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 spread throughout the Roman world, until, less than 400 years after it started, it had taken over and the Roman Empire had officially become Christian. In my mind I was thinking about a title like “The Triumph of Christianity: How Faith in Jesus Destroyed the Religions of Rome.” It would be unlike anything I had ever done.
The strategy was for me to write a 15-20 page prospectus in which I would explain what the idea behind the book was, why the topic was both important and interesting, and how I would go about structuring the book. A prospectus like this is designed to get a publisher interested and to give them enough of a sense of what would actually be argued in the book for them to see that it has already been carefully thought through. You can’t simply write a prospectus off the top of your head. You have already to have done substantial research on the topic and to know where you want to go with it. For many authors that alone takes months or years, just to get to the point of writing a compelling prospectus.
In my case, had been thinking, reading, and teaching about the topic for years. Many (many!) years ago I had taught a PhD seminar on “Christianizing the Roman Empire.” The seminar had developed out of an earlier one that I had taught when I first came to UNC in the late 1980s that dealt with the early Christian “apologists.” These were the earliest intellectual defenders of the Christian faith against attacks of pagan opponents, authors such as Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Origen. I enjoyed that older course very much, as it allowed us to look at how pagans portrayed second- and third-century Christians, attacked them, persecuted them, and so on, and to see how the Christians defended themselves – how Christians argued that they should not be persecuted but instead should be recognized as the superior religion.
But while teaching that course one semester it occurred to me that…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN UP! All membership fees go to help the hungry and homeless. And you get a *lot* for the money!!!
Looking forward to read more on the subject professor Ehrman ! Regards from Brazil
One book that really altered the way I thought about Christianity’s early growth was Hector Avalos’ “Healthcare and the Rise of Christianity”. I take it you’ve read it?
I have it and am about to read it; it’s part of the issue I’m interested in. (Hector and I were colleagues for a couple of years at UNC)
Can’t wait to learn more!
Personally, I can’t help thinking the promises (and threats!) about an afterlife would have been the most important factor in converting people. Precisely *because* their previous religions didn’t address the topic.
A P.S. to my previous comment: Obviously, all you and other scholars can access are written records from that time period – the beliefs and concerns of the literate few. How can you know, for example, whether they were the only ones who really cared about things like “the nature of Jesus”? With the great majority of converts concerned only about how, if it was true, this stuff would affect *them*?
I think that’s long been the problem with much scholarship: scholars have assumed that the issues of concern to the literary elite — whose writings we still have — were the concerns of oi polloi, who could not write.
Paul and the Christ missionaries preached about the end of time approaching in the current generation. Did any of the pagan religions teach such an idea? Would the people in the the first centuries be persuaded to believe this just as people believe it today? So they renounced their pagan religions with multiple gods and prepared for the end to come?
No, this wasn’t a part or Roman religions.
I would also like to read about how and why the core message of Jesus changed so radically as it became institutionalized, and diversified in doctrine and practice as it spread throughout the world. But that might be much beyond your 400 year time frame.
Excellent book proposal. I look forward to reading it.
Yup, that’s a big issue; and yup, it’s not really what my book will be about. (I deal with it more in my book Lost Christainities)
Dr. Ehrman, from talking with the average person of faith I’ve noticed that more often than not they are completely ignorant of the other non-official (i.e. non-Greco-Roman) religions that were very popular at the same time as — and were in competition with — Christianity: e.g. Mithraism and Manichaeism. Moreover, the people I talk to are often totally ignorant about the influential pagan critics of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, who exposed some of the errors and contradictions in doctrine and scripture that scholars such as yourself today willingly acknowledge exist. And Christian theologians, such as Origen, created the discipline of Christian apologetics as a response to such critiques of Christianity. Do you plan on covering these topics in your next book?
Yup! (Origen had important predecessors, btw, starting with Justin)
Good point. Justin’s works are literally called apologies.
