What do you think?
Rate this book
The Making of the Medieval Middle East: Religion, Society, and Simple Believers
A bold new religious history of the late antique and medieval Middle East that places ordinary Christians at the center of the story
In the second half of the first millennium CE, the Christian Middle East fractured irreparably into competing churches and Arabs conquered the region, setting in motion a process that would lead to its eventual conversion to Islam. Jack Tannous argues that key to understanding these dramatic religious transformations are ordinary religious believers, often called "the simple" in late antique and medieval sources. Largely agrarian and illiterate, these Christians outnumbered Muslims well into the era of the Crusades, and yet they have typically been invisible in our understanding of the Middle East's history.
What did it mean for Christian communities to break apart over theological disagreements that most people could not understand? How does our view of the rise of Islam change if we take seriously the fact that Muslims remained a demographic minority for much of the Middle Ages? In addressing these and other questions, Tannous provides a sweeping reinterpretation of the religious history of the medieval Middle East.
This provocative book draws on a wealth of Greek, Syriac, and Arabic sources to recast these conquered lands as largely Christian ones whose growing Muslim populations are properly understood as converting away from and in competition with the non-Muslim communities around them.
In the second half of the first millennium CE, the Christian Middle East fractured irreparably into competing churches and Arabs conquered the region, setting in motion a process that would lead to its eventual conversion to Islam. Jack Tannous argues that key to understanding these dramatic religious transformations are ordinary religious believers, often called "the simple" in late antique and medieval sources. Largely agrarian and illiterate, these Christians outnumbered Muslims well into the era of the Crusades, and yet they have typically been invisible in our understanding of the Middle East's history.
What did it mean for Christian communities to break apart over theological disagreements that most people could not understand? How does our view of the rise of Islam change if we take seriously the fact that Muslims remained a demographic minority for much of the Middle Ages? In addressing these and other questions, Tannous provides a sweeping reinterpretation of the religious history of the medieval Middle East.
This provocative book draws on a wealth of Greek, Syriac, and Arabic sources to recast these conquered lands as largely Christian ones whose growing Muslim populations are properly understood as converting away from and in competition with the non-Muslim communities around them.
664 pages, Hardcover
First published December 4, 2018
17 people are currently reading
234 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
February 12, 2019
What a tome. What an accomplishment. Tannous's starting point is that the religious history of the late antique near east is usually approached through the definitions that came out of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. But he asks who actually had any idea about the confessional details? After all, the Christological formulae dis/agreed in the council acts are extremely fine theological points, accessible only to those with the highest levels of education and leisure to understand them, and the requisite Greek skills. So what does that mean for a near east where most people did not have access to that sort of learning?
Tannous masterfully presents a truly mind-boggling array of evidence from a long period, mostly in Greek, Syriac, and Arabic. The general conclusions for this part of the book are pretty easy to state: people still discussed theology, and religious elites and peasants shared many of the same worldviews, but at the end of the day local practice superseded the wishes of the highest theological elites and we see a great deal of mixing: Miaphysite priests doing funerals for Chalcedonians, all sorts of bizarre practices with the Eucharist because it was perceived to have power, and Christians partying it up at Jewish festivals. However, that's only the first 200 pages, and I'm not even going to talk about Qenneshre and Tannous's discussion of elite Syrian networks of learning.
Next, Tannous is interested in what happens to this when Islam comes on the scene. This part of the book will probably infuriate some, but it makes good sense. Tannous's argument is that the original Muslims were few, and many may have been "political" converts, and thus not particularly well-versed or interested in the teachings of the Prophet. As such, Muslims went out into this developed Christian near east and became entangled in these local religious practices, despite the efforts of religious elites. It is from this that we get to Tannous' third question: how did the near east become Muslim? Tannous offers some suggestions but follows the scholarly line in suggesting that the majority population only tipped in the favour of Islam some time in the high middle ages. That's not really his point, though: what he's getting at is a lot of what we assume to be Muslim practices and belief have their origins in close interaction with Christians or existed as Christian beliefs and practices beforehand.
Nonetheless, the book has a few problems. The appendix on the approach to the sources is good, but most of the text of the book simply has Tannous throwing masses of examples at the reader from a range of texts with very little critical examination of individual pieces. This would, of course, make a very long book already longer so I can see why it was done the way it was done. The book could also really use a glossary. Despite being the most readable academic book I have picked up in a long time and priced by PUP at a point where interested readers might actually be able to afford it, there's still a little too much "inside baseball" going on. Don't remember what a memre is, or can't read that sentence of Greek dropped into the text? You're out of luck, although it's not likely to hinder your understanding of the book.
This is an extraordinarily well-researched book, and there's so much in it that it really needs to be read to be experienced. Tannous manages to give words to the illiterate and ignored masses of Syria and Palestine in late antiquity while delivering some powerful arguments about belief and religion in the time and place that Islam emerged. And I didn't even use the word doctrine, which Tannous mentions on almost every page of the book. Go and read it yourself!
Tannous masterfully presents a truly mind-boggling array of evidence from a long period, mostly in Greek, Syriac, and Arabic. The general conclusions for this part of the book are pretty easy to state: people still discussed theology, and religious elites and peasants shared many of the same worldviews, but at the end of the day local practice superseded the wishes of the highest theological elites and we see a great deal of mixing: Miaphysite priests doing funerals for Chalcedonians, all sorts of bizarre practices with the Eucharist because it was perceived to have power, and Christians partying it up at Jewish festivals. However, that's only the first 200 pages, and I'm not even going to talk about Qenneshre and Tannous's discussion of elite Syrian networks of learning.
Next, Tannous is interested in what happens to this when Islam comes on the scene. This part of the book will probably infuriate some, but it makes good sense. Tannous's argument is that the original Muslims were few, and many may have been "political" converts, and thus not particularly well-versed or interested in the teachings of the Prophet. As such, Muslims went out into this developed Christian near east and became entangled in these local religious practices, despite the efforts of religious elites. It is from this that we get to Tannous' third question: how did the near east become Muslim? Tannous offers some suggestions but follows the scholarly line in suggesting that the majority population only tipped in the favour of Islam some time in the high middle ages. That's not really his point, though: what he's getting at is a lot of what we assume to be Muslim practices and belief have their origins in close interaction with Christians or existed as Christian beliefs and practices beforehand.
Nonetheless, the book has a few problems. The appendix on the approach to the sources is good, but most of the text of the book simply has Tannous throwing masses of examples at the reader from a range of texts with very little critical examination of individual pieces. This would, of course, make a very long book already longer so I can see why it was done the way it was done. The book could also really use a glossary. Despite being the most readable academic book I have picked up in a long time and priced by PUP at a point where interested readers might actually be able to afford it, there's still a little too much "inside baseball" going on. Don't remember what a memre is, or can't read that sentence of Greek dropped into the text? You're out of luck, although it's not likely to hinder your understanding of the book.
This is an extraordinarily well-researched book, and there's so much in it that it really needs to be read to be experienced. Tannous manages to give words to the illiterate and ignored masses of Syria and Palestine in late antiquity while delivering some powerful arguments about belief and religion in the time and place that Islam emerged. And I didn't even use the word doctrine, which Tannous mentions on almost every page of the book. Go and read it yourself!
August 18, 2023
Since its publication in 2018, Jack Tannous’s "The Making of the Medieval Middle East: Religion, Society, and Simple Believers" has become something of a classic tome for late antique and medieval Middle Eastern studies, Islamic studies, and Arabic Christian studies. Tannous studies the post-Chalcedonian world with a view of centering the “simple believers” who formed the majority of its population, and decentering its ecclesial and theological elites. Scholarship on the late antique post-Chalcedonian world, as well as the rise of Islam, and subsequent Christian-Muslim encounters has mostly relied on the highly sophisticated texts that detail the theological controversies. But, Tannous asks, how effective, or even relevant, were these texts on the ground? They cannot sufficiently inform us of how the Christological schisms and construction of parallel ecclesial hierarchies impacted the lives of Christians, or what the average and mostly illiterate believers made of the delicate theological points under discussion. In addition, how did many of these simple Christian believers become simple Muslim believers within a few centuries’ time?
Tannous performs “several inversions of perspective” (p. 499) in this book. He inverts the classical historical view by focusing not on points of theological finesse but on what it meant to be a simple believer in the late antique and medieval Middle East. He also inverts the traditional focus on Islam and Muslims to focus on the Christian populations. Simple believers engaged heavily in the world of sacraments and rituals, as well as divination and the like, that provided some semblance of security in an unsafe world. And as he masterfully portrays, on a world stage like this, Islam came as another rival in an already veritable religious marketplace, and it was treated with the same questions of efficacy, pragmatism, and theological considerations that had been given to the Christological controversies. The point in studying simple believers is not to consider them anti-intellectual fools but theologically illiterate, intellectually curious, and pragmatically minded individuals and communities.
Tannous’s emphasis on simple believers’ pragmatism is reminiscent of David Frankfurter’s study of late antique Christianity in Egypt in his book Christianizing Egypt: Syncretism and Local Worlds in Late Antiquity. Frankfurter argues that the gradual and largely uneven adoption of Christianity in Egypt was a process of constant negotiation between indigenous practices and gestures, holy landscapes, and new forms of relationality to the god(s) that revolved around efficacy. The resultant Christianization of Egypt was an adoption and creative amalgamation of Christian efficacy within a uniquely Egyptian religious habitus. This was no different for post-Chalcedonian Christians in the Middle East, or indeed, for the adherents of any religious tradition. The point is not that these simple believers do not exist, or do not form the majority of any religious population. The point is that they are rarely heard.
In Appendix 1, “Approaching the Sources,” Tannous presents his method for retrieving the voices of the lost. He argues for cumulating evidence from a variety of sources—mostly canonical and hagiographical—for assessing how realistic certain scenarios and situations would have been. Literary and hagiographical accounts should not be disregarded as representatives of certain social realities but questioned by appealing to other synchronic and diachronic sources. Tellingly, he does not use theological sources. He only traces their reception and use in the ecclesial and lay curricula developed post-Chalcedon.
Overall, "The Making of the Medieval Middle East" is a wonderful read. Tannous writes eloquently and persuasively, and he expertly presents his inversions of how the late antique and medieval Middle East are studied. This makes the book an excellent historical and methodological guide to future studies of the period.
Tannous performs “several inversions of perspective” (p. 499) in this book. He inverts the classical historical view by focusing not on points of theological finesse but on what it meant to be a simple believer in the late antique and medieval Middle East. He also inverts the traditional focus on Islam and Muslims to focus on the Christian populations. Simple believers engaged heavily in the world of sacraments and rituals, as well as divination and the like, that provided some semblance of security in an unsafe world. And as he masterfully portrays, on a world stage like this, Islam came as another rival in an already veritable religious marketplace, and it was treated with the same questions of efficacy, pragmatism, and theological considerations that had been given to the Christological controversies. The point in studying simple believers is not to consider them anti-intellectual fools but theologically illiterate, intellectually curious, and pragmatically minded individuals and communities.
Tannous’s emphasis on simple believers’ pragmatism is reminiscent of David Frankfurter’s study of late antique Christianity in Egypt in his book Christianizing Egypt: Syncretism and Local Worlds in Late Antiquity. Frankfurter argues that the gradual and largely uneven adoption of Christianity in Egypt was a process of constant negotiation between indigenous practices and gestures, holy landscapes, and new forms of relationality to the god(s) that revolved around efficacy. The resultant Christianization of Egypt was an adoption and creative amalgamation of Christian efficacy within a uniquely Egyptian religious habitus. This was no different for post-Chalcedonian Christians in the Middle East, or indeed, for the adherents of any religious tradition. The point is not that these simple believers do not exist, or do not form the majority of any religious population. The point is that they are rarely heard.
In Appendix 1, “Approaching the Sources,” Tannous presents his method for retrieving the voices of the lost. He argues for cumulating evidence from a variety of sources—mostly canonical and hagiographical—for assessing how realistic certain scenarios and situations would have been. Literary and hagiographical accounts should not be disregarded as representatives of certain social realities but questioned by appealing to other synchronic and diachronic sources. Tellingly, he does not use theological sources. He only traces their reception and use in the ecclesial and lay curricula developed post-Chalcedon.
Overall, "The Making of the Medieval Middle East" is a wonderful read. Tannous writes eloquently and persuasively, and he expertly presents his inversions of how the late antique and medieval Middle East are studied. This makes the book an excellent historical and methodological guide to future studies of the period.
April 15, 2021
i have a significant criticism with Tannous’ definitions of “simple believers” but that’s a hefty part of this book. I liked the rest, but not quite 5 stars
October 25, 2023
A landmark study that will have to be cited in any studies on the subject going forward. Total behemoth of a book with (literally) exhaustive footnotes.
Thesis in a nutshell: We've gotten the history of the Middle East (specifically Late Antiquity through the Arab conquests) wrong because we have focused on the relatively rare theologically literate elite while ignoring the vast majority who were 'simple believers.' Therefore, there was no radical break with the conquests, but rather, a lot of continuity because Christians remained a majority in the region until possibly the Mamluk period (the Black Plague helped). Moreover, when we speak of the Christian-Muslim encounter, we are far too anachronistic in our working definitions of 'Christian' and even more so for 'Muslim.'
Very impressed that this is Dr. Tannous' first book. He's a brilliant scholar and a great person as well.
Thesis in a nutshell: We've gotten the history of the Middle East (specifically Late Antiquity through the Arab conquests) wrong because we have focused on the relatively rare theologically literate elite while ignoring the vast majority who were 'simple believers.' Therefore, there was no radical break with the conquests, but rather, a lot of continuity because Christians remained a majority in the region until possibly the Mamluk period (the Black Plague helped). Moreover, when we speak of the Christian-Muslim encounter, we are far too anachronistic in our working definitions of 'Christian' and even more so for 'Muslim.'
Very impressed that this is Dr. Tannous' first book. He's a brilliant scholar and a great person as well.
April 7, 2024
This is an excellent book that seeks to better understand the cultural and religious changes in the middle east between Chalcedon and the crusades. The author provides a seemingly exhaustive list of quotes and references as he makes his point – repeatedly. The basic thesis is that previous historians have only considered the writings of the elites, who were a tiny minority, rather than the mass of simple (his word) people. By examining the simple person in the middle east, the author argues that from their perspective relatively little changed between being ruled by Constantinople and being rules by a Muslim Arab elite. I am unsure how to rate the book. For on the positive side, it is outstanding, and complete – at an academic level. On the negative, it is at an academic level, which means it is not overly pleasant reading and too redundant. All told I would give 5 stars as an academic book, but much less if I was to compare it to popular histories written by the likes of Tom Holland or Julius Norwich.
April 24, 2021
Class is a perpetual problem in human history. It's rare to encounter a history of the common people in premodern times since the sources passed on to us were written by the political and scholarly elites who were interested mostly interested in recording the business of other people like themselves. How do we find out what the "simple" ordinary person thought about what's going on around them? Tannous' book offers some creative ideas on how to explore these issues.
The book is well written and I learned quite a bit about early church history and all the councils and creeds. I didn't read the whole thing cover to cover as it's very dense in information. But this is the kind of book and asks the sort of questions that young historians should aspire to address in future scholarship.
The book is well written and I learned quite a bit about early church history and all the councils and creeds. I didn't read the whole thing cover to cover as it's very dense in information. But this is the kind of book and asks the sort of questions that young historians should aspire to address in future scholarship.
April 16, 2025
Finally! It took about three months for me to finish this book. I'm glad I took my time and was able to get the most out of it.
This is how everyone should write social history: nuanced, clear, and with meticulous attention to the various types of sources. Any future discussion of medieval Christian-Muslim relations has to take this monumental work into account.
This is how everyone should write social history: nuanced, clear, and with meticulous attention to the various types of sources. Any future discussion of medieval Christian-Muslim relations has to take this monumental work into account.
August 18, 2023
A refreshing, readable, and thoroughly footnoted work of history. What every academic should strive for.
March 8, 2024
This book is insane
February 1, 2025
The questions Tannous sets out to answer are interesting ones, about how ordinary Christian and Muslim believers perceived their respective religions and the boundaries between them, and about how “Muslim” the Middle East really was after the Islamic conquest.
September 18, 2025
Revisited this book briefly because I think Tannous's point about theological literacy in the Middle Ages is as pertinent as ever in modern scholarship. I mean, some academics need some sort of evaluation of their scholarship.
In one paper I read published in the Biblical Archaeology Review, an author WHO I WILL NOT NAME makes the extraordinary claim that Jesus' depiction in Via Anapo (the one in my profile picture) is holding a staff and not a wand because it was a reference to Moses from the Bible. This is completely ridiculous. The wand, which is literally pictured, would have been a clear indicator to Romans at the time that Jesus was being depicted doing magic. And he was doing "magic!" The multiplication of the loaves would be understood in this context by ordinary Romans. The author of that insane paper even agrees that many parts of Jesus's portraiture are drawn to the Roman gaze, citing his short hair and shaved face. There's also the garb, but who cares?
So then, logically, why would a random Roman person be so fucking interested in Moses's staff and not signalling the act of magic? It's un-Christian, of course! Oh my, oh dear me!
It’s far more unlikely that a Roman artist painting an image of Jesus performing miracles in one of the most important spaces they would have had — a funerary setting — would have figured to dig up and ask Origen's corpse for consent to draw Jesus with a wand.
The main point is, the simple believers of religion in this period are underrated in scholarship and I sincerely hope that changes.
In one paper I read published in the Biblical Archaeology Review, an author WHO I WILL NOT NAME makes the extraordinary claim that Jesus' depiction in Via Anapo (the one in my profile picture) is holding a staff and not a wand because it was a reference to Moses from the Bible. This is completely ridiculous. The wand, which is literally pictured, would have been a clear indicator to Romans at the time that Jesus was being depicted doing magic. And he was doing "magic!" The multiplication of the loaves would be understood in this context by ordinary Romans. The author of that insane paper even agrees that many parts of Jesus's portraiture are drawn to the Roman gaze, citing his short hair and shaved face. There's also the garb, but who cares?
So then, logically, why would a random Roman person be so fucking interested in Moses's staff and not signalling the act of magic? It's un-Christian, of course! Oh my, oh dear me!
It’s far more unlikely that a Roman artist painting an image of Jesus performing miracles in one of the most important spaces they would have had — a funerary setting — would have figured to dig up and ask Origen's corpse for consent to draw Jesus with a wand.
The main point is, the simple believers of religion in this period are underrated in scholarship and I sincerely hope that changes.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews