In a previous email I mentioned that I had started writing my trade book on Revelation, tentatively titled Expecting Armaggedon. Over the past couple of months I have been reflecting on how my approach to writing books like this has changed over time. I talked about my basic procedure a few years ago on the blog: https://ehrmanblog.org/how-i-write-the-crucial-phase/ The basic line is that I typically spend a couple of years doing the research and making very detailed outlines of the book, chapter by chapter, and then a short amount of time writing it.
The process I described there still holds for the most part (it’s a process that I’ve tried to convince every single graduate student I’ve ever had to follow, and every single one of them has decided not to!) (to their advantage, often…) But I’ve changed my approach to the writing itself.
As I recently mentioned, my first trade book was Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Once that was finished, I decided (again) to move back to hard-core scholarly writing. But a publisher convinced me to do a book on how we got the canon of the New Testament, these twenty-seven books and not others. I had long been interested in that issue, ever since my first PhD seminar with Bruce Metzger, and had long thought that most discussions of the matter (including Prof. Metzger’s) did not focus enough on the really important issue, of the various forms of Christianity found throughout the second and third centuries, and their use of various “authoritative” texts. The decision of which books to include was largely a result of choosing the “correct” authorities and leaving “bad” ones out of the canon.
So I wrote the book, Lost Christianities: The Battles For Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Sarah, my wife and arbiter of taste, has always thought it is my best trade book. I’ve always disagreed. In my view the best I’ve written is always the most recent. I’ve thought that every time….
Following form, I decided Lost Christianities would be my last trade book. But then Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code appeared. I rather liked it as a page-turner (in contrast to literally all my friends) but I really could not believe how
Why not join the blog? It costs very little and you get tons for your money. And every penny of your small membership fee goes to charity! No one loses, everyone wins — especially you! Click here for membership options
I write quite a few articles for academic publication (not about the Bible), and I am very impressed that you can write that well that quickly. (And it appears that you follow the old saw that the secret of good writing is rewriting, as do I.) Of course, one of my biggest problems is usually that I have to trim my paper to fit a word limit and that is often much harder than writing the first draft (which I do not create with an eye to the limit). For books, you presumably do not have such limits. (My only advantage is that I am not writing for a general audience.)
Right. I have friends who sometimes say that they wanted to make their article shorter but they didn’t have the time.
Sounds reasonable. You don’t really have a job where you have to be miserable.
I’m really looking forward to your new book! Your approach to writing was interesting and I understand geezerhood as well, unfortunately.
“I’m just naturally a bit slower as I move into geezerhood.”
I *love* this phrase! I’m going to borrow geezerhood to excuse my own deceleration.
I’m really pleased to hear you’re taking time to enjoy life a bit more, Bart. I hope the pork tenderloin was epic.
By the way, you may have missed a question I posted a couple of days ago on your recent Apocalypse post ‘Change the Context, Change the Meaning: The Apocalypse!’ I asked about Victorinus of Pettau.
Bart, you once “blasted out” sixteen thousand words in a day? Must be near the human limit. If I were to guess the approximate year I would say 2014 when you produced your textbook “The Bible” and trade book “How Jesus Became God.” But that’s just a wild guess. I’ve discovered a couple of your books I don’t have!
It’s easy to find lists of your books but I have not yet found one that denotes which are trade and which are scholarly. The titles often give hints, but would you be willing to takes a few moments to spoon feed us that info or point us to such a list? Thanks.
If they sound boring or academic, they are scholarly! (Things like Orthodox Corruption; Forgery and Counterforgery; Studies in Textual Criticism; Didymus the Blind; Apostolic Fathers; Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations). Does that help?
That is my starting point but he titles all sound interesting to me. I mean for example Forgery and Counterforgery sounds a little like a movie title to me.
But don’t worry about a list so that instead I can ask a different question if you don’t mind.
When i see a treatise or article that sounds interesting, i first have to investigate who the author is to determine whether he or she is a scholar, apologist, or something else. Even then, there are scholars who are highly committed Christians, some of whom are objective and some of whom interpret everything through a biased lens.
MY QUESTION: Is there ever discussion in the field that authors of religious works should always disclose their personal faith right up front?
In one sense maybe it’s nobody’s business and irrelevant. But readers have a right to know what worldview is behind a work, especially so in religious studies. A Paula Freidricksen work on the historical Jesus is going to be very different from a William Lane Craig book. It’s left up to the reader to sort it all out before beginning to read.
Yes, it’s a live topic, for just the reasons you think. On one hand, evidence and argument are evidence and argument, whoever makes them. On the other hand people have biases even when the work not to have, and so it might help to know. But knowing may prejudice your view of the evidence and argument. Tricky circle to get out of….
I love so much your writing, because it’s so honest, direct and it exudes a noble search for the truth – enwrapped in an original sense of humor. It’s really crazy that you’re so damm knowledgeable and erudite that you can write whole chapters in a freakin day! I mean, it’s ridiculous! Come on!
I am about to start “Lost Christianities” and I just recently found a Greek version of your book about the DaVinci Code, so it was funny that you mentioned both of these two! And I can’t wait for “Expecting Armageddon”.
Sorry for the overexcitement babbling! I just love your work! If I believed in God, I would wish “God bless you” 😂😂 But still, you get my point! 😂
“And which of you by worrying can add a single day to his life’s span?” Seems like I read that in some book.
It weirdly says “cubit” (instead of single day). And who wants a cubit of life? OK, I guess I’ll take an extra one if it’s available.
Really inspiring and refreshing to read this, cheers for sharing! Only vaguely related, but the work ethic you describe somewhat reminds me of a quote attributed to Stephen King, obviously another very prolific author: “Amateurs sit and wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work”. It’s cool that you’re looking to relax a bit and focus on fully enjoying life though, it’s important to stop and smell the roses/pork tenderloin
“My typical procedure has been to write a chapter a day, work it over a bit and rest up the next day, then do the next chapter, and repeat the cycle for a couple of weeks . . .” I like to imagine that Dr. Ehrman, upon completing his day’s writing, still manages to wash the dishes, do the laundry, and vacuum the carpet.
Well, I regularly do dishes and laundry, but I let someone else take care of the carpet.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you have a specific system you use while taking notes? With the vast amount of literature you have to read for each book, I’m sure it’s daunting at times to keep everything organized.
I refuse to use fancy software. For me, bells and whistles get in the way and complicate life. I use a word processor and store notes in files within subfolders of folders. A search engine can easily find most anything I need.
Thanks for the insights into your writing process.
In Stephen King’s “On Writing,” he describes his process (this is fiction, of course). His is pretty much the opposite of your approach. With *no* outline, he begins with an interesting setup with lots of built-in friction/tension: a solitary house, maybe on an island. A collection of varied and interesting people who have strong feelings (love/hate?) for each other. Maybe a storm. Maybe the power goes out.
And then he begins with no idea where the story is going. His first draft *is* his outline, and it has loads of mistakes. Another pass to add foreshadowing, fix continuity errors, and so on. And then more passes to make the story sing.
Not at all something I could do. But it’s fun hearing how successful authors ply their craft.
He’s a genius. Quite amazing.
Sure looking forward to the new book. Do you and the publishers have a ballpark time for release?
It normally takes a year after the manuscript is completed; I hope to have it to them in early January.
You can cook !!?
I’m doing a mean lasagne for tonight. I’ve never bought one pre-made and I make my own tomato sauce. Moosewood Cookbook version. Fantastic.
I was hoping you’d say that you could work miracles with 5 loaves and a couple of fish 😊
Was very excited to see your new course on ‘The Triumph of Christianity’ is now available. If you were to do a course on home cooking, I would buy it in a flash.
Recently, I’ve been trying to understand the arguments for and against ‘Q’. Have you ever blogged about it? I cannot find mention of it when I use the ‘Search’ facility. Thanks
A bit. I think you’ll find something if you search for Q source.
Patrick has met someone very special who likes moose and everything having to do with moose! They will
be here Christmas. Now I can give her the perfect Christmas gift!!! Thanks.
Speaking of ‘changing your life’, I have a question that you may be too humble to answer honestly: when would say your life really did change, in terms of becoming famous (arguably the most famous living scholar of any religion-related studies and somebody recognizable to virtually every intellectual on the planet)?
There had to be a time – perhaps only in retrospect – where you were no longer ‘just’ a professor and a scholar, right?
Yeah, I’m not that (most famous; recognizable). But the big change came with Misquoting Jesus and the media attention. It hasn’t changed my life that much actually, apart from amking me busier….
Who – among religion-related scholars – would you say is more famous/recognizable?
Well, it completely depends on “which audience.” But certainly Karen Armstrong, e.g.. In roughy my field, Elaine Pagels, N. T. Wright?
I heard this recently and thought of your book on The Apocalypse.
Discussing the Johannine corpus ( the Gospel, the three epistles and the Apocalypse) , Dennis McDonald said that he thinks the Book of Revelation is actually made up of two sperate writings. One is an introduction, letters to the churches and an ending into which is inserted the Apocalyptical visions.
Is this something you’re familiar with and will you discuss that in your book?
I won’t be discussing it in my book; there have long been theories like this, but I see the book as an integrated whole (even if it used earlier sources); my sense is that that is more the consensus these days, with a lot of scholars arguing that chs. 2-3 (the letters) are absolutely fundamental to understanding the book.