Tim O'Neil blog post and comments

 
 





Van Demonian

Low, rumbling, growling noises from a Tasmanian Devil



Welcome
Don't blame me for reading this stuff, no-one is forcing you.
 

 

 

Blog Archive


▼   2007 (5) ▼   May (2) THE SECRET - Part Two - Wherein THE AUTHOR reveals...
THE SECRET - Wherein THE AUTHOR doth delve into an...
►    April (1)
►    March (2)

 

About Me
My Photo Tim O'Neill  Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard.View my complete profile
 


 
Thursday, May 31, 2007


   
THE SECRET - Part Two - Wherein THE AUTHOR reveals that one of THE SECRET'S "gurus" is, in fact, a greedy, lying SLIMEBALL



(Image courtesy of Connie Schmidt's Whirled Musings blog)



It seems the house of cards that is The Secret is beginning to tumble down. One of the slimiest scheisters on the DVD (see Part One) was Aussie "Investment Advisor" David Schirmer. He made a number of remarkable claims about how he simply "visualised" cheques and money arriving in the mail and - lo and behold - they did. Amazing. Strangely, the DVD kinda skipped over why people were sending this guy money. Apparently "the Universe" just decided to reward him for his visualisation and positive vibrations.
Well, Australian TV show A Current Affair has shed some light on this mystery and, in the process, sent the cockroach Schirmer scuttling for the shadows. In a story this week (May 28, 2007 - video here) ACA interviewed Schirmer, showing him proudly displaying his multi-million dollar mansion, his BMW and boasting about his $1 million dining table. Seemingly, all this was the result of his application of "the Secret".
Except the show then presented six people who had been fleeced by Schirmer's dodgy investment seminars and a former employee who is owed over $50,000 in pay by Schirmer. This guy took $5,000 from each of his seminar participants' fees and promised to invest it and then give them 50% of the profits after a year; profits which he predicted would be "900-1000%". Over a year later, none of these people had seen a cent.
Nicely ambushed by ACA, a squirming and stammering Schirmer did a spectacularly unsuccessful job of deflecting questions about where the money had gone or how much money his investments had made. Finally pinned down, he gave a highly insincere-sounding assurance that he'd find out how much these investments had made and give the 50% share he'd promised to his former seminar attendees. I suspect ACA will be holding him to that promise.
Interestingly, Schirmer was very enthusiastic about his upcoming appearance on ACA beforehand and posted on an online forum devoted to The Secret encouraging his acolytes to watch it. When it became clear that ACA was not giving him "a great plug", these posts suddenly disappeared. How strange ...

Still, thanks to the magic of internet caching, we can read what Schirmer said before and after the interview, despite the attempted censorship. Before it, he was pretty gleeful about the prospect:

I am doing a shot with Channel 9 "A Current Affair" today (and yesterday). It will be a great plug for The Secret. I'm sure they are going to try lots of hard and crazy questions ... the great thing is that the truth is always the truth and it is hard for people to deny that when presented with the correct facts.
(05/24/07 08:02 PM)

Well, they certainly had some questions, but they weren't exactly "hard". How "hard" can a question as simple as "David, where is the money" be? After the interview, Schirmer rapidly changed his tune:










I have just got back from my interview and I have been setup. I was invited into the studio under the pretense that it was to answer questions from people who wanted to know how to apply the Secret in their life. When I got in there I found out it was a huge anti-secret, anti-david, The Secret is a con, I am a con ...
(05/25/07 02:37 AM)












Well, yes David - that's because the segment made it pretty clear that you are a greedy, grasping, lying weasel. And, in your words, "it is hard for people to deny that when presented with the correct facts". The weasel went on:










(T)he interviewer talked over me the whole time with information he had twisted to make out that I (and The Secret) am one big fraud. Every time I attempted to share the truth behind accusations he cut me off or talked over the top.












Actually, anyone who watches the segment (here's that video link again) can see that it was punctuated with some very long, nervous pauses and awkward silences, with Schirmer sweating, swallowing and squirming while the interviewer waited for a straight answer about where the invested money had gone and when Schirmer's customers were going to get what they had been so grandly promised. Even given ACA's undeniable talent for selective editing, it's pretty clear that Schirmer spent much of his time in the interview staring like a doomed rabbit caught in car headlights and struggling to find anything credible to say.












Luckily the faithful of "The Secret" were there to rally around their persecuted guru. "Can't remember the quote now but there is one about any 'new' idea some thing like "first it is ridiculed then hailed as a truth" - thats the one you need :-)" purred "kittybaroque" soothingly, ignoring the fact that lying to people and running away with their money isn't exactly a "new idea". Others adopted the remarkable policy of blocking their ears to this "negative talk" and thinking postively. Ignoring what the segment was actually about, a poster called "Aylyese Ragen" dismissed it as "attacks on (the) Law of Attraction", which ACA never mentioned.












Schirmer was considerably comforted by these muddle-headed posts:












Thanks so much everyone for your great comments. This is what I do know: "no positive action can ever come from negative thought." Someone said to me today that as you try to change the world for better some will try to destroy you rather than change their beliefs.
(05/25/07 06:07 AM)











Er, actually Schirmer, they weren't objecting to you trying to change their beliefs. It was your attempt at changing their bank balances so you can buy $1 million dining tables that they didn't like.










Anyway, after a few more soothing, rambling and totally irrelevant posts, the administrators of the Forum promptly yanked the whole thread. It seems they weren't too pleased about one of their gurus being exposed as a slimeball.






But even the woolly-brained lemmings who subscribe to "the Secret" could detect out-and-out censorship when they see it. Not long after the thread suddenly vanished, a few of them were asking why. "Angelo Garozzo" asked, quite reasonably:










Why did this site remove the comments made by Mr. Schirmer about his discussion on A Current Affair, when he said he was set up?(the law of attraction at work?) I saw the program and he did not come out of that unscathed,he appeard to be a true conman! Any one care to set me straight? Please?
(05/29/07 09:52 PM)










Others also smelt a rat. "Mandy & Paul Robertson" said:










I agree!! I saw the interview and posted 2 comments in the post started by David himself, but came back and the whole post is gone!!Whatever happened to free speech??Is it because he is a "Teacher" and therefore beyond reproach??
(05/29/07 10:20 PM )










The True Believers were quick to circle the wagons. "Cornelius Vanderbilt" explained that it was all perfectly reasonable to remove the nasty thread:










There should be no need for an explanation. This is not a place for such negative debates, remarks or comments; whether it be regarding The Secret or its Teachers. .... Remember..Positive engergy flows within this forum, and obviously, any negativity does not contribute to that.
(05/30/07 03:54 AM)










Then one of the Forum's founders and administrators chimed in:










(I)n the end I made the unilateral decision to remove the lot and free everyone to get back to focussing (sic) on their own happiness rather than someone else's complaint and misery.
(05/30/07 05:56 AM)










How very convenient. With that, the True Believers were quick to find a silver lining in this dark cloud of ... ummm ... persecution (or something):










Based on (the Law of Attraction) David attracted this situation into his life, for some reason based on what David is wanting, the universe decided that this was to be part of the journey to get it - this may appear to be a 'bad' situation from the outside but obiviously (sic) it is all part of a grander scheme, with wonderous results yet to be unfolded.
(05/30/07 07:00 AM )










So this was actually a good thing?! Yay! These people's capacity for self-delusion seems to be their main talent. Though it's rivaled by their talent for staggering illogic. Take this gem from "Nikki Agnew":










I remember when Harry Potter first came out and boy do you remember the backlash it got. My daughter was at an age then to read it. There was a lot of contriversy (sic) and it was going to banned in schools etc. Look at J.K.Rowling now, who would have thought!People fear change, this is all that it is.
(05/30/07 11:01 AM)










Actually Nikki, people fear being fleeced by a smirking, materialistic conman. And J.K. Rowling hasn't ripped anyone off.
Reassured that you can still fool some of the people most of the time (the dumb ones mainly) Schirmer responded by assuring everyone that his "Born Rich Seminar" was still going ahead in Melbourne this September.








Phew, that's a relief! Imagine if it didn't go ahead? David Schirmer might not be able to afford some $500,000 chairs to go with his $1 million table.
But one of the forum posters was also kind enough to link to a YouTube video in which, allegedly, Schirmer puts "his side of the story". Unfortunately, this so-called defence turns out to be an extended (and inarticulate) whine which is heavy on insincere righteous indignation and light on any actual information about what ACA got wrong. You'd think if the guy had a leg to stand on he'd be putting his case in this video, long and loud, and with full details. But instead all he does is bleat about what a poor victim he is and then, incredibly, spend the last quarter of the video plugging his bloody seminars!
But he does promise to keep us up to date regularly with what's going on. And ACA is doing a follow-up story tonight.
This is getting rather amusing. As one real scientist (cited by The Secret) once said:



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
(Albert Einstein)




Post Scriptum: - Connie Schmidt's excellent Whirled Musings blog has some rather nifty analysis of "The Martyrdom of Saint David" and the woolly-minded defence of their dodgy guru by "the Secretons". Worth a read folks.
 

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  4:15 PM    6 comments:        

 Labels: A Current Affair, ACA, David Schirmer, Law of Attraction, The Secret 
 

Tuesday, May 22, 2007


  
THE SECRET - Wherein THE AUTHOR doth delve into an arcane recipe for WEALTH and SUCCESS and discovers it to be solid gold New Age BULLSHIT



