Interview: Tom Holland on “Dominion”

Interview: Tom Holland on “Dominion”

For my latest interview on the History for Atheists video channel I am joined by best-selling history writer Tom Holland to discuss his book Dominion (2020). Tom is the author of a number of books, including Rubicon (2003), Persian Fire (2005) and Millennium (2008). In his latest work Holland set out to explore why the ancient world seems so alien to us when examined closely and came to the provocative conclusion that we live in a culture that has been fundamentally shaped and permeated by Christianity. This runs directly counter to several New Atheist narratives about history and, unsurprisingly, Holland’s book has had a hostile reception from atheist activists like A. C. Grayling.

So Tom Holland discusses the thesis of his book, the reactions to it and what he will be working on next. He also keeps up what has became a tradition on the video channel and finishes by bursting into song.

For those interested in a detailed analysis of Holland’s arguments in Dominion, there is my review of the book here: Review – Tom Holland “Dominion – The Making of the Western Mind”. A critique of A.C. Grayling’s reaction to Holland’s thesis and the strange pseudo history he presents as its counter argument forms the basis of my article on how and why much Greek and Roman learning was lost: The Great Myths 8: The Loss of Ancient Learning. I would also highly recommend the podcast that Tom Holland produces weekly with modern historian Dominic Sandbrook, “The Rest is History”, in which they have lively, informative and amusing chats about broad historical themes.

24 thoughts on “Interview: Tom Holland on “Dominion”

    1. No they haven’t “been refuted”. Most scholars believe the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic. See https://historyforatheists.com/2020/10/josephus-jesus-and-the-testimonium-flavianum/
      And almost all scholars accept that the Jesus-James reference in AJ XX.200 is wholly authentic. The Mythicist arguments against that all fail. See https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/ I’d strongly suggest you need to look at actual scholarship on this question, not amateur writings by a nobody like Doherty.

      15
      1
      1. Wouldn’t the fact of concluding that it is true for the majority to believe be a fallacy of the appeal to authority?

        And if James did exist and claimed to be Jesus’ brother, but his brother (Jesus) didn’t really exist and he lied or was delirious for some reason?

        2
        14
        1. Wouldn’t the fact of concluding that it is true for the majority to believe be a fallacy of the appeal to authority?

          If would be if I was saying “the majority of scholars believe this so you should too”. But all I’m doing is noting that if this is the view of a majority of scholars, obviously your claim that the possible authenticity of the Testimonium has “been refuted” is wrong. If it had “been refuted”, most or all scholars would accept that the Testimonium is fake. They don’t. So I’m showing you that it obviously hasn’t “been refuted”.

          And if James did exist and claimed to be Jesus’ brother, but his brother (Jesus) didn’t really exist and he lied or was delirious for some reason?

          You can’t analyse history by coming up with any or all possible scenarios and presenting them as equally likely. Yes, it could be that this James pretended to be Jesus’ brother. But what is there in the evidence that indicates this is what happened? Nothing. Thousands of things are merely possible, but historians work with what the evidence indicates, not mere possibilities that are found nowhere in the evidence. As for James being “delirious”, that makes even less sense.

          14
          1
          1. In fact, I admit I was wrong, the hypothesis that James lied / raved would be something like saying “Plato’s students lied about Plato’s existence”. I could just remove that option and classify it as an Ad Hoc fallacy. Furthermore, James had nothing to win by lying about an alleged brother, not least because in Josephus’ text it is written that LITERALLY threw stones at him, no one in his right mind would die for something they know to be a lie, even Richard Carrier tries to argue (mizerally
            in the results) that it was another James, instead of simply saying that James existed and Jesus did not.

            (Sorry, I’m not a American, so my English is bad)

        2. @Luiz: you are confusing “deferring to an authority on the issue” with the appeal to authority fallacy.

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

          ToN did the first, not the second.
          Also this

          “And if James did exist and claimed to be Jesus’ brother, but his brother (Jesus) didn’t really exist and he lied or was delirious for some reason?”

          is a funny example of the double standard (also a fallacy) most, if not all JMs use. You reject a claim that’s backed by evidence and try to replace it by a claim for which there is no evidence at all.

          5
          1
          1. “you are confusing “deferring to an authority on the issue” with the appeal to authority fallacy.”

