Steefen said:
You, Bart, and everyone can read the sources CITED in Point #1.
It’s pretty straightforward. Decius sacrificed himself for a military victory for his army. Jesus sacrificed himself for a victory of the world–Jesus, the light of the world, etc.
It’s explained for a 5-year old.
Yes, Bart Ehman has seen point 1. He has not responded to me a better and alternative way to read the TF and the passage that follows it.
Even if you wouldn’t grade it A+ Superb, it deserves a grade of no less than A or A-.
If you want to go one level back. Blame Josephus. He opened the door to this interpretation.
Well, I disagree. Bart disagrees. So why did you say that no one disagreed when people do?
In my fundamentalist days, I thought all people had to do was to read Acts 2:38, and they’d understand God’s plan of salvation. It was so clear that even a 5-year-old child could understand. Imagine my dismay when I discovered that Mormons also see it as a key verse but with a decidedly different interpretation.
By the way, if you have a chance, please address the other thing I was wondering about in Post 56.
In my fundamentalist days, I thought all people had to do was to read ** you do not have permission to see this link **, and they’d understand God’s plan of salvation.
The supreme irony here is that although I was raised by fundamentalist Baptists, the view that baptism was essential to salvation was one of those doctrinal no-nos. This passage and others like it required some fast ‘splaining. We also thought you automatically received the Holy Spirit at conversion so we didn’t approve of those charismatic groups that taught that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a separate and essential second step in salvation.
…the baptism had to be by immersion…
Yeah we practiced total immersion too. Most Baptist churches of our stripe had a cement baptismal font behind the choir crowned with a fanciful picture of the Jordan River. We made fun of the sprinklers and the dippers. You had to get wet or it didn’t count! (But paradoxically we were always assured that baptism was just a symbol, not essential to salvation. I couldn’t have been the only kid that wondered why if it was just a symbol it had to be done in a certain way or it didn’t count. Some thoughts you can think, I guess, just not out loud.)
Speaking in tongues was the devil’s business. I remember one Sunday when a woman stood up in the middle of the sermon and began to speak in tongues. The congregation visibly recoiled and the pastor treated her as if she was possessed. She was a first-time visitor. She didn’t know which way the wind blew thereabouts.
Telling each other they’re not “real” Christians is a cottage industry. It would be hilarious if on Judgement Day, the Almighty turned out to be a Sufi Muslim or a Jain!
Comment 54
Is it not disturbing that, in the end, the unstoppable justice of God triumphs over his mercy?” The author then goes on to examine how the Christ of Revelation differs markedly from the Christ of the Gospels.
“In my view, the God of Revelation cannot be the true God.”
– BartEhrman.com, Kirkus review of Armageddon by Bart D. Ehrman
Steefen:
Bart, To what extent would you agree with the following?
Revelation is a first-century anti-imperial prophecy aimed at Rome and Judea [ruled by Rome], not a program for Western or American destiny.
Once Western Civilization evolved from Rome rather than standing against it, the symbolic architecture of Revelation ceased to apply.
Its modern use in Western churches serves liturgical, psychological, and political functions, but not prophetic ones.
Thank you.
Bart Ehrman:
I’d agree with a lot of that. I think the target is almost entirely Rome, though, not so much Judea (which had been wiped out by this stage)
Steefen:
Thank you.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
My conclusions since joining the Bart Ehrman website.
1
Jesus is Decius Mundus who sacrificed himself for the world (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4)
referencing Decius Mus, the son who sacrificed himself for victory, 295 BCE (History of Rome, Books 8-10 by Livy)
2
Jesus Christ is a composite character of historical fiction drawing on the Julio-Augustan imperial cult, the Manu royalty of Queen Helena, the Hermetica, Homeric Epics, Middle Platonic theology, and the TANAK.
3
The biblical God does not evidence creating and ruling across all advanced civilizations.
4
The Gospel of John does not belong within a historical-critical analysis of the Bible’s reliability. Composed later than the Synoptic Gospels, John reflects post-70 CE theological development rather than firsthand memory of Jesus’ life. Its distinctive episodes—most notably the resurrection of Lazarus—are absent from earlier sources and cannot be reconciled with the historical patterns preserved in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Furthermore, John’s high Logos Christology and extended philosophical discourses recast Jesus as a cosmic, metaphysical figure, diverging from the ministry documented in the Synoptics. Chronological discrepancies, multiple Jerusalem visits, and theological elaborations signal that John functions primarily as theological narrative and mythmaking.
– OR –
4
The Gospel of John is a late, theologically driven text. It introduces events and discourses absent from the Synoptics, reshapes Jesus as a cosmic Logos, and contradicts earlier chronological patterns. Historically, it is unreliable. Canonically it remains, but it does not belong in a historical-critical analysis of the Bible.
5
The Book of Revelation is not a universal, timeless roadmap for all civilizations, but a first-century Near Eastern political resistance text aimed at Rome—not a prophecy intended for the trajectory of Western civilization (including the United States).
Steefen said
My conclusions since joining the Bart Ehrman website. …
2
Jesus Christ is a composite character of historical fiction drawing on the Julio-Augustan imperial cult, the Manu royalty of Queen Helena, the Hermetica, Homeric Epics, Middle Platonic theology, and the TANAK.
…
4
… Composed later than the Synoptic Gospels, John reflects post-70 CE theological development rather than firsthand memory of Jesus’ life.
How can there be a first hand memory of Jesus’ life, if Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Under conclusion as stated in 2, given the elements that he is a composite of, there is no distinct “life of Jesus” to have a memory of.
Is there also an unstated drawing on the life of Decius Mundus, the Roman Knight who offered 200,000 drachma to sleep with Paulina, a virtuous Roman wife, who is the “real” Jesus according to conclusion 1, and paid 50,000 drachma to a servant to arrange it, who went to the temple of Isis and had them convince the good Paulina that the god Anubis wished to sleep with her?
Some might feel that Decius Mundus is the one that is more likely to be a character of a historical fiction.
Comment 67 has been edited to:
1
Jesus is Decius Mundus who sacrificed himself for the world (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4)
referencing Decius Mus, the son who sacrificed himself for victory, 295 BCE (History of Rome, Books 8-10 by Livy)
2
Jesus Christ is a composite character of historical fiction drawing on the Julio-Augustan imperial cult, the Manu royalty of Queen Helena, the Hermetica, Homeric Epics, Middle Platonic theology, and the TANAK.
3
The biblical God does not evidence creating and ruling across all advanced civilizations.
4
The Gospel of John does not belong within a historical-critical analysis of the Bible’s reliability. Composed later than the Synoptic Gospels, John reflects post-70 CE theological development rather than firsthand memory of Jesus’ life. Its distinctive episodes—most notably the resurrection of Lazarus—are absent from earlier sources and cannot be reconciled with the chronological and historical patterns preserved in the Synoptics. Furthermore, John’s high Logos Christology and extended philosophical discourses recast Jesus as a cosmic, metaphysical figure, diverging from the ministry documented in the Synoptics. Chronological discrepancies, multiple Jerusalem visits, and theological elaborations signal that John functions primarily as theological narrative and mythmaking.
5
The book of Genesis is woefully inaccurate with respect to human origins.
6
The Book of Revelation is not a universal, timeless roadmap for all civilizations, but a first-century Near Eastern political resistance text aimed at Rome—not a prophecy intended for the trajectory of Western civilization (including the United States).
= = = = =
Consider putting the 6 points in the order as they appear in the Holy Bible. Yes, Revelation, would stay in sixth place.
Bruce said:
How can there be a first hand memory of Jesus’ life, if Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Under conclusion as stated in 2, given the elements that he is a composite of, there is no distinct “life of Jesus” to have a memory of.
Of course, there isn’t.
I imagine the problem came about from his use of source(s) that do not view Jesus as a composite character of historical fiction.
Steefen, perhaps you can help us understand what exactly the point of Post 70 is. Are these things you’d like to discuss with us or are these just notes you’re taking for your book?
As I’ve ** you do not have permission to see this link **earlier, I’m extremely curious how you came to conclusions 1 and 2 since joining the blog of someone who believes in a historical Jesus, not a composite character of historical fiction.
Comment 62 by ** you do not have permission to see this link ** has an attribution ERROR.
He is quoting Stephen, not Steefen.
Actually, he’s correctly quoting ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I’d bet my life, which I value very highly, that Stephen would never use ** you do not have permission to see this link **to support anything.
Is there also an unstated drawing on the life of Decius Mundus, the Roman Knight who offered 200,000 drachma to sleep with Paulina, a virtuous Roman wife, who is the “real” Jesus according to conclusion 1, and paid 50,000 drachma to a servant to arrange it, who went to the temple of Isis and had them convince the good Paulina that the god Anubis wished to sleep with her?
Some might feel that Decius Mundus is the one that is more likely to be a character of a historical fiction.
Understandably so.
BJH1960 said
Is there also an unstated drawing on the life of Decius Mundus, the Roman Knight who offered 200,000 drachma to sleep with Paulina, a virtuous Roman wife, who is the “real” Jesus according to conclusion 1, and paid 50,000 drachma to a servant to arrange it, who went to the temple of Isis and had them convince the good Paulina that the god Anubis wished to sleep with her?
Some might feel that Decius Mundus is the one that is more likely to be a character of a historical fiction.Understandably so.
I apologize that reading it back, it sounds like I am saying that Paulina is the “real” Jesus according to Conclusion 1. It is, of course, the wealthy Roman Knight who wished to sleep with Paulina who is the “real” Jesus according to the way that Conclusion 1 is written.
BruceRMcF said
Steefen said
My conclusions since joining the Bart Ehrman website. …
2
Jesus Christ is a composite character of historical fiction drawing on the Julio-Augustan imperial cult, the Manu royalty of Queen Helena, the Hermetica, Homeric Epics, Middle Platonic theology, and the TANAK.
…
4
… Composed later than the Synoptic Gospels, John reflects post-70 CE theological development rather than firsthand memory of Jesus’ life.
How can there be a first hand memory of Jesus’ life, if Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Under conclusion as stated in 2, given the elements that he is a composite of, there is no distinct “life of Jesus” to have a memory of.
Is there also an unstated drawing on the life of Decius Mundus, the Roman Knight who offered 200,000 drachma to sleep with Paulina, a virtuous Roman wife, who is the “real” Jesus according to conclusion 1, and paid 50,000 drachma to a servant to arrange it, who went to the temple of Isis and had them convince the good Paulina that the god Anubis wished to sleep with her?
Some might feel that Decius Mundus is the one that is more likely to be a character of a historical fiction.
Decius Mundus IS a fictional character.
Steefen said
Comment 74
Decius Mundus is the savior of the world.
Jesus is the savior of the world.
But one has to read the following passage to see that the Paul figure is the one exploiting the pious.
Steefen
But it was the priests that enacted the fraud on Pauline who were crucified … being a Roman Knight (and, given the funds offered and the funds paid, evidently a wealthy one), Decius Mundus was exiled as a punishment.
This is obviously a tale of the corruption of Rome, and it is arguable that the name is a callback to the famous Plubius Decious Mus, the three generations of plebian Decious Mus where the first sacrificed himself in battle, engaging, various sources claimed, in a ritualistic act of self-sacrifice to carry the day in the battle of Vesuvius, and then his son and grandson do similar in two later battles.
So Decious Mus are three generations of plebians dying to save Rome from external enemies, while Decius Mundi is a wealthy Roman Knight whose behavior is exposing Rome to threat from internal corruption, so well spotted that the Decius Mundi name could be drawing attention to how the corrupt “modern day” Roman Knighthood being portrayed is a betrayal of the famous (via Livy and others) “righteous plebians” representing the spirit of Roman honor.
Now, some might question how compelling a picture of the savior of the world is presented by a wealthy Roman Knight who offers 200,000 drachma to get jiggy with an honorable Roman wife and, on failing that, pays 50,000 drachma to secure the assistance of temple priests to defraud the honorable Roman wife into believing that the God Anubis wishes to spend a night with her, with the wealthy Roman Knight playing the role of Anubus.
Indeed.
One of many reasons so very few take it seriously.
Bart’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **from 2013 is worth reading.
I think this is an important point:
“…these conspiracy theories always seem to be propounded by people without credentials in the fields they want to talk about. If someone wanted to make an important announcement in London that the moon was made out of green cheese, would you want to know whether he had ever taken a single course in astronomy?)”
In the comments section he wrote:
“There’s not an expert on the planet who thinks it worth while even responding to it! I’m afraid it’s a completely untenable thesis, so untenable that it’s not a topic of conversation even.”
“I looked at the book. I don’t know how well versed you are in Roman history, but I’m afraid the book can easily be ripped apart. If I had the energy, I’d do it, but it would take hours out of my day. Sorry!”
The end of his post really says it all:
“People like this seem to have boundless energy (and masses of time to waste). Why don’t they spend it on something useful – like learning about ancient history?”
If I had the energy, I’d do it, but it would take hours out of my day.
This is a perennial problem in all specialized fields of inquiry. The claim is presented in a clear provocative manner but the refutation requires a meticulous detailed breakdown. The specialists are too busy doing their work to address the claims. And they know that if do address them it will give the claim even more of a platform and a level of seriousness it might not have already attained. It’s dangerous to let bad ideas go unopposed but you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If you point out that the specialists in the field don’t take the claim seriously, well there’s your conspiracy!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)