You would especially find his Dialogue with Trypho of interest: it is an alleged debate between Justin and a rabbi about the truth of Christianity and the meaning of Jewish Scripture.
I sense a textbook can also emerge from your research!
I’d very much like to write a textbook of Christianities first three hundred years, From Jesus to Constantine…
if you do, I’d buy it in hard cover for my library. And, I’d read it too, btw.
That would be excellent!
Would you ever consider doing a Teaching Company course on this topic first, then writing the book?
Yes, I’ve done that before. Haven’t thought about it for this one!
My reaction to what you’re told us about this book is “WOW”!
This is a really interesting topic. I’ll be especially curious about why there was so much Xian proselytizing before Constantine came along, how Constantine came to believe in Xianity, and how Constantine furthered the growth of Xianity. But all of what you’ve described sounds very interesting.
Hi Bart. Your new project really excites me. It is a topic that fascinates me. I am aware of some books that seem to touch on the same subject – The rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark, Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox and The fall of the pagans and the rise of medieval Christianity by Kenneth W Hart in the Great Courses (to which you contribute). Are you familiar with these books? Will your book cover similar or different ground?
Yup, they are important books — and there are lots of others. Mine will be different of course!!
I’m excited about it too! I think the topics you’re covering for the next book show that you really know and understand the interests of your audience. Those are all things that I want to know more about. I can’t wait!
Sounds like a book I would purchase!
The Triumph of Christianity is a title not suitable to today, especially not with young audiences and in the Islamization of Western Europe and the United States. It’s a politically incorrect title. There’s no rally around such a title.
Maybe a title like this would work: Five Ways Christianity Did Religion Better Than Other Religions in the Roman Empire
We know Romans were Jupiter worshippers. I’d read the book to see specifically what Jupiter worship did not offer that Christianity did.
Another chapter would show what Sol Invictus worship did not offer that Christianity did.
The book Gospel of God: Romans as Paul’s Aeneid is an excellent book that showed how Pauline Christianity out-maneuvered religion in Rome.
Would Moderate Muslims like the title, Triumph of Christianity? “And how long did that last,” they would ask, and then look for the title, Triumph of Islam.
Other than the title, I look forward to reading the book if it acknowledges how Paul “triumphed” over the way Rome did religion and answers what was wrong with a) Jupiter worship, b) Sol Invictus worship, and possibly picking one more, b) Isis worship (Mars, Venus, and emperor worship wouldn’t work but one may be interested in monotheism vs pantheon, including local gods).
Triumphalism is dicey. Then, after you have TORN UP Christianity with your own books, you call Christianity a triumph; then the fiascos of Christianity …
Yes, it’s a problematic title. But it’s catchy. And the reality is that in the race to make converts, Christianity *did* “win.” The goal of my book is to write about this triumph in a way that is not triumphalistic. (I.e. “triumph” can be seen as a neutral term — if you win in the Olympics, that’s a triumph, even if I was rooting for the other guy)
Are you going to address the issue of whether or not Philip the Arab was the first believing Christian emperor of Rome.?
It seems to me obvious that he was, before Constantine: I can’t figure out why people get so emotional in trying to deny this obvious fact.
I may mention it. The actual evidence that he was is very thin. Eusebius says he was, but there is nothing really to support it that I know of (I’ve read the scholarship on the question)
Have you read Irfan Shahid on this question? He was the one who convinced me that Philip the Arab was a Christian emperor, though not one who promoted it officially.
Apart from Eusebius’s claims (and later Christian writers based on him), what is the evidence? He murdered his predecessor; he made his own father a god; throughout his reign he used pagan imagery on all his coins; and he never used any Christian imagery. A good discussion is in : Hans A. Pohlsander, “Philip the Arab and Christianity,” Historia: Zeitschfift für Alte Geschichte 29 (1980) 463-73.
Exciting and a MUST READ even before written ! Given what I’ve learned reading your blogs and books, I’ve wondered how and why Christianity not only took root but spawned a forest.
I am half joking when I suggest a chapter on the ease of entrance into Heaven/Afterlife (compared to let’s say Kundalini Yoga and Dzogchen Buddhism.)
Will your book rely heavily on Edward Gibbon?
Things I really want to read about (in random order):
Theodosius I
Who burned the Library of Alexandria. Was it the Christians or the Muslims?
Roman perception of Jesus: Some claim Jesus as dying and rising was modeled upon pagan gods to appeal to the Romans whereas in fact Romans despised Jesus precisely because he was crucified: ex. Alexamenos graffito.
Marcus Aurelius: Did he really persecute Christians?
Hypatia and Cyril
Gnosticism
Mystery religions within Rome: Eleusinian Mysteries
Other rival religions: ex Mithraism
I’ll certainly deal with Gibbon. And most of these other topics. (Though I think the “competition” with Mithraism is often overblown; I’m not sure they were actually competing)
Rodney Stark, Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University, has written a book on a similar theme from a sociological perspective entitled, The Triumph of Christianity: How The Jesus Movement Became The World’s Largest Religion. How will your book differ from his?
I really like the way he crunches the numbers, but I think his book is highly problematic in other respects. Part of the problem is that he is not intimately familiar with the ancient sources….
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/hoj.htm
Have you Heard to the Hymn of Jesus ? Sacred- Text.com? This authentic ? They did Dance and sing ?
If it is true, I knew it!
I have mentioned this before. Jesus saying You played the flute and you did not dance Matthew 11:17….So music and dance was involved with Jesus.. The Temple of Bacchus, a lot of people don’t know this but I do there are stones with engravings of men playing of the flute and Priest used to meet in the middle at the top of the temple to light flame. I should be accurate on this..Well of course BACCHUS (DIONYSUS) danced to honor JUPITER ( ZEUS ) and to keep him happy.. out of respect and much more ( Dionysian Mysteries ) ” The God who Comes ”
( Matthew 11:11 is the same as Gospel of Thomas Line 46 by the way… Thats easy…. )
“ ‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’
“The Hymn of the Lord which He sang in secret to the holy Apostles, His disciples, for it is said in the Gospel: ‘And after singing a hymn He ascended the mount.’ This Hymn is not put in the canon, because of those who think according to themselves, and not according to the Spirit and Truth of God, and that it is written: ‘It is good to hide the sacrament of the King; but it is honourable to reveal the works of God.
Now answer to My dancing!
See thyself in Me who speak;
And seeing what I do,
Keep silence on My Mysteries.
Understand by dancing, what I do;
For thine is the Passion of Man
That I am to suffer.
Thou couldst not at all be conscious
Of what thou dost suffer,
Were I not sent as thy Word by the Father.
[The last clause may be emended: I am thy Word; I was sent by the Father.]
Thanks Bart !
When I say Mithraism I mean why did Christianity win over and not other relatively new religions like Mithraism, Manechianism… etc
My sense is that Mithraism never was trying to be a world religion and there are lots of reasons it didn’t take over (among other things, only men could belong! If you exclude half the human race, you’re not gonna take over the world). I think Manichaeism could never get over the fact that it was seen as “oriental” and not Roman.
About Mithraism… I certainly don’t know much about it. But I find it hard to accept the argument that it couldn’t have become the official religion of the Empire *because it excluded women*. I think Rome *could* have adopted a religion – Mithraism, or something less secretive – that glorified war (and masculinity), with women being treated even more as “inferiors” than they already were.
One problem is that there’s no indication that anyone wanted it to become “the official religion” of the Roman empire, or even considered it….
I agree. So much of our curiosity about origins (of anything ancient) reflect our modern concerns, values, worldwide perspective, and frankly our affluence.
How will this book be the same as or different from Rodney Stark’s “The Rise Of Christianity?” Many of your themes sound similar.
Yup, similar themes and very different approaches and views.
doctor ehrman
jesus told his disciples to go only to the lost sheep of israel
“Matthew 4:24 people from Syria were healed.”
who are these syrians? jewish pilgrims?