            Thanks for the informations, I am new in Philosophy.

            “is a funny example of the double standard (also a fallacy) most, if not all JMs use. You reject a claim that’s backed by evidence and try to replace it by a claim for which there is no evidence at all.”

            Furthemore, is a Ad Hoc Fallacy, by the way, bye.

            3
            12
    1. Dominion, obviously. But also Millennium, given that it details some elements of medieval history that often get overlooked or misunderstood.

      1. Tom Holland is right, morality cannot exist without God. Like Rodney Stark, I am glad Tom has finally become a Christian.

        17
  1. Tim, great video! I wish Tom Holland emphasizes more where he thinks these Christian values originally came from. He does mention in the first chapters that Judaism and Christianity were heavily influenced by Hellensitic philosophy, Persian Zoroastrianism, Babylonian and Egyptian mythology but it creates an artificial divide between the ancient and Christian mindsets which doesn’t entirely exist. Some atheists like AC Grayling don’t want to acknowledge Christian influences, and Christian apologists don’t seem to want to acknowledge the ‘pagan’ origins of much of Jewish and Christian thought. Am I wrong?

    1. I don’t think this characterises things correctly. As you say, Holland spends several detailed early chapters tracing the sources of Christianity’s ideas, noting that nothing springs entirely from nothing. But it’s a fact that none of those sources contains all of the elements that later make Christianity unique and there are a few things found in Christianity that are not found in those sources. So I think he gets the balance between “it had antecedents” and “it had unique elements” about right.

      3
      1
  2. Tim, I was reading another great article by you on how the religion of the apocalyptic Jesus was transformed into a mystery religion. I know there are several Christian apologists who reject any idea that Christianity is in any way a mystery religion (and there is a lot of nonsense parallels between the two online) but could you recommend academic books comparing Christianity and other mystery religions, or even better write a great article by you sorting out the myths and realities of Christianity as a mystery religion? Many thanks!

    1. I don’t think I’ve ever said it became a “mystery religion”, just that it became increasingly less a Jewish Messiah sect and slowly became a saviour cult similar to several non-Jewish traditions, with Jesus as its divine focus. Some of those saviour cults were “mystery religions” and some forms of early Christianity took on the trappings of the mysteries, including secret teachings and levels of initiation. Not much of this survived into the form of Christianity that gave rise to the orthodox tradition that is the ancestor of all modern forms of the Christian faith. It’s been years since I did much reading on the ancient mystery traditions, so I’d suggest looking at the books suggested by the Wiki entry and working from there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries

      1. Hello Tim,
        Sorry for the delay as I only saw your response now. Thanks for your suggestions. The comment you made was on Quora a while ago and I was just interested if you still believe it or not (and if you do whether you can elaborate as a lot of nonsense has been written about mystery religions so I would be interested in some good academic sources). Your comment was:
        “These elements converged in the story of the “risen Jesus” and, in doing so, helped turn a small Jewish apocalyptic sect into a Greco-Roman mystery religion and then into a world faith. But the evidence, objectively analysed in its historical context, does not support the idea that Jesus actually rose from the dead. It is a story, and one that grew in the telling.”
        https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
        Thanks again for your time

        1. As I said above, some forms of Christianity took on the trappings of the Mysteries. And all forms of early Christianity shared some elements of the Mystery religions. That’s what I was referring to there, in a short hand way. I’d say to say it developed into a Saviour cult would be rather more accurate, and that’s how I tend to describe the transition these days.

  3. I found this critical comment on goodreads. Is any of this valid?

    There can be no doubt that the liberal arm of Christianity – encapsulated in messages such as “humans are all one in Christ Jesus” and “humans are all created equal, in the image of God” – was a force for good: Christianity was for a time the most successful vehicle for promoting utilitarian ends in the human domain; playing a key role, for instance, in the abolition of slavery, as Holland demonstrates. It too, however, has run its course, as modern views on abortion and euthanasia attest to. It has nothing to say, unlike ‘sentientist’ traditions, about the wellbeing of nonhuman animals; nothing to say, indeed, about other beings that may, in time, come to be sentient; those of the digital realm. They, too, will not have souls; they too will be denied the dignity accorded to humans under the Christian schema. So, time to look forward.

