". Yes, he wrote letters on the way to Rome but there is nothing beyond legend, tradition and fiction to say that Ignatius was killed by wild beasts in the Colosseum. WP should not report legends as historical facts.Smeat75 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Annihilationism

I could not find anything that directly mentions a denial of immortality of the soul (the term annihilation or a similar term may have very well been used), so I think this tag is inappropriate. 2601:0:4180:7D1:985E:84A7:8ED1:B381 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words, gullible use of sources, oh my

The section on his life is a travesty of terrible scholarship. It presents Catholic beliefs as true, without reference to any historical or critical scholarship, and without acknowledging these are Catholic beliefs. It vastly over-claims even that evidence. The whole section needs to be carefully reworked, hopefully by someone with some expertise and access to the scholarly literature, to make clear consensus scholarly opinion and degree of certainty for probably every statement. Some specific issues follow:

• Using the word "records" for the claims of Eusebius and Theodorett, as if they were trustworthy sources on the matter. Considering critical scholarship is doubtful of the connection to Peter, the gullibility in unquestioningly accepting the latter is astounding.
• Acknowledging the tradition of his being held by Jesus without mentioning that scholars doubt the veracity of this, even according to other citations used on the page!
• "It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John." Believed by who? Great probability based on what? Which John? (Catholic tradition may consider the Gospel character and the writers of the eponymous Gospel, Revelation, and the eponymous epistles as all the same person, but the critical scholarship disagrees vehemently, and even historical church scholars like Eusebius don't think they're all the same.)
• Why, in the life section, doesn't it contrast Eusebius account with the scholarly range which appears in the lead, or make any comment relating the two whatsoever? (And why doesn't the sidebar represent the scholarly range?)
• The last paragraph on his life about Christian traditions regarding his remains is in desperate need of citations, but at least it identifies this as not necessarily fact by attributing it specifically to tradition.

Seriously, the life section is so deficient relative to other readily available sources, even on the internet (see http://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/ignatius/, which is vastly more reliable), that its not even worth reading past the life section - I can only imagine the evident poor scholarship infuses the whole article. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:F145:1DBC:D2FC:F6BD (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Fix Obtuse Date

The text says, "Ignátios Antiokheías; ad c. 35 or 50 – 98 to 117[1]), also known . . . ." I regret that those numbers don't express anything clear. Could someone please clarify them? Do they mean, "Iggy was born either around AD 35 or precisely on AD 50, and he died somewhere in the range of years 98-117"? Do they mean, "Iggy was born around AD 35 or in the range of time AD 50-98, with the possibility that he was not born until AD 117"? (EnochBethany (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC))

Catholic Encyclopedia and Ante-Nicene Fathers

Moved from User talk:142.161.81.20 § Ignatius of Antioch

 – 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, you seem to have some concerns with my edits. Straight forward, newadvent.org and earlyjewishwriting/earlychristianwritings are considered blogs because they are personal sites of its creators. Please read WP:NOTBLOG. Over the years, the Wikicommunity has decided to remove or replace these links with academic sources. Any content that is typed up as a claim or controversy without a reliable source can be removed. Claims written only in the lead section of the article must also be supported in the body of the article with reliable sources per WP:LEAD. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII To what specifically are you referring in WP:NOTBLOG? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read the lead section of NOTBLOG. Personal pages are not permitted. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: Are you serious? That policy has nothing to do with sourcing. It says that personal pages are not permitted on Wikipedia itself. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That sounds worse than what I was saying. I have always applied NOTBLOG for removing blogs as sources in articles, and been thanked for it by other editors . Since this needs clarification, read WP:SPS. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: I have always applied NOTBLOG for removing blogs as sources in articles, and been thanked for it by other editors . I would hope that you and whoever these other editors are would have read it first given that, even if we were discussing a blog, that section of WP:NOT does not pertain to sourcing.

Since this needs clarification, read WP:SPS. I am familiar with WP:SPS. It does not, however, necessarily prohibit self-published republications of works originally published by respected presses. If it did, it would prohibit the citing of sources from Wikisource. Would you suggest that to also be prohibited? The reality is, the sources we are working with in this case is an article by Herbert Thurston in the Catholic Encyclopedia (edited by Charles G. Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Condé B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, and John J. Wynne) and epistles attributed to Ignatius translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and included in Ante-Nicene Fathers (edited by the two translators alongside A. Cleveland Coxe). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Self-published sources are excluded primarily when they are self-promotional. That is not the case here. When self-published sources are created by recognized experts in a specific field, they certainly qualify as reliable sources. If you have concerns about the reliability of these sources, feel free to take them to WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I fear you might have misread, Walter Görlitz. I arguing that there ought not be any concerns about the reliability of these sources. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not misreading this. I was not directing my comments toward you. I was simply commenting on how the sources should be approached. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, Walter Görlitz. I suppose I mis-inferred from the chosen indentation. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I won’t continue on in the discussion, sorry for wasting everyone’s time. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, JudeccaXIII. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII, Walter Görlitz, and 142.161.81.20:

The above discussion does not touch the really significant point as I see it: New Advent is makes available an encyclopedia which is over a hundred years old and reflects opinions of its own epoch. The last 50 years have seen enormous changes in Catholic thinking at an academic level. The real problem is not over whether it is a blog or not, but whether [[Catholic Encyclopedia] is still a reliable source. So far as Early Christian Writings are concerned in so far as they provide public domain translations of early Christian documents, they are a reliable source. More recent translations would be preferable, but there are copyright problems and they can be difficult to access. However, the notes and introductions have passed their "sell by" date. — Jpacobb (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

These are Catholic POV blogsites where they add outdated sources. Why don't editiors start using real sources from Google Books such as BRILL publishers or books from universities. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem of translation to Rome

It seems to me, the translation to Rome in 637, as the article claims, is difficult to sustain. I checked the Italian version - usually a good source on saints - refers to the "roman martyrology", whatever that might mean in this context. A short google search was, however, illuminating, cf: https://books.google.be/books?id=yvXeCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=translation+ignatius+san+clemente&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWm_-egK_tAhW9WxUIHdCKCssQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=translation%20ignatius%20san%20clemente&f=false

I think this article needs also in this respect an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2C40:100:B001:0:0:1:3A1B (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That source says that in 868 Cyril brought the relics of Clement to Rome, and Hadrian II "deposited them with the relics of St Ignatius of Antioch in the high altar of the Basilica of San Clemente". I interpret this as meaning that the relics of Ignatius were already in the altar when Hadrian added the relics of Clement in 868.

I added a citation to Joseph Mullooly's history of the Basilica of San Clemente. Mullooly was a priest at San Clemente and starting in 1857, oversaw an archaeological excavation under the Basilica that rediscovered the relics of Ignatius. Gdr 10:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

References