(6 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...My book The Triumph of Christianity was (by far?) the most difficult book I’ve written for a general audience (difficult to write, not to read). And it was the most learned in many ways, as well as the one I learned most from by writing it, because of the range of informatoin I had to deal with.
Here is my Anniversary Post #5, published in 2016, before I was fully committed (that is, under contract) to write it, explaining why I knew it would be unusually hard.
******************************
When my agent Roger and I decided that we might want to explore the possibility of going with a different publisher, the first step was to come up with a book proposal to shop around. For ten years or so I had been wanting to write a particular book, but had always put it off because it had seemed like such a MAJOR undertaking. I came to think that this was the perfect time to pursue it, to propose doing a new book on a completely new topic with a new publisher as a new beginning.
The book was/is to be about how Christianity
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Good morning, Dr. Ehrman! I have *Triumph* on my shelf waiting to be read as soon as I finish *Love Thy Stranger*. I’ve read so many of your books. I sprinkle in other books in between reading yours, and I’m always glad to return to your writing voice.
I have an unrelated question this morning. I’m confused by the passage in 2 Samuel 7:10-16 — the covenantal promise to David spoken through the prophet Nathan. The reason why I’m confused is that the passage seems to align with Solomon partially, and could also look forward to Jesus partially. The father and son language has significance to the Christian reader retrospectively, but the bit about him committing iniquity certainly would not! The punishment bit could point to a suffering Messiah (!!!), though I see how it could reference Solomon. And the eternal throne surely could not reference a literal earthly kingdom.
I know you don’t think this is actually pointing to Jesus, but it doesn’t seem to be wholly about Solomon either. I’m curious how you read this. Thank you!
Good questions. The sin and punishment are a reference to Solomon and the Davidic line of kings (Solomon himself turns out to be a scoundrel in many ways, among other things enslaving Israelites as conscripted labor). The author of 2 Samuel is writing centuries later, after the destructoin of Judah, and he knows that the Davidic dynasty has come to an end, and he blames its demise on the sins of David’s successors. There is no reference here to a future messiah who will die for the sake of his people.
Hi, Bart. I’m fascinated by this post. Can you give us a link to the original so we can follow the thread?
I tried searching in various ways and got either no result or too many results.
Thanks.
Easy schmeasy. Each of these posts was first published in April of the year mentioned: so in this case April 2016. If you click on Archives just go to that month and you’ll see all the posts. I think this thread started on April 16.
Dr. Ehrman,
Paul / Romans 1:4
by his resurrection from the dead, he was appointed the Son of God.
Mark 9: 7
This is my beloved Son. (The Transfiguration)
Matthew 16: 16-17
Peter: You are the Son of the living God. Jesus: This was revealed to you by my Father in heaven.
Paul: Jesus became Son of God beginning at his resurrection
Mark and Matthew (if not Luke and John): Jesus was the Son of God before his resurrection.
Paul was neither at the transfiguration nor Peter’s assertion nor at the Resurrection meal where Jesus ate broiled fish.
Paul has his vision and later writes Jesus became an appointed Son of God after his crucifixion, by resurrection.
Question: Is Paul more aligned with the real Jesus and Oral Tradition or are the gospels more aligned with the real Jesus and Oral Tradition (multiple times–transfiguration and Peter’s assertion confirmed by Jesus and multiple attestations)?
I’d say there was not a single oral tradition to be aligned with, but thousands of oral traditions, and each author is reflecting what he has heard.
With the “thousands of oral traditions” Matthew, Mark, and Luke heard Jesus was the Son of God before he was crucified.
Let’s say thousands or millions of people went to the Macy’s 4th of July fireworks, sure there were thousands or millions of oral testimonies but they all agree they saw fireworks. Paul did not hear anything because he wasn’t there and did not immediately go to Jerusalem after his conversion as per Galatians 1: 17-18. You have just given equal weight to eyewitnesses and one or those who were not eyewitnesses. Just because there were thousands of people who knew what happened does not mean every piece of writing is accurate. Jesus was known to be the Son of God before he resurrected (also add Jesu’s baptism accounts) is different from Jesus was appointed to be the Son of God after he resurrected.
In The Triumph of Christianity, you explain the remarkable growth of Christianity largely through social and historical factors such as missionary activity, tight social networks, and the care Christians showed for the poor and sick. These explanations are very persuasive in explaining how a small movement could expand.
Yet they raise another question for me. Many religious movements in antiquity had strong communities and charismatic leaders, but few seem to have reshaped moral expectations across such a wide cultural area. Within a few centuries, Christianity appears to have influenced attitudes toward charity, the value of the poor, and even the moral evaluation of practices such as infanticide.
From a historical perspective, how do historians explain not only the numerical success of Christianity but also this apparent shift in moral imagination? Are such ethical developments simply the cumulative result of social practices within Christian communities, or might something else explain why these values became so widely persuasive?
If this kind of developmental model is somewhat general, I also wonder how it might apply to the later rise of Islam. That may be beyond this discussion, but together they remain one of the enduring puzzles of religious history.
I’d say very view ancient religious movements had strong communities with charismatic leaders. One of the striking feature of nearly all the thousands of Greek and Roman religions is their focus on prayer and sacrifice, but not on fellowship and attention to religoius teachers. Do you have exceptions in mind?
I will have to check this one out next! Just finished your “Heaven and Hell: a History of the Afterlife”, a very interesting and satisfying read.
Hi, Bart. I’m fascinated by this post of April 15, 2026 about Why I Was Reluctant to Write The Triumph of Christianity. Can you give us a link to the original so we can follow the thread?
I tried searching in various ways and got either no result or too many results.
Thanks.
Just click on the Archives link at the bottom right of the screen with the post and you can find the month and then scroll to the date.
I read this book some time ago and can’t remember as much as I would like. Did you consider why Christianity spread into the Sassanian world and further while remaining a minor religion and hardly touched India at all? It seems to me that many of the factors you point to should have been active in those areas too. And if we focus on the political unity of the West, the break up of the Empire did not prevent a vigorous and successful missionary movement into Northern and Eastern Europe.
Have others considered these questions?
Yes, they have, but I haven’t at any length. I do think that later legends about, say, Thomas taking the Gospel to India are indeed complete legends. I haven’t dealt with the Sassanian empire at all.
I read Triumph when it was first released. It seems to hit on all my interests about the years of Early Christianity. It was historical and an easy read. I had never considered the impact of Pagan religions’ belief in multiple Gods made it easy for Christianity to move across the Roman Empire. Constitine’s belief in the Pagan Sun God seem to be important for him to be the first step in him accepting Christianity,
My question is do you recommend any other books that might be a good companion for your book about the growth of early Christianity?
I always have my grad students read the classics, which are usually classics because they’re brillia, even if dated. In this case, THE classic is Adolf von Harnack, The MIssion and Expansion of Early Christinaity; the best relatively modern classic is Ramsey Macmullen, The Christianizaiton of the Roman Empire.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for all the books you have written, and especially for “The Triumph of Christianity” and “Love Thy Stranger,” which I am deeply into. It seems to me that it was not Jesus who should get all or most of — or even very much — of the credit for the success of the Christian religion. Jesus was a devoted Jew who the Gospels say explicitly instructed his Jewish followers to provide help and assistance only to Jews who were in need of help.
From what I read in your books, successful Christian Evangelism over 3+ centuries in a large number of countries under Roman government control, at a time when Christians were subject to being killed by wild animals for the entertainment of citizens was extremely difficult and hazardous — but nevertheless the number of converts increased until it became the large enough to convert the Emperor and become the official religion of the Roman Empire.
I’m just saying the unnamed multitude of evangelists who risked unpleasant deaths to gradually win-over converts were the ones who eventually succeeded in putting Christianity on the path of continued growth.
Bill Steigelmann
Did you consider the role of Mohi in China?
No, I was focusing on the Roman world.