Last week I interrupted the thread I had been pursuing about why my unusual academic background prepared me to write books for general audiences in order to talk about my lecture in Odense, Denmark, at the University of Southern Denmark, on the relationship between the worship of the Roman emperor and the rise of Christian understandings of Christ as “Savior” and “Lord” and “God” (titles given to the emperor as well). There is more to be said about this latter topic, some of it very interesting – but I think I’ve said enough for now. I want to finish off the earlier thread.
And for a rather momentous (for me!) occasion. Two days ago, I finished my book manuscript The Triumph of Christianity and sent it off to my editor for her to work her magic with it. I am very excited about this process, more so (maybe a lot more so?) than normal. This will be the thirty-first book that I’ve published (some edited, most written). So I do this kind of thing a lot. But some times are more exciting than others, and this one is very exciting. I think the topic is unusually important. And I like what I’ve come up with so far. What I’ve sent in is a final draft. But it will be changed – maybe significantly – before it sees the light of published day. Let me here say something about both issues: the importance of the topic and the editorial process at this stage.
First, the topic. I’ve talked about it on the blog before, but want to revert to it here. Most of my academic friends and colleagues who write books simply write about whatever they happen to be most interested in. That makes huge sense. It’s what most people do. It’s what I did with my first several books: Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels; The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origen (co-authored); The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
With that third book I did start to do something different. I became interested in how the study of the manuscripts of the New Testament might be of significant for scholars who were doing things other than … studying the manuscripts of the New Testament! I wanted to show how scribes altered their texts when copying them, in order to demonstrate how the study of that phenomenon can help us better understand the social history of early Christianity, the rise of Christian theology (specifically Christology) in the second and third centuries, and, in particular, the effect of theological (Christological) debates on the scribes who were reproducing our texts. The data I had at my disposal might be interesting to scholars working on otherwise unrelated issues in other fields.
That book involved several years of very hard, rigorous work. But the approach I took got me (very) interested in writing books that had relevance for topics other than the technical ones that I and six other people in the world care about. I wanted to show why this kind of detailed textual work matters.
Something in my head clicked while writing that book. And I decided that I wanted not only to write technical scholarship for scholars, but books for people who don’t do the kind of technical scholarship that I was trained to do.
As a later development of that decision, I realized that the key to writing books was not simply to write about things that I myself am interested in (which is what virtually every other scholar on the planet typically does) but to write about things that *other* people are interested in. This is a completely different mentality from the one I started with and from the one that just about all my friends and colleagues have.
I started writing trade books – that is books written for a general audience. In doing so, in virtually every instance I have tried to choose topics that are not simply my own interests but topics that either are, or can be made to be, interesting to others. And so my books have dealt with such issues as who the historical Jesus really was; how the Bible is filled with contradictions, discrepancies, and historical errors; how the Bible addresses the question of how we suffer; how the early Christians came to believe that Jesus was not a mere mortal but was actually God.
All of these topics are, or can be made to be, interesting to scholars outside the fields of New Testament/Early Christianity. And so I wrote on them. And what I found was that as I pursued them, the topics became massively interesting to me as well. The trick was identifying a topic of interest and throwing myself into it and developing my own views about it.
It has always seemed a bit strange to me – though there is probably an underlying logic to it – that by far my bestselling book has been Misquoting Jesus. It’s strange because this is a book on a topic that no one could be expected to be interested in – the scribal changes of the texts of the New Testament. Who cares about Greek manuscripts??? But the underlying logic for the success of the book is that it showed people that it was an interesting topic when they had never ever thought of it before. And that it was a massively important topic.
The current book, The Triumph of Christianity, is in my opinion dealing with a far more important topic. In fact, you could argue it is the single most important topic in the history of religion. Yet it, again, is one that people have generally not given much thought to. It is the issue of how Christianity became the dominant religion of Western Civilization. Almost no one on the planet in his or her right mind could have predicted it at the outset.
The Christian faith started out with a handful of rag-tag, lower-class, illiterate Jews who thought their teacher had been raised from the dead. In the New Testament there are about twenty of these people. In less than three hundred years, they had made so many converts that there were some three million followers of Jesus, in an empire of sixty million. In another hundred years there were thirty million Christians. Christianity came to be the official religion of Rome. All of the centuries-old religious practices found everywhere in the Empire were eventually snuffed out. Christianity became the single most important institution in Western civilization – not just religiously, but also politically, economically, socially, and culturally.
How in the world did that happen? That’s a topic of massive, incredible importance. Not just to me, a lone scholar with particular scholarly interests, but for everyone who happens to be heir to the history and culture of the West. Just think of what we would not have culturally if Christianity had not succeeded (think art; think literature; think music; think philosophy; think law; think ethics; think … well, just think!). It’s mind boggling. And so that’s what the book is about. And that’s why I’m so excited about it.
If you’re not a member of the blog, JOIN!!! You can hear a lot more about this topic and a huge range of other interesting topics. It doesn’t cost much, and is a way to raise money for those in need. So JOIN!!!
When will your new book be available?
It usually takes about a year from the time it is submitted — but it can vary significantly. We don’t konw yet.
As soon as possible please. I’m not sure I’ve ever anticipated the release of a book more than this. Is the current title going to be the final title? or will that continue to be tinkered with as well?
We haven’t settled on a title, but I *think* this will be it.
Some would argue that the triumph of Christianity was the nadir of western civilization (and I am one of those who would argue that). But I don’t think it was all bad. To quote George Carlin, the best thing to come out of religion was the music. To that I would add the architecture and the belief in a common humanity. But other than that, I believe Christianity has been a net detriment to humanity. Just my personal opinion.
I agree, and I am writing a novel on this theme. It seems to me hugely arrogant to think that we would have no literature, music, ethics, philosophy etc without Christianity (especially because they existed before Christianity!) But Christianity as the world’s biggest patriarchy (with all that brings) has been hugely detrimental to civilisation.
In the book will you discuss the competition with mystery religions?
I mention them. But I don’t think there actually was a good deal of “competition.” Mystery religions were not trying to win converts the way Christians were.
Very excited to read the new book! I’m particularly curious for your take on why Constantine took on the god of a pacifist religion to help him win at war.
Hey, if it works….
In reality how likely is it that Peter Paul and Mary hallucinated seeing Jesus for no reason, could something have caused them to hallucinate
Well, something *always* causes it, e.g., a piece of undigested potato.
Although I don’t buy it, some have suggested that the disciples were high on some local hallucinogenic roots or mushrooms… there’s a similar theory for the rise of human consciousness called the “Stoned Ape Theory.” You can see this idea in the recent movie “Noah” with Russell Crow also. Were there any mushrooms or things like that in first century Palestine? I’m just curious what your take on that is… It seems very unlikely because not only would the first disciples have to been high, but so too would Paul.
There’s no evidence of hallucinogenic mushrooms in Palestine at the time.
Were there in earlier times? It sounds stupid, but there is tie between religious experiences and drugs… we see it with Native Americans… even today people go to South America to take Ayahuasca… there are actual “churches” based on it now! If you’ve never studied it you might want to… it’s crazy! I don’t think that’s what happened with the biblical stories… but it’d be interesting to know if there were hallucinogenic plants in the general area… because I know some university professors claim this is what happened! I included an article below as an example (I must admit in my youth I did a few drugs… and having experienced what that’s like… I can see how this theory makes sense to some people… which is why I’m so curious to know if there’s a shred of evidence that could make it even remotely possible). Check out the “Moses was tripping” article below if you’ve never seen this theory… (again, I do not believe it’s right, but it’s a growing idea so you might get something out of it so you can easily rebut it if it ever comes up).
http://www.haaretz.com/news/hebrew-university-researcher-moses-was-tripping-at-mount-sinai-1.240589
P.s. Here’s a “church” based on it:
https://ayahuascahealings.com/
P.s. In case you don’t have time to read the fairly short article… most say it’s not mushrooms but the acacia bush/tree (which does have DMT which is what the Ayahuasca brew has too—DMT is kinda like LSD)… it is interesting how Genesis refers to “the tree of knowledge” and the “tree of life”… and how Moses sees God in a burning (acacia?) bush… there seems to be some evidence that the ancient Egyptians did use the acacia in relation to their gods… for example, there’s a claim that Iusaaset (Saosis) saw the acacia as being the Egyptian tree of life… and Horus came from the acacia according to pyramid text 436. I don’t think this explains the appearances of Jesus or many other things… but is it possible this was part of the experiences the ancient Egyptians and Jews had with their gods? It doesn’t really require Moses to have been real.. it just requires a few high prophets to have visions based on Egyptian-styled models that preceded them… IDK. Sorry to bug about this so much, but I find it fascinating and wonder if this is ever talked about among critical scholars…
https://henadology.wordpress.com/theology/netjeru/iusaas/
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/acacia.html
No, no one takes it very seriously.
So I take it you don’t buy John Marco Allegro’s theory?
Actually, I’m not sure anyone but Allegro bought his theory!
It probably wasn’t undigested potato since potatoes are a New World crop. ;o)
Right! But it was an allusion to Charles Dickens (Christmas Carol)!
just follow the money and power of those who wrote the stories and you will see evil people who would tortured/killed anyone who dared to question orthodoxity.
With the Internet and cable documentaries the truth about the historical Jesus and the bible has been made available to the mases and the institutional church has lost control of the message and losing membership .
Let’s just cut out the middleman and support worthwhile charities directly.
Dr E you are a very talented and gifted individual and I think you are using your gifts for good.
“And for a rather momentous (for me!) occasion. Two days ago, I finished my book manuscript The Triumph of Christianity and sent it off to my editor for her to work her magic with it. I am very excited about this process, more so (maybe a lot more so?) than normal. This will be the thirty-first book that I’ve published (some edited, most written). ”
That’s very impressive! My guess was that it would take you until New Years to get a finished manuscript into your editor’s hands. I should have factored in your impressive literary output (30 previous books). I think the title alone will get your book on the NYT best sellers list from day one. I plan to put TOC on my Christmas wish list.
Wow! Congratulations! It is staggering to think of your having written 31 books plus add in all of your teaching, your website, your Great Courses, and your youtube debates. It is really just plain incredible. You have taught me so much and I thank you for that. I was finding it so hard to seriously study the Bible in the Bible belt which sounds ironic, but it isn’t….. and then, Eureka!, I discovered “Misquoting Jesus” and your other books. “Misquoting Jesus” was so important to me because it meant that the Bible cannot possibly be interpreted literally, as I was being taught, because there is just no “the” Bible to interpret literally, but instead there are thousands of different texts all of which are different. That insight changed everything. Good-by to literal interpretation. Good-by to the oppression of women via literal interpretation and so on and so forth….
Perhaps Misquoting Jesus hit a nerve in the zeitgeist, coming out after the Iraq War when the American people were cynical about authorities claiming authentic proof for their positions. Here you were, a private detective, so to speak, uncovering what amounted to fraud, fabrication, and deception, in an books that are claimed to be inerrant. While your book was polite, it implicitly exposed fraud and this exposing of fraud resonated a lot at a time when the people felt they had been frauded, as it were.
Jesus’ and biblical teachings concerning loving others including your enemies and those who look or believe differently as well as helping the poor (whether these are historical or theological teachings makes no difference) has been a great ethical force for good over the past 2000 years.
The ethical force for good that came from the Jewish tradition has been just part of the story.
I agree, T of C ( <–think I'll coin that! ? ) is special in both topic and style. The rhythm and timing of the book is very well done, so I hope your editor doesn't mess with it too much.
Thanks!
I always thought the success of “Misquoting Jesus” came from the fact that an eloquent Ph.D. was telling the world an engaging version of history at odds with the wishes of the patriarchal, personal control-obsessed, evangelical right-wing money machine that tried to use the scriptures to amplify each of those descriptions by broadcasting a spun version of history that became loudest more through signal feedback than truth.
What happened to the idea you were kicking around about letting donors at different levels have different levels of access/commentary to the new first draft?
Interesting. I decided simply to let blog members make a set donation for the right to read the ms.
Dr. Ehrman –
You’ve mentioned before that Dr. Metzger liked Misquoting Jesus, understood that Genesis 1-3 contained ‘myths’ and didn’t believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter, but also felt that we could be confident that we have the ‘original’ text in 99% of the cases.
I was wondering, do you know what he thought about Pauline authorship of the Deutero-Pauline epistles? If they weren’t Pauline, would he still have considered them (and 2 Peter) inspired? Would he have agreed that ‘Matthew’ or any other apostle didn’t write the Gospel of Matthew (or that John wrote John, etc), and would he have still considered them inspired if written by just some random Greek-literate Christian?
He was inclined to think that Paul wrote them, and that arguments were based on too slim of an evidentiary base. He tended to think the traditional authors of the Gospels wrote them as well.
I think I – and possibly many other people who aren’t devoutly religious – had never given this matter much thought because we held the oversimplified belief that it was all dependent on Constantine. That he wanted to unite the Empire under *some* one religion, had the power to do so, and for some reason of his own, chose Christianity.
I hope you keep all those final drafts somewhere safe. Not-yet-bornsScholars in the far-off future may want to study your works one day long after you’ve turned into worm food.
Ha! I very much doubt it! And by then no one will know what paper looks like anyway….
Sounds immensely interesting. It’s a topic I began studying as a Fundamentalist Evangelical I order to get the answers to the questions that bugged me about my faith. It eventually led me out of Evangelicalism but as hard as I looked I could find no absloute answers. No pure and pristine Christianity that I could eventually rest in. The answer was ine I didn’t like and avoided mentally for many years: that Christianity is obviously at a fundamental level not true. And by extension it became obvious to me that all religion is just made up.
That’s why groups keep splintering more and more. There is no way to determine truth from error. To authoritatively determine which interpretation is the true one. And if that’s the case then it is all nonsense. If it can mean anything then it means nothing at all.
When did Christianity become an important world religion, with no rieval to speak of, at least in the in the West (till the 630s)?
A. In Jesus’ time–clearly not
B. In the first century–clearly not–too few adherents
C. In the course of the third century–rising in numbers to something like ten percent, and already possessed of an intrinsic momentum of its own that was bound to carry it to greatness
D. The conversion of Constantine–the political backing of the emperor and imperial apparatus was indispensable to the religion’s rise to dominance in the Empire, and also sufficient to ensure that rise
E. Later 4th century–imperial favoring of the religion and even more the suppression of its rival, paganism, secured Christianity’s future
What’s the best answer? (Or do you want to keep a lid on it till the book is published?)
Ha! (Actually, probalby more toward 500 CE or so)
Congrats! I’m sure each book is special… like a child… I have neither a book nor a child but still! Congrats and thank you for writing the way you do.