Christian Texts and History • Re: re; re: reeeeeeee

But I will say:
5. The fact that the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans mentions Paul and Peter - as Apostles - is not evidence for the 'historicity' of Jesus.

Who cares whether it's evidence for historicity or not. It's all fan fiction anyway.

• You appeared to care whether the Ignatian Letters were evidence for Jesus' 'historicity' last night (among your apparent concern about the argument that the Short Recension is very unlikely to be a later truncation of a traditionally-thought 'primary Middle Recension') when you said:
  

  The shorter one includes references to Paul and Peter, Jesus as the seed of David, Jesus dying and rising again, a quote from the Synoptic Gospels ("For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?"). The longer one contains in addition one reference to crucifixion, a few additional quotes, and not much more than that, from what I can see. So why preposterous?

So I look forward to an examination of the short recension letters which refers to Paul and Peter but nonetheless don't mention references to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the Eucharist, or Christianity’s relationship with Judaism or Jews. How do we explain that?

Statistics: Posted by MrMacSon — Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:04 pm