Syria here seems to refer to the region north of Galilee, and the people it mentions then are almost certainly Jews who live there.
That’s a huge undertaking. Obviously there’s been a lot written on that subject, but maybe not so much from your area of scholarship, which tends to be more focused, less generalist. I mean, this is Gibbon territory, man. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Pagan Empire. But I can see how you’d go that way, because you’ve had to study pagan beliefs a great deal to understand how Christianity both differed from and agreed with them.
Some might argue (and many have) that it wasn’t such an unqualified victory for Christianity. Although there have been a lot of discredited theories about how this or that Christian belief or story was cribbed from pagans, there’s no question Christianity adapted itself to fit the pagan mindset better as its followers became predominantly Non-Jewish. And the values of an oppressed minority faith are going to change once it becomes the majority ruling faith–a source of power.
What I’d be most interested to learn is at what point Christians became less concerned with religious tolerance–ie, “Why can’t we all get along?” and more concerned with stamping out all other religions. Obviously they wanted all people around them to believe in Christ from the start–but at what point did they become okay with some degree of compulsion in this matter? I’d think the early Christians would have found that horrifying, believing as they did that Jesus was coming back in the near future, and it was only necessary to choose to believe in him–if you take away choice, don’t you also take away faith?
The early apologists seem like very reasonable people when I read what they wrote. But people in general tend to be more reasonable when they don’t have any choice in the matter. Does that sound cynical? Anyway, looking forward to reading this when it’s done.
Wow! Daunting to say the least. Making it all accessible to mere mortals is also quite a task. So often I just can’t understand what scholars write. What an undertaking. I love the title: “The Triumph of Christianity.”
Such a growth in Christianity must mean that the religion somehow responds to universal psychological needs and wishes of people in dealing with death, explaining things, etc. I wonder if the recent growth of Mormonism can tell us something about how religions grow. Is there a central unifying theme that Christianity triumphed primarily because of “x” or “y”? Thanks for sharing all of this.
Wouldn’t it be correct to say that, *whatever* its appeal was, Christianity ultimately “triumphed” solely because Constantine adopted and favored it? Wouldn’t it have died out within a few more generations if he’d picked some other sect as the one he hoped would unite the Empire?
No, I wouldn’t say “solely.” Maybe it would have succeeded anyway! Maybe a later emperor would have converted. And it really wasn’t a done deal in Constantine’s day. So it’s all very interesting!
Don’t forget to consider including the probably-surprising (to modern thinkers) story of the emperor known as Julian the Apostate, who more or less tried to reverse matters vis-à-vis Christian dominance of civic life in the empire.
Looking forward to this book, Triumph of Christianity. Also, as a new blogger on Dr Ehrman’s site, I am very interested in a new book covering how views developed regarding the afterlife. Always an intriguing topic of debate, if one does get written in the future.
You’re going to publish a book with virtually the same title and about the same subject matter as the one written by Rodney Stark? Is that typical? Are you having a feud with Rodney Stark?
Yes, it does happen — different scholars are interested in the same topic, and there are only so many ways to explain the topic in a title. My book will look almost nothing like his, as you’ll see if you read them both (or even look at the table of contents!)
Dear Dr. Ehrman
I am a member of your blog. I am from Albania and I have been reading and enjoying all your published works. I am looking forward to your new project and can’t wait to read it. In the context of the topic of your forthcoming book, I am particularly interested in the percentage of Christians and pagans in the Roman Empire by the time Christianity became the dominant religion in the empire and the way Christians persecuted and replaced the pagans. As you know Albania at the time of the dominance of Christianity was part of Illyria and I am really interested to know the approximate percentage of pagans by the time Christianity became legally the only permitted religion. I really hope you have tackled this issue in your book, but in the meantime, I would be grateful to you if you could suggest some academic sources that deal with this issue.
You might try Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity.