(8 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...I am at a critical juncture in my current writing project, and thought I could provide an update on my progress over a few posts. Today I talk about titles
As I earlier indicated on the blog, I am tentatively calling the book: The Triumph of Christianity: How the Followers of Jesus Destroyed the Religions of Rome. I’m not sure what the final title will be – this is just what I’m working with for now. The main title (Triumph of Christianity) is pretty secure, I think. It is what I proposed to my publisher (Simon & Schuster) when I first floated a prospectus of the book before them to see if they were interested in publishing it, and they were (and I think are) enthusiastic about it. The subtitle is simply the best I could come up with. I rather like it, but I’m not sure they will.
Titles are complicated affairs, as I’ve mentioned (a long time ago) on the blog. For an *academic* book (that is, a scholarly book written for scholars), most of the time, the author comes up with the title and the publisher goes with it. I think for all of my academic books, the publishers have simply called it what I wanted to call it. But that is changing a bit these days: publishers are becoming a bit more interventionist, even with academic titles.
The reason is that…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. So, if you don’t belong, JOIN!! You’ll get tons of posts on all sorts of interesting topics, for very little money. And every dime goes to charity! What’s not to like???
Here is a suggestion for a title. Christianity Triumphant: How a small band of believers rose to become the religion of an Empire.
Hello Bart. Saw on Amazon the other day that Larry Hurtado is about to release a similarly themed book called “Destroyer of the Gods.” Great title, but I don’t know much more about it.
Yes, I saw that too! We seem to write on similar topics!
You’ve called it The Triumph of Christianity so much that I’m attached to it now. If a certain word doesn’t quite express what I want to convey, I will right-click on it in Word. It gives a small list of synonyms. I’ve also googled synonyms. Just focusing on the word “destroyed,” here’s what Word came up with:
The Triumph of Christianity: How the Followers of Jesus Demolished the Religions of Rome
The Triumph of Christianity: How the Followers of Jesus Devastated the Religions of Rome
The Triumph of Christianity: How the Followers of Jesus Ruined the Religions of Rome
The Triumph of Christianity: How the Followers of Jesus Wrecked the Religions of Rome
The Triumph of Christianity: How the Followers of Jesus Smashed the Religions of Rome. haha, like Hulk!
Synonyms for triumph are–victory, accomplishment, success, and conquest. Triumph sounds better than any of those in my opinion.
Some of the synonyms for destroyed sound rather catchy and intriguing!
Actually, no, those synonyms are terrible. They sound like a hostile takeover.
“Actually, no, those synonyms are terrible. They sound like a hostile takeover.”
It seems to me that that is exactly what it was.
Why does misquoting Jesus have a different title in Europe?
Because the European publishers thought they had a better idea. So much for *that* idea!
Yes, titles are the worst! I lost out on my own title in my first published book (also with S&S)
To my mind, your sub-title should bring in the word “Pagan,” not just “Religions of Rome.” I think there is more at stake here; its implications are further reaching than just Rome. What was lost in the religious paradigm when Christianity took over? Sub-title: “Loss of the Pagan Paradigm”? Otherwise, who really cares about the religions of Rome( (As far as pagan religions went, the Roman version was not the most profound!)
Not directly relevant, but I’ve read that a variant, say in 300 manuscripts counts as 300 variants, is that true?
Sorry — this question got lost in the shuffle! No, when scholars are estimating the numbers of variants, they are not counting 300 mss that have one variant as 300 variants.
How the Followers of Jesus *Destroyed* the Religions of Rome. … Bart, destroyed sounds abrupt. How about Defeated?
Rivercrowman: Defeated is a good replacement word.
Do the (pretty much fixed) title and (still tentative) subtitle of your new book cohere? The new religion offered something positive and remarkably appealing. Its destructive force derived from this positive appeal. Paul and the other exponents of the new religion did not so much dwell on the deficiencies of paganism as they did the virtues of the new religion, the saving power of belief in the risen Jesus and (early decades) his imminent return. The existing subtitle wrongly suggests Paul and the rest preached “seek and destroy pagan targets,” But they put up and proclaimed a new message more than they described and sought to destroy an old one.
It could logically be the case that the religions of Rome were destroyed and in their place came nothing, or something possessed of no lasting appeal.
Yes, one of my points will be that Christian leaders really did want to destroy the pagan religions.
Warmest wishes with the new book and its success. I am sure it will be very educational and have knowledge people deserve. Thank you very much for working so hard on it and it is not going unappreciated! Back to school my self Bart. I will make sure I always support your blog and it’s purpose wherever I may go and end up.
A very interesting process!
“Misquoting Jesus” was an extremely important book for me in my religious quest. It is also clearly and concisely written which is no easy feat. I encourage readers of this blog to read it. I do, however, like the title “Lost in Transmission” much, much better and I believe it more accurately describes the subject of the book.
As to any suggestions from me about a book title of yours or much of anything, I think it is pretty unlikely that I, a writer of a few book chapters and academic papers, would have much constructive to say about the writing of one who has written over 30 books, many of them really terrific books. Plus, I have no academic training in your field. I wish it were otherwise because it is a fascinating field. For now, it is more than enough that I stay up with reading your blogs and your books. As incredibly productive as you are, just my reading what you write is no small task for me. Keep going, Your work means so very much to me.
Isn’t there a verse in Proverbs about not judging a book by its cover? 🙂
Dr. Ehrman, if you want the title to catch people’s attention and sell like hotcakes, you only need a simply three word title: “WHY CHRIST WON”
And in the subtitle you can be clearer, like “How Christianity Triumphed While Civilization Collapsed”.
I also dislike it when books have chapter titles that are trying to be funny, but give no clue as to what the chapter is about. It’s annoying enough in a bookstore, but terrible if you are online at Amazon, then it’s very difficult to decide if the book if worth buying.
Great post.
To be honest, I didn’t like the title “Misquoting Jesus” precisely because of the reason you have mentioned: I think it is a bit misleading.
I am faced by the same dilemma now, thinking of a title for my book.
As I have mentioned before, it is about a lapsed Christian who, believing the writers of the New Testament have misquoted the Jewish scriptures to advance Jesus as the Messiah, decides to do the same thing to their own words. The book also deals heavily with Gnosticism.
I thought of many titles:
Bible Games
The Jesus They Never Knew
Tears in Gethsemane
Jesus UnChrist: How Prophecies Can Still Be Faked.
I have finally settled on
The Gospel of Lie: An Old Man Wrestles With God
Your post alarms me that it might be too sensationalist. The title may seem reactionary or juvenile and it says virtually nothing about the contents.
Any ideas?
https://www.facebook.com/TheGospelofLie/
It needs to be descriptive and enticing. I like The Jesus They Never Knew.
I think the current subtitle is compelling, but I’m not sure what it means. Are you referring to all the pagan cults, including emperor worship? Does it also include Judaism? Is supersessionism (sp?) the same as destruction? Perhaps the purpose of this subtitle is to be challenging and to invite inquiry. How do you feel about the subtitle–does it work for you? Frankly, I think that’s the most important issue. You’ve written many books, some best-sellers, and you have a solid and reliable core of repeat buyers. I’m sure Simon & Schuster believes you know your market better than they do.
Yup, the Christian leaders really did want to wipe out all opposition!
Instead of …Destroyed the Religions of Rome, how about …Replaced the Religions of Rome? Not as sexy, but who knows, it might be more straightforward. It is difficult to know without reading the book first.
I still think “Jesus Before the Gospels” would have been better titled – as you considered at one point – “In Memory of the Messiah.” A great play on words!
The tentative title seems strong, but I lean toward changing the subtitle word “Destroyed” to “Conquered.”
Holy War !
The Triumph of Christianity, and the Destruction of Paganism
If I’ve caught the drift of what’s coming in your book, it’s a corrective to two assumptions of mine. One is that Emperor Constantine’s conversion was decisive in ensuring Christianity had it made as a great world religion. The other was that the 4th century growth of the religion was essentially top down, in the latter part of the century rather brutally so, as paganism was extirpated by forceful means. From hints as to what’s coming in your book, I stand corrected. I take it you find that the latter part of the third century Christianity achieved a considerable momentum of its own that might have prevailed regardless of events at the palace. And similarly, that after 313, Christianity grew for internal reasons as much as external–as much by its own appeal as by coercive help and mere nudges from above.
If I’m getting these hints right, they seem to me to militate against the present subtitle. This is not a process of destruction of another religion at all. It’s the taking holding from below by mostly fair means, not foul and not from above, of the new rival.
Maybe “The Triumph of Christianity: How a Carpenter of Nazareth Conquered the Pantheon of Rome.”
But related question, kind of. I recently heard a Christian scholar (who says he was a former student of yours) claim the early titles of the gospel manuscripts (“according to”) indicate their authorship actually being Matt, Mark, Luke, John. The implication seemed to be that some titles existed very early… perhaps earlier than Papias’ mention of Matt and Mark (even though those prob aren’t the same ones as in canon) and the Muratorian and Irenaeus. As far as I know, the earliest fragments of the gospels are in the second century, with most being later. Is there any early evidence of the gospel manuscripts being titled by the four authors (that are as early as the references I just mentioned)? I assumed all the title ascriptions of the earliest gospel manuscripts are later than Papias, Irenaeus, Muratorian.
The problem is that we don’t *have* any “early” manuscripts with titles in them. The complete Gospels (with their beginnings, with titles) don’t start appearing until the middle of the fourth century. These do have the titles, and that is certainly worth knowing and noting. But it’s hard to know how probative it is.
Thanks, that’s what I was thinking, but this guy made it seem like we had very early manuscripts with the ascriptions.
The Jesus Revolution
How Christianity Conquered Rome!
You’re in my wheelhouse now, haha
Christian Tide
How Rome Fell to Jesus
Jesus Conquers Rome!
The Unlikely Story of a Revolution
Christian Underdog
How Jesus Took Rome!
“Destroyed” sounds like Christians were destructive in their efforts. Do you mean by this “overcame,” “converted,” “won over,” “defeated” or something like that. Did they destroy Roman religion or just transform it
Yes, I think their intention as to destroy!
Just my two cents… Conquer and Destroy are fairly similar words, and conquer makes me think of Constantine more (“In this sign you will conquer”). I think for those who know even a little bit about Constantine know that phrase… if I knew the book was about Constantine and saw the word Conquer in the title… I’d immediately think of that famous quote and understand you’re giving your take on Constantine’s role in the Triumph of Christianity… I think it’d emphasize Constantine is the main subject… if I saw Destroy I’m not sure I’d automatically think of Constantine quite as much… I’d probably think of 2 Thessalonians at least as much…
Your title seems appropriate in capturing the essence of the book. It will be interesting to know how the publisher feels about it.
“The Triumph of Christianity”–since you’re writing about Rome it almost seems like a pun, and is (dare I say) an absolutely fitting and genius title. That bit in the subtitle about destroying, though, sounds a bit populist. After such an effective title you might not actually need a subtitle, although of course you have other considerations.
Either way, you’ll get my money.
Kingdom Came: How Christianity Converted an Empire
Lambs to Lords: How Christianity Became Christendom
Jesus’s Greatest Miracle
How Christianity Conquered the Roman Empire!
Every word is powerful!
Or simply , The Jesus Miracle
For the subtitle, I suggest “Sacrificing Paganism for Jesus”.
I like it, of course, because of the pun. 🙂
“The Triumph of Christianity: How the Followers of Jesus Destroyed the Religions of Rome”
How about ‘exterminated’ instead of ‘destroyed’? Not only is it more emphatic, but the cover could have a picture of some Daleks with big crosses painted on them.
“How Early Christians Ruined it for Everyone” 🙂
… Usurped the Religions of Rome
… Toppled the Religions of Rome
… Supplanted the Religions of Rome
… Annihilated the Religions of Rome
… Neutered the Religions of Rome
… Euthanized the Relgions of Rome
😉
…. Rooted Out the Religions of Rome
Let me get this straight. You didn’t like the title “Misquoting Jesus” because you thought it was an inaccurate indication of what the book contained. But then you were really happy with the title because it sold lots of copies to readers who liked the title even though it was inaccurate (perhaps because it stuck it to the fundies?). Not sure that’s something to be proud of.
Well, that’s a fairly cynical take on it. The reason people write books is that they think they have something to say that people would be interested in. The point of a title is to get people interested in reading the book. If a title fails to do that, then the objective of the author cannot be met. So a title has to elicit interest. And this one, to my surprise, did.
“… and Co-Opted the Religions of Rome”