    1. It would make sense if Holland was a Christian and was arguing that, because our culture is so heavily influenced by Christianity, we should all become Christians because we are effectively Christians anyway. But he is not a Christian and he is not saying that. Of course there are many elements in our culture, ethics which have moved beyond Christianity. So? That guy is simply confused about what Holland is saying.

  4. It is a pleasure to listen to atheists have such a thoughtful discussion on the topic which Holland wrote about in “Dominion”. The hysterical rancor which all sides have succumbed to on every topic was banished, at least for a moment in the video. These days the rule seems to be to mock and dismiss any information which imparts a truth or even a value to the other side. This video is a pleasant exception.

    My question is: Does Tom Holland acknowledge that a part of his concept has been expressed by Christians, one of whom was Dr Francis Schaeffer? I am thinking of “How Then Shall We Live?” a book written about 50 years ago. From the video Holland was writing his own original thoughts from his own unique knowledge base and an atheist world view. Does he even know of Schaeffer?

    Schaeffer’s book was written for Christians, who didn’t understand that the decline of the ‘Christian consensus’ was not something for them to ignore (a temptation since it didn’t seem to directly impact one’s salvation or religious practice or freedom. Schaeffer called that inwardness “Pietistic”) because the Christian must realize that everyone’s freedom is a stake, including his own.

    Schaeffer expressed that a Christian society (including everyone) is one where the ideas and values which the Christian culture (including everyone) generated… benefits all, believer and non-believer alike, but those ideas and values (he calls it the ‘Christian base’) and the civic understanding (he termed ‘the Christian consensus’) were crumbling. He traced the rise and fall of that culture through history from classical to modern times with commentary on philosophy, music, architecture, and literature through the ages.

    I would like to see the moderator interview Dr Schaeffer, it would have been good for him to hear an atheist confirm that he was right about some things, and also good to learn he was wrong about others… but he died decades ago.

    I greatly look forward to reading Holland’s book, mostly to discover what insights his learning and viewpoint have provided. I want to learn.

  5. It seems Chrissy Hansen was less than impressed. These were her most substantive remarks:

    People praised this to me as one of the best researched and well argued volumes on how Christianity changed the world, yadda yadda, and I’m sitting here reading it like: half this shit is just popular level stuff, uncited, and…
    well guff. Legitimately, like I checked his endnotes. For his section on “Mission” (chap 3) guess how many secondary scholarly sources he cites…
    Two. And it shows. Really bad outdated talk of the “Galli”, his talk of Paul clearly hasn’t been informed by much recent leading scholarship….someone really has not been reading much from queer theory or Feminist academics on issues like homosexuality in Paul’s letters because statements like “sex between two men was utterly beyond the pale” (94) is debated as hell in academia….I cannot fathom just how questionable his whole “there is no slave or freeman” the distinctions are gone interpretation of Paul is
    (p. 92). I am legitimately at a loss as to why this volume is so lauded when it is so bereft of any recent scholarly contributions on these topics. Anyone who knows Philemon’s reception history, Christian authors certainly did not take Paul as dissolving any distinctions. Slaves were slaves, and could be abused as slaves and we have a long Christian tradition of that in antiquity….I read through the Cambrai and Marburg chapters and did I miss something…or did Holland just conveniently forget to talk about the f*ing Crusades and how those impacted Christendom and its views on law and humanity?…He routinely just sugar coats Christian history to ignore all massive problems, and paint it as having this positive legacy. It is gross and morally repugnant. It is also academically irresponsible. I read the whole book twice, and on both occasions I have been aghast at how little substance is even included in the crap that it does contain. Also, contains disproven stereotypes of the Roman Empire, and other shit. It is just wild.

    I have to admit, the omission of the Crusades does seem a bit strange.

    1. So, as usual, Hansen finds something that seems to go against one of her ideological hobbyhorses and then goes off on a tirade. Most of what she says misses the point and the rest is largely irrelevant to what Holland is saying. And Holland doesn’t “forget to talk about the f*ing Crusades” (check his index for the references). Exactly how Hansen thinks these “impacted Christendom and its views on law and humanity” is not clear, so that comment is hard to parse. BUt Hansen is very weird.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *