That thread includes a comment to Bart and Bart responded.
As a result, I posted on Facebook, page: The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, post Marcion and Paul’s Letters, an Interview with Nina Livesey

@Nina Livesey, @m. David Litwa, History Valley, Gnostic Informant, MythVision Podcast, Bart D. Ehrman, Ignatius appears to know of Paul’s Letter to the Romans before Marcion; therefore, the Marcion school DID NOT write Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

Livesey and Vinzent have to account for Bart’s comment that Ignatius appears to know of Paul’s Letter to the Romans before Marcion.
Livesey and Vinzent have to account for Bart’s comment that Ignatius appears to know of Paul’s Letter to the Romans before Marcion.
Therefore, Marcion’s school did not write Romans.

Dr. Ehrman

Paul is chased out of Jerusalem and runs to Rome
Josephus knews of Christians in Rome and he knew of Jewish evangelizers
Josephus and Paul get shipwrecked on the way to Rome
Josephus was mentored by Banus, Paul by Barnabus.
Both were of the opinion that a married woman should be modest in manner:
Against Apion, Book 2, Section 25, Line 201 for Josephus, 1 Timothy 2:12 for Paul.
Gentile Men need not be forced to become circumcised to show reverence to God:
Life Section 23, Lines 112-113 for Josephus Romans 3: 1 for Paul
Paul had friends who were Asiarchs (Acts 19:30-31). Josephus was high up in the Roman Court and would have known the Asiarchs, members of the Commune Asiae.

As Josephus wrote about the history of Jews in the first century, Paul was not consequential enough?

What? ! ?

@Robert, you’re going to complicate this?

You’re saying there is a possibility that Ignatius was using Marcion’s Letter to the Romans ? ? ?

Yes, you are. Go back to your source, Steefen. Go Back to Bart.

= = = =

Robert, one of your administrators, responds:
Depends on whether one follows the majority early dating of Ignatius or the minority later dating of Ignatius.

Wikipedia, indeed, says there are different claims when Ignatius died:

Eusebius: c 108 CE
Pervo: 135-140 CE
Barnes: 140s CE

Marcion created his canon, which included the Apostolikon, sometime around 130–140 AD.

Question: So your implied refutation of Livesey is based on an early dating of the life of Ignatius–you can tell us why Pervo and Barnes failed to make their case against Eusebius about when Ignatius died?

Robert
What is your evidence that Josephus was high up in the Roman court?

Steefen
You think that is an intelligent question?

Robert
Paul was inconsequential in first century Christianity to a first century historian who knew there were Christians in Rome when Rome burned.

Steefen
Whatever degrees you have, you can destroy them.

QUESTION:
What is the question about the middle recension of the letters of Ignatius?

ANSWER:

The main question about the middle recension of the letters of Ignatius is whether it is the authentic form of Ignatius’ writings or itself an edited version.

Here’s the background:
1. Three Recensions

Long Recension – Expanded with theological material (4th century).

Middle Recension – Shorter form, generally dated to c. 110 CE, considered by most scholars to be the authentic Ignatius.

Short Recension – Even shorter Syriac version (3 letters).

2. The Question

Scholars ask:

Is the middle recension genuinely from Ignatius of Antioch, or is it an earlier editorial reduction/compilation made from a still older or different text?

This involves several sub-questions:

Was the middle recension the original core of Ignatius’ letters, or did it undergo redaction after Ignatius’ death?

Did the middle recension omit material from an earlier version, or was it expanded later into the long recension?

Is the short Syriac recension actually closer to the original, making the “middle” recension itself an interpolation?

3. Why It Matters

If the middle recension is authentic, it provides a near-contemporary witness (c. 110 CE) to early church structure, Christology, and martyrdom theology.

If not authentic, our picture of Ignatius’ theology and his knowledge of Pauline letters (like Romans) could be based on a later editor’s work, possibly mid-2nd century or later.

= = = =

If you want, I can map out the full scholarly debate over the middle recension, from Theodor Zahn to Bart Ehrman, including why most still accept it but some Syriac specialists remain skeptical.

Bart:

I’d say the dating of Ignatius’s letters to 110 or so is by far the most widely held view for a number of pretty good reasons; it’s not some kind of attempt to put him earlier than he was. I give some discussion of it in the introductoin to my translation of his letters in the Loeb volume (involving internal evidence, the relationship to Polycarp, etc.).

It’s rare that someone dates him later. Of course some scholars do.

I’m not aware of Pervo or Barnes having ocnvinced many Ignatius scholars.

I haven’t looked at the issue for many years. Which of their arguments strike you as persuasive?

@Robert
Have fun with your immature [sic]s.

What is this?

“Saint Ignatius of Antioch (1st and early 2nd century), a direct disciple of Saint John and Saint Paul and successor of Saint Peter in the bishopric of Antioch.”

I thought Peter was the Bishop of Rome, the Pope?

The quote comes from the description of this:

pd_rd_i=B0D123HLY7&pd_rd_w=T7bo8&content-id=amzn1.sym.8c2f9165-8e93-42a1-8313-73d3809141a2&pf_rd_p=8c2f9165-8e93-42a1-8313-73d3809141a2&pf_rd_r=5TP6TNB23SQF8EJACP95&pd_rd_wg=otCvr&pd_rd_r=ee7f7fcc-0af0-4fa8-a5d6-ff384be28ce2&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9kZXRhaWw