A couple of years ago Australian TV writer and producer, Rhonda Byrne, cracked the secret of vast wealth. If you read her mega best-selling book or watch her video – The Secret - you might think the secret she found was the one described in those works, fully endorsed by Oprah and snatched up by millions. But, in fact, the “secret” she cracked was how to repackage some hoary old New Age and self-help psychobabble and flog it to the gullible, making herself a multi-millionaire in the process.
After seeing vast piles of the book and DVD in Borders a few months ago and watching a queue of people (mainly women, actually) lining up to buy them as though they were proverbial hotcakes, I decided to check it out. Suspecting it was a load of over hyped crap, however, I waited until the DVD arrived at my local video outlet so as to minimise the amount of my well-earned dollars finding their way into Ms. Byrne’s already well-lined pockets.
My suspicions were correct – it’s a load of over hyped crap.
Hilarious crap though. The first part of the video consists of scenes that look like low-budget outtakes from the movie of The Da Vinci Code and gives the viewer the impression that this “Secret” is something discovered by the ancient Egyptians (cue mystical music – because when were the Egyptians ever wrong about anything?), hidden from the evil Catholic Church (boo! hiss!) and deciphered by wise, smart Eighteenth Century-looking people in periwigs.
This is achieved by a hokey voice-over explaining all this, some spooky music and scenes of people escaping from temples with mysterious-looking stone tablets, guys being pursued by bad dudes in flowing robes, some Templars (of course!) and thoughtful looking chaps in dark chambers poring over big dusty books. I was kind of hoping that the video would go on to tell this exciting story and explain the evidence for this historical stuff, but it doesn’t. We just get the Da Vinci Code atmospherics and then we’re supposed to simply accept that all this is true. Or something.
Then we are promised that now the “Secret” has been “rediscovered” (er, by an Aussie TV producer), some of the world’s finest “scientists, philosophers and thinkers” were about to explain it to us. What follows is, therefore, something of a let down. We get a gaggle of no-name self-help authors, goofy “positive thinking” hucksters and Anthony Robbins-wannabes spouting facile clichés at us, but not a “scientist” or “philosopher” of any calibre is amongst them. And few of them seem to be much chop at being “thinkers” either.
So what’s “the Secret”? well, it’s not much of a secret and nor is it much of a mystery. Basically it’s Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking, written back in 1952 (and not in ancient Egypt), repackaged with some spooky music and silly visuals. Not to mention some additional New Age hokum and vague claims to a “scientific basis”.
Essentially it claims all you have to do if you want something – and it can be anything – is (i) visualise yourself getting it (ii) “believe” and (iii) accept it when it comes. That’s it. But that would make for a very short video, so they repeat this endlessly, over and over again like a 1.5 hour infomercial-from-Hell, with footage in the background of people visualizing, looking thoughtful and “believing” and then banking big cheques, happily driving away in BMWs or laughing the arms of a perfect new lover.
Well, there is a bit more to it than that. You see, if you visualize what you want and then “believe” the universe “always” gives it to you. But if you think “I wish I WASN’T fat/poor/lonely/in debt”, the universe won’t get the “WASN’T” bit and you’ll stay fat/poor/lonely/in debt. Apparently the universe has some trouble with basic grammar.
How this facile nonsense could appeal to the woolly-minded is pretty clear – it sure would be nice to live in a universe where this was true. But the examples the video gives of the success of The Secret don’t exactly inspire confidence. For example, the author of Chicken Soup for the Soul, Jack Canfield, assures the viewer that “the Secret” worked for him. He “visualised” having $100,000 by adding some zeros to the number on a $1 bill and then looked at it every day. And then – hey presto! – the universe heard him and gave him (almost) $100,000!
Well, sort of. Canfield actually did more than sit on his backside and visualise having money. He also (i) wrote a book, (ii) came up with a cheap way of marketing it and (iii) sold a shed load of copies. Most people would point out that if he had done these things without the visualisation he would still have made the money and that if he’d just done the visualisation without doing these things he wouldn’t. Therefore it seems pretty obvious that it was doing these things that got him the money, not the visualisation.
Of course, the visualisation probably did focus him on his objective and open him up to ways of achieving it, and that bit of “positive thinking” isn’t hokey at all. Psychological studies of “lucky” people have found they aren’t much luckier than “unlucky” people at all, they just have a more positive attitude to life and are more focused and reasonable in their goals and expectations. This attitude and focus means they are more likely to achieve these goals, and are less likely to dwell on them if they don’t, than their “unlucky” and less positive and focused counterparts tend to be.
Where The Secret veers wildly off into kooksville is in its claim that all you have to do is visualise and “believe” and nothing else. And that the universe will “always” give you what you want. It also claims that this is “confirmed by science”, but here it gets strangely vague again. In this bit of the video the various talking heads start throwing around comments about “quantum mechanics” and doing some general frenzied hand-waving (while computerised music plays in the background and a photo of Einstein floats across the screen, for some odd reason). Then we’re reassured that it doesn’t matter if we don’t understand how quantum mechanics explains “the Secret”, because most of us don’t understand electricity either, and that still works!
By this stage I was audibly groaning in genuine pain.
But it gets worse. Not only does simply thinking about what you want magically mean you’ll “always” get it, but “the Secret” also explains the bad things that happen to people. Basically, it’s all their own fault. They have thought and imagined bad things and so bad things happen to them. All they have to do is grasp “the Secret” (and buy the book/DVD/fridge magnet/coffee coasters and steak knives – dial this number now!) and everything will be okay for them.
It only takes a few moments’ rational thought to begin to see the problems with this idea. One might question what “bad thoughts” a four year old girl was thinking which caused “the universe” to have her abducted by a pedophile gang and brutally raped. Or what the infant babies “thought” which led to them being tossed into Nazi gas chambers and murdered. But the glib and shiny people on The Secret don’t pause in their slick sales patter to let you think about nasty things like that.
In fact, they tell you that you shouldn’t. You see, watching footage of sectarian violence in Iraq or massacres in Dafur or starvation in Africa and worrying about it is thinking “bad thoughts”. It’s better not to get concerned about these things, because you’ll only attract bad things to yourself if you do. Besides, selflessly worrying about the woes of other people will distract you from visualising your new Mercedes, your 15 room mansion and your Fabio-lookalike lover.
At around this point, I was starting to feel a bit sick.
Not only is The Secret simplistic wishful thinking slickly packaged and marketed at the gullible, but it’s also designed by and for the most self-centred, materialistic, narcissistic and revolting element in our society. Not only is it brainless crap, it’s also vile, selfish and disgusting brainless crap.
Still – it did “work” for one person: Rhonda Byrne is now rolling in dosh. Not enough to bother sharing with her elderly mother, Irene Izon, however who is still living on a $1050 a month aged pension. "She is very generous giving all those millions to charity," poor old Mrs Izon told a British paper, "but I have to admit she hasn't given me a single dollar, though I'm expecting she'll send me some financial help soon. That's what she told me." Keep on visualising, Mrs Izon - maybe the power of "the Secret" will make your daughter less of a selfish, greedy bitch.
Interestingly, that wise oracle of all that is bright and true, Oprah Winfrey, has been madly endorsing The Secret for a while now. But recently she had to “clarify” her enthusiastic imprimatur when she was contacted by “Kim”, who had swallowed The Secret whole after watching Oprah and decided to go off her cancer chemotherapy and “heal myself” using “the Secret”. Perhaps smelling a law suit from the woman’s grieving family when she died, Oprah’s PR people scrambled madly to back her away from her endorsement:
"What I believe about the law of attraction, I want to clarify it," Oprah says. "I want to say it's a tool. It is not the answer to everything. It is not the answer to atrocities or every tragedy. It is just one law. Not the only law. And certainly, certainly, certainly not a get-rich-quick scheme.”
Actually Oprah, The Secret repeatedly claims to be both these things. Perhaps the letter from “Kim” gave Oprah a whiff of reality-coffee for a brief moment of clarity.
Ah, such negative thoughts …

Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  11:04 AM    No comments:        

 Labels: Anthony Robbins, Borders, Einstein, Jack Canfield, New Age, Norman Vincent Peale, Oprah, quantum mechanics, Rhonda Byrne, Templars, The Da Vinci Code, The Secret 
 

Tuesday, April 10, 2007


  
KAFKA - In which the AUTHOR doth muse on the nature of CONFESSIONS in the light of some BRITONS in PERSIA and one DAVID HICKS, a luckless clown.


What a strange few weeks it's been. Firstly, some British sailors and marines get nabbed by the Iranians and used as pawns in the lead up to the Saturday March 24th UN vote on sanctions against Iran. Given that context, the recent seizure of an Iranian diplomat and other Iranians in Iraq and British pressure on the Iranian-backed Badr Brigades' smuggling operations in Basra, this incident had all the clear hallmarks of diplomatic brinkmanship typical of Tehran.
But that kind of sober analysis would require people to actually pay some detailed attention to international affairs. Unfortunately that sort of sober, clear-eyed realism is in short supply these days and much of the blogosphere went into a predictable war frenzy. This action was, apparently, a sign that Iranians were insane and that the only possible solution was WAR and plenty of it.
How this war was going to be fought without therefore engulfing Iraq in flames was not considered, let alone explained. Actual reality on the ground, such as that detailed in strategic analysis by the Cato Institute and the Oxford Research Group was totally ignored. In a chilling replay of the reason-free, military fantasy-fueled frenzy that led up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the reality of the US and UK's untenable military position in the region was swept aside by confident predictions of an aerial-naval bombardment of Iran, as though this idiotic course of action would have no wider consequences and as though Iran isn't fully aware it has "the (crumbling) Coalition" over a painful barrel in the Gulf.
Luckily, sober heads in London were aware of these facts (thankfully it was British troops captured and not Yanks), quiet diplomatic channels were utilised and the 15 were speedily released unharmed.
What followed was even more interesting.
During their detention, the 15 Brits made obviously false admissions of fault and clearly fake apologies for the Iranian media. No-one believed a word they said and - not surprisingly - on their release they revealed that these admissions had been made under duress. Not "stress positions", "water boarding" or weeks of sleep deprivation torture mind you (it takes Bushite Americans to inflict those barbarities), but psychological pressure which, in the circumstances, make their choice pretty reasonable.
So everyone agrees that their "confessions" and "apologies" came as a result of duress and can be reasonably dismissed.
Now let's go back to March 26th. Largely unnoticed outside of Australia and, to a lesser extent, the US, on that day the first of the Guantanamo detainees - Australian man David Hicks - faced one of George Bush's long-delayed, much disputed and legally dubious "Military Commissions" rather than a real court. Let me state clearly from the outset: I regard Hicks to be an idiot. After some "war tourism" in Kosovo and Kashmir between 1999 and 2000, this bumbling "adventurer" and befuddled Muslim convert ended up in Afghanistan at precisely the wrong time - September 11, 2001. Exactly what he did there and what his motives were remain debatable, but since he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, his taste for "adventure", guns and some of the dumber ends of modern Islamic theology (dimly grasped) found him guarding a Taliban tank around the time the US-backed Northern Alliance rolled into town. Hicks was captured and sold to the US for the princely sum of $2000.
What followed was a confused farce worthy of Kafka. Hicks was "processed" by US intelligence officers at Kandahar, which he says involved him being hooded, beaten and had weapons pointed at his face during interrogations. He was then transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he claims this intimidation continued, including being injected with unknown substances, having his body shaved and having an object inserted in his anus.
The US has denied all this.
What isn't in dispute is that Hicks was held without trial for over five years, two of which were spent in solitary confinement. The US characterised him as "the worst of the worst" amongst the Guantanamo detainees and tried to charge him a range of serious terrorism offences; all of which were withdrawn when it became clear that none of them would stick. In this five years, meanwhile, the Australian Howard Government did nothing to extract him from a detention of dubious legality. Until, that is, it became clear that its notable inaction was going to hurt it in an election year.
With polls turning sharply against it, the Howard Government finally took the opportunity of a visit by US Vice-President Dick Cheney to lobby for a resolution of the Hicks case well before the federal election due late this year. Suddenly it was announced that Hicks would face a "Military Commission", though on the vastly reduced charge of "material support for terrorism". All other charges and allegations magically disappeared.
On March 25th 2007 Hicks appeared before the first "Military Commission" and refused to enter a plea, though rumours of a plea bargain deal that would save face for the Howard Government were rife. The next day he entered a guilty plea.
The immediate reaction from the right-wing elements in the Australian press was ecstatic. Hicks had pleaded guilty, they crowed, so he was guilty. End of story.
The Murdoch Press in particular could barely contain itself. Piers Akerman, a loathsome toad in human form posing as a "commentator" in Murdoch's Daily Telegraph tabloid, presided over a crowing blog entry on the paper's website. Whenever a comment was posted pointing out that any reasonable person could see that Hicks had pleaded guilty just to finally get home, Akerman leered "Why can’t you believe what Hicks himself said?" For Akerman and the rest of the conservative commentariat, Hick's guilty plea was vindication that everything he'd been accused of was true and any distress over his treatment was instantly illegitimate.
But that was on March 27th. On March 31st he was sentenced to seven years jail, but this was suspended to a mere nine months, to be served in an Australian prison. Additionally, Hicks was legally gagged from speaking to the media for one year - a gag which conveniently meant he could not tell his story until after the next Australian election.
Leaving the politically convenient (and legally dubious) gag aside, here we have the guy that people like the toad Akerman crowed was a wicked terrorist being given a mere nine months jail. Drink drivers get more jail time than that. And these crowing heroes of the conservative press had been claiming that his plea was entirely genuine and that it was not coerced by his years of illegal imprisonment.
Surely, therefore, you'd expect a firestorm of protest by them at the pathetically light-weight sentence. After all, he was a genuine terrorist, wasn't he? He'd admitted as much, hadn't he? He hadn't just accepted the plea bargain to finally get the hell out of the limbo that is Guantanamo Bay, had he? So surely the US should have thrown the book at him, no? So did Akerman and the rest of Howard's media sheep howl in protest.
Nope - complete and utter silence.
So here we have 15 British sailors and marines held for a couple of weeks and put under some pressure to admit to illegally entering Iranian waters, and the whole world accepts those admissions are coerced.
Yet a man (yes, a fool) is held without trial by the US for FIVE YEARS, two of them in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, and we're seriously supposed to believe his admission of guilt is not coerced?
As we say here in Australia, pull the other one son, it plays "Jingle Bells".
Luckily the US "Military Commissions" have zero jurisdiction in Australia so it's possible Hicks will defy the clumsy gag order and tell his side of the story in detail before the next election. It would be as much as that vile rodent John Howard deserves.
More to follow on this one, I suspect ...
 

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  6:57 PM    No comments:        

 Labels: British sailors, Cato Institute, David Hicks, Dick Cheney, Guantanamo Bay, Howard Government, Iran, Iranians, Kafka, Oxford Research Group, Piers Akerman 
 

Friday, March 16, 2007


  
BOGAN – In which the AUTHOR doth write divers unkindly things about STEVE IRWIN, a dead chap.


The good news, Gentle Reader, is that Steve Bloody Irwin is still dead. The bad news is that his gimlet-eyed, troll-headed and puppet-like daughter Bindi is not, and shows no sign of dying in the near future. The equally bad news is that the pseudo-canonisation of this gibbering buffoon gives no indication of ever intersecting with reality.
Irwin died in a slow news week, so the Australian media was not distracted from its insane, inane and seemingly endless “memorials” to this clueless animal-bothering bogan by any actual events of genuine significance. Sure, several hundred people died in car bombings and assassinations in Iraq, but no-one was very interested in that and only SBS bothered to show the usual footage of wailing women and dazed and bloodied survivors sitting in streets strewn with car wreckage and gobbets of human flesh. Australian author Colin Thiele – someone with actual talent and brains - died the same day, but that news was swamped in the same way the idiotic tsunami of grief that followed the death of Princess Diana swept away the death of Mother Teresa.
The Aussie media was also not distracted by the fact that, in the past, its main coverage of Steve Irwin consisted of talking about what a complete clown he was. Because let’s face facts – Irwin was a goggle-eyed, gibbering galah whose main talent was his ability to market himself as a “genuine Aussie adventurer” to the more clueless end of the American consumer demographic.
This isn’t exactly a great achievement, since this is the same demographic to which you can market things as stupid as a “Decorate and Eat Marshmallow Egg Kit”, which includes pens with edible ink so you can write messages to yourself on marshmallow eggs before eating them. This is also the demographic that was the only population on Earth that actually really bought that story about Saddam Hussein and WMDs. So getting them to believe that a suburban guy running his parents’ two bit reptile park was a cross between Crocodile Dundee (minus the wry humour) and David Attenborough (minus the intelligence and beautiful voice) wasn’t really that hard.
Irwin’s first notices in the Australian news media consisted of stories saying “Look at this goose – the Yanks are actually taking him seriously and watching his show” and then moved to “Well bugger me, that annoying drongo Steve Irwin is actually getting rich from his goofy ‘Oim an Aussie!” schtick”. Then came the moment he almost fed his baby son to a croc, his molestation of innocent animals in Antarctica and his merry acceptance of $175,000 worth of taxpayers cash for some Federal Government-sponsored TV commercials, after which he glowing described our loathsome rodent of a Prime Minister as "greatest leader in the world" – possibly his only funny line.
The brief flurry of controversy over that cosy deal (followed as it was by an audience with Emperor George Bush at the PM’s residence when the Chimp-in-Chief scourged us with his Imperial presence) led to Irwin blinking and gibbering on Channel Nine’s Today Show, assuring us that he was supremely apolitical and just a humble “environmentalist”. But when the interviewer suggested that this might mean he could be inclined toward a real environmentalist – Greens senator Dr Bob Brown – the bogan made scoffing noises as though this was a ridiculous notion and said “Well, I don’t think much of Bob Brown.”
Which kind of makes his elevation to the status of “environmentalist” post mortem rather bizarre. Here is a guy who declares that an environmental vandal like John Howard is "greatest leader in the world", but who “doesn’t think much” of the guy who led the successful campaign to save the Franklin River and preserve the pristine wilderness of South-West Tasmania. How does this kind of clueless dickhead get dubbed an “environmentalist”?
But perhaps I’m being too harsh – after all, Irwin did manage to teach the kiddies a very valuable lesson about evolution. His death was a pure demonstration of “natural selection” in action: an idiot who consistently bothers dangerous animals is going to be removed from the gene pool eventually. Unfortunately this happened after the stupid prawn had spawned progeny. And now the media keep wheeling out the loathesome Bindi-muppet to afflict us. God help us all …
PS Why bother writing a post slagging this goofball seven months after he died? Well, I may be a bastard and I may not hold with any superstitious nonsense about not speaking ill of the dead, but I'm enough of a good bloke to let the dirt settle on his grave a bit before sinking the boot. And besides, Irwin shat me to tears.

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  10:48 AM    1 comment:        

 Labels: Bindi Irwin, Bob Brown, bogan, Channel Nine, drongo, environmentalism, Franklin River, galah, George Bush, John Howard, Steve Irwin, Tasmania, Today Show 
 

Thursday, March 15, 2007


  
GENESIS - Wherein the AUTHOR doth explain himself (somewhat) ...


This is the ubiquitous first post on a new blog that seeks to justify why on Earth anyone would want to add yet another self-indulgent weblog to the net and says something about themselves and their plans for their blog. They do this acutely aware that (i) there's a very good chance that this blog will go the way of most and splutter to an awkward, stumbling and unlamented halt after a few feeble posts that no-one on the planet bothered to read and that (ii) even if that doesn't happen and the blog in question gets an audience, no-one bothers to go back and read the first post on a blog anyway.
So, reveling gloriously in the knowledge that no-one is ever going to read this, I can reveal that I have absolutely no justification for inflicting another pointless blog on the world and I have very little idea what kind of purpose it will have. I do suspect it might develop a focus, but essentially I intend to keep it to vaguely topical rambles and rants and see if some kind of theme then shambles out of the mire.
Largely, it will probably be an excuse to write sentences that end in absurd phrases like "shambles out of the mire".
Firstly why "Van Demonian"? Largely because I grew up in Tasmania (formerly called Van Dieman's Land) and thus Tasmanians can be called either "Taswegians" or "Van Demonians"; though they are usually called "inbred", which is unfair when you look at Crown Princess Mary of Denmark/Mary Donaldson of Tasmania. And partly because it's a cool word, in a very stupid heavy-metal-album-cover kind of way. I've lived in Sydney for 12 years now and was born in New South Wales, so I'm not really a Tasmanian at all, but Tasmania has a way of getting into your head and your blood, especially if you spend your formative years there (eg first crush, first beer, first fuck there etc). It becomes an idealised, half-real place much the way Ireland does for expatriate Irish who'd never go back there to live, but sing heart-aching songs about the place nonetheless.
The "Demonian" part also evokes an oblique semi-reference to Tasmanian Devils - who are among the weirder and more interesting animals unique to my native island state. You have to love a carnivorous marsupial that has the highest jaw pressure, relative to size, of any animal on Earth and which communicates with its fellows by depositing evocatively fragrant turds in communal latrines (no, really).
Many years ago - when the internet was a very, very small place inhabited only by academics, people from NASA and the US military and the web had yet to be invented - I cut my teeth in the gentle art of internet debate via USENET discussion groups. This was way back in 1991, so I'll avoid talking about 14,400 BPS baud rates and ASCII art and other relics of those antediluvian days of the net, because that makes me feel like someone's grandfather reminiscing about wax cylinder gramophones, daguerrotype photography or experimental steam-powered flying machines.
Anyway, I spent several weeks that should have been spent proofreading my Masters thesis in wordy, heavily referenced and flamboyantly rhetorical debate with a bloke who was, in fact, a rocket scientist about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. He was an evangelical Protestant fundamentalist and a Creationist (despite his large brain - always a disturbing combination) who had - oddly - become convinced of the authenticity of what was, after all, a fake medieval Catholic relic. And I was an ex-Catholic atheist medievalist who knew a fake medieval relic when I saw one, by St. James' bones.
So battle was joined and the good folk of USENET's "sci.skeptic" stood back while we hurled headlong at each other like frisky young mountain goats. He cited semi-scientific analyses of the Shroud made in the 1970s while I waved the 1988 carbon dating results in his face and quoted the Fourteenth Century Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, writing to the Pope saying that not only was it a fake but he'd actually caught the guy who painted it. This went back and forth for days and eventually my opponent had to call a semi-truce, writing:
> You are certainly no idiot, which is why I'm willing to continue this dialog with you (and
> why I interact with this newsgroup at all - I can disagree with, and thereby learn from,
> some highly educated and highly intelligent people).
And then added:
>If the Tasmanian-Devil-of-the-net wants more for dinner, so be it.
I can't deny that being called "the Tasmanian-Devil-of-the-net" tickled me somewhat and for years afterwards I signed off my USENET posts with "Tasmanian Devil". I grew out of that.
So "Van Demonian" it is and hopefully anyone who stumbles across this blog will find it amusing, or something. But please - and this is important - please, whatever you do, don't read this first post.
Now, go away.
 

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  7:27 PM    No comments:        

 Labels: ASCII art, Henri de Poitiers, Princess Mary, Shroud of Turin, Tasmania, Tasmanian Devil, Taswegians, USENET, Van Demonian, Van Dieman's Land 


Home


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
 

      http://vandemonianism.blogspot.com/








 
 




The Books & Vino Appreciation Society

From the humble beginnings at a Millionaires and Their Trophy Wives party, 6 years ago in Redfern... involving a mysterious and silent member known as 'Maro' (does he exist?), a stray party goer and a bookshelf... the Sydney (Good) Books and Vino (fine wine) Society was born. Along with a book club baby or two.





 
Sunday, November 17, 2013


   







COME DRESSED AS YOUR FAVOURITE CHARACTER FROM A BOOK....



TO THE BOOK CLUB 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY!!!



Saturday 11th of January, 2014
8pm
@ Button Bar
65 Foveaux Street
Surry Hills, Sydney








 Posted by Jaime    at  4:25 PM   No comments:        Links to this post 
 
 

Thursday, August 13, 2009


   
If book club was a band...



Just came across this photo in my old emails from our Melbourne trip - it's the book club album cover!

 Posted by  Bec     at  4:56 PM   No comments:        Links to this post 
 Labels: Book club album cover 
 

Thursday, July 23, 2009


   
Smut Award: Bluey Book Club Weekend: Goes to Mysterious New Member


 

 Posted by Jaime    at  5:49 AM   1 comment:        Links to this post 
 Labels: Members we didn't know we had 
 

Friday, July 17, 2009


  
Blue Mountains Book Club: Aka Mormon Weekend Quotes


"That fire is so good it look's fake!" - Maya
"Its not a cougar if she's the same age as you mate." - Nick
"I want to smell bush." - Susie
"Susie, is a row, like....two rows?" - Katie
"You should be able to come off whenever you want to." - Bec
"I bags the front seat!! F*** off I'm taller than you!!" - Tim
"So I'm american and nearly dead?" - Jaime
"Yes" - Group
"Am I Van Morrison?" - Jaime

 Posted by Jaime    at  12:45 AM   No comments:        Links to this post 
 Labels: Famous quotes by book clubbers 
 

Monday, March 23, 2009


  
Generation X: A Short Version


Dag: My life is in a confused state of mid-twenties hiatus.
Andy: So is mine, that's why we're living in a failed housing development in New Mexico.
Claire: Mine too, which why we're relentlessly cool, hip and ironic. For example, I'm wearing a Mork and Mindy t-shirt.
Dag: How ironic. Let's make magaritas and tell each other wry and whimsical stories.
Andy: And worry about nuclear war and yuppies.
Claire (ironically): Gee willikers - I'll dress as a 60s suburban housewife and serve them by the pool!
(They adjurn to the pool)
Andy (ironically dressed as a 50s ad executive): Baby boomers suck.
Dag (wearing a DEVO hat): So do yuppies. Reagan is bad.
Claire: Why did no-one read this novel?
Andy: Because Tim suggested it. And yet he suggested it because he thought it would be more accessible than his usual suggestions.
All: How ironic!
Kurt Cobain: I hate my life and want to die.
Andy: Who was that guy?
Dag: I have no idea, it's still the 80s.
Claire: Let's set up a bungy-jumping business in Nicaragua!
Dag: Like, awesome!
Andy: Yes, that will make our ennui far more bearable!
Exeunt Omnes

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  9:04 PM   No comments:        Links to this post 
 
 

Monday, December 15, 2008


  
Musings On The Magus...by Katie & Susie


Katie:
"I reckon Nick and Alison get together and live happily ever after.
I hate that the last line is in latin. I disliked Alison. Maybe I just wanted a rational explanation for what Nick was put through on the island. Was the whole book about Nick learning to love? I didn't even really think Nick's way of being before his experience in Greece were that bad. Just what most 25 year olds are like and probably what most people would be like for the rest of their lives if they were never rejected in love. I dunno, didn't work for me.
I thought the girls on the island were far more interesting than Alison, who I found really annoying. You?"
Susie:
"I liked the book and found it a page turner other than a boring part when he is first on the island and the ending which was so drawn out and ultimately dissatisfying.
Agree that Nick's behaviour was not that bad and hardly warranted the character assasination by the god gamers.
Apparently last line means "Let those love now who've never loved; let those who've loved, love yet again." so yeah I guess that they got together. He never loved her though, just had good sex that one time in parnassus!"

 Posted by Jaime    at  9:33 PM   No comments:        Links to this post 
 
 

Thursday, December 11, 2008


  
The Magus: A Short Version


Nicholas: Gosh, what a frightfully repressed middle class English prig I am.
Alison: Oi pommy, how ‘bout a root?!
Nicholas: I say, what a gauche and dreadful Australian person. I think I’ll prove myself a pompous hypocrite by having naughty sex with her while disliking her for her unbridled sexuality.
(They have naughty sex)
Alison: I’m going to become a air hostess and marry an Australian.
Nicholas: Good, because you are such a horrid Aussie slut.
(She goes)
Nicholas: Oh dear – I’m in love with her. I’ll have to go and teach loathsome little Greek boys English.
(Goes to Phraxos)
Nicholas: I think I’ll now attempt suicide.
(Fails)
Nicholas: Or maybe not.
Conchis: Hello – I’m the guy the book’s title is about. I hope you've all read The Tempest or you won't get all the clever literary references.
Nicholas: My, how urbane and mysterious you are. Not to mention rich.
Conchis: Yet nothing is as it seems.
(Conchis puts on and takes off a series of masks in rapid succession)
Nicholas: Gosh, that was unexpected.
Lily/Julie/Whatshername: Hello, I’m pretty and nothing like that slutty Aussie.
Nicholas: How tantalising. You arouse my English hypocrisy strangely.
(Lily/Julie/Whatshername puts on and takes off a series of masks in rapid succession)
Nicholas: Gosh, that was unexpected.
Rose/June/Whatshername: I’m her identical twin.
Nicholas: This is a bit like a porn movie.
(Rose/June/Whatshername on and takes off a series of masks in rapid succession)
Nicholas: Ummm, this is getting a bit predictable.
(Guys dressed as Nazis burst in and beat him up)
Nicholas: Gosh, that was unexpected.
Conchis: Now I will tell you some stories that seem to be about me but are actually about you.
Nicholas: I think I preferred the Nazis.
Negro: We are all world-renowned psychologists.
(Everyone takes off their masks)
Nicholas: Are we in a Scooby-Doo episode?
Conchis: We would have got away with it, if it wasn’t for these meddling kids.
Nicholas: I think I’ll go home.
Alison: I’m not dead.
Nicholas: No, but you are still Australian.
John Fowles: Clever, huh.
Woody Allen: Crappy movie but.
The End

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  9:02 PM   1 comment:        Links to this post 
 


Older Posts  Home


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
 

Date of Next Meeting
28 November, 2013, 7.00pm

 

Current Read
Death in Venice, by Thomas Mann
 

Books We've Read (Or Pretended To)
Wild, by Cheryl Strayed
The Power of Quiet, by Susan Cain
The Marriage Plot, by Jeffrey Eugenides
The Psychopath Test, by Jon Ronson
All That I Am, by Anna Funder
Catch 22, by Joseph Heller
The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic and Madness at the Fair that Changed America, by Erik Larson
Room, by Emma Donoghue
Cloudstreet, by Tim Winton
Winter's Bone, by Daniel Woodrell
Freedom, by Jonathan Franzen
The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak
We Need To Talk About Kevin, by Lionel Shriver
Dune, by Frank Herbert
Breakfast at Tiffanys, by Truman Capote
A Confederacy of Dunces, by John Kennedy Toole
The Slap, by Christos Tsiolkas
Harp in the South, by Ruth Parks
Down and Out in Paris and London, George Orwell
Birdsong, by Sebastian Faulks
Generation X, by Douglas Coupland
Lady Chatterley's Lover, by D H Lawrence
The Magus, John Fowles
East of Eden, by John Steinbeck
Catcher In The Rye, by J. D. Salinger
Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell
American Journeys, by Don Watson
A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian, by Marina Lewycka
Moby Dick, Herman Melville
Lolita, by Nabakov
The Secret River, by Kate Grenville
Wuthering Heights, by Emily Bronte
The Scandal of the Season, by Sophie Gee
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
Rabbit, Run by John Updike
Running With Scissors: A Memoir, by Augusten Burroughs
Interpreter Of Maladies, by Jhumpa Lahiri
The Book Of Laughter And Forgetting, by Milan Kundera
Stasiland, by Anna Funder
The Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie
The Girl With a Pearl Earring, by Tracy Chevalier
Gould's Book Of Fish, by Richard Flanagan
Lullaby, by Chuck Palanchuik
The Wasp Factory, by Iain Banks
Everything Is Illuminated, by Jonathan Safran Foer
Fire Fire, by Eva Sallis
The New York Trilogy, by Paul Auster
The Line Of Beauty, by Alan Hollinghurst
On Beauty, by Zadie Smith
Isabelle the Navigator, by Luke Davies
The Name of The Rose, by Umberto Eco
In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote
Poppy, by Avi Avi
LIfe of Pi, by Yann Martel
100 Years Of Solitude, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
The Name Of The Rose, by Umberto Eco
What I Loved, by Siri Hustvedt
Middlesex, by Jeffrey Eugenides
 

Contributors
susie taylor
Bec
Jaime
Tim O'Neill
Cath
 

Blog Archive


▼   2013 (1) ▼   November (1)  COME DRESSED AS YOUR FAVOURITE CHARACTER FROM A ...

►    2009 (4)


►    2008 (2)
►    2007 (9)





►    2006 (7)



 
 

 
    http://bookclubbersociety.blogspot.com/














 
 




Armarium Magnum





Subscribe To













  Posts  













  All Comments  


 

Welcome to Armarium Magnum

"Armarium Magnum" translates roughly as 'the big book cabinet'. This blog aims to be a repository for book reviews, mainly of books on ancient and medieval history, but also on early Christianity, the historical Jesus, atheism, scepticism and philosophy.

 

Popular Posts


 
"Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again



 
Hypatia and "Agora" Redux



 
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald


 

Follow by Email



   
 
 
Follow on Quora
Follow Tim
 

Share it
   


 

Search This Blog



 




 

Blog Archive


▼   2014 (3) ▼   September (1) Hild: A Novel by Nicola Griffith
►    March (1)
►    January (1)
►    2013 (3)


►    2012 (3)


►    2011 (5)



►    2010 (3)

►    2009 (16)








 

Blogs of Worth and Merit





 Bryn Mawr Classical Review
 2015.04.55 
9 hours ago





 Exploring Our Matrix
 Does This Get Your Goat? 
12 hours ago





 The TOF Spot
 Oddities 
14 hours ago





 In the Middle

 
 Nothing Has Yet Been Said: On the Non-Existence of Academic Freedom and the Necessity of Inoperative Communities 
14 hours ago





 teleskopos
 PhD scholarship in history of science 
23 hours ago





 Quodlibeta
 Is the book trade too left wing for its own good? 
1 day ago





 Medieval News

 
 The Middle Ages are Not 'Medieval' and more medieval news 
1 day ago





 In Romaunce as We Rede . . .

 
 On Holy Terror 
2 days ago





 Viking Archaeology Blog
 Viking voyages began earlier than thought 
2 days ago





 Anglo-Saxon Archaeology Blog
 Viking voyages began earlier than thought 
2 days ago





 Bread and Circuses
 Ben Kane's Eagles at War 
2 days ago





 Roger Pearse
 Online: Free .pdf version of Lanciani’s “Forma Urbis Romae” 
4 days ago





 The Renaissance Mathematicus
 Abraham Ortelius and the 16th century information age. 
1 week ago





 The New Oxonian
 Atheist Martyrs? Gnus to me. 
1 week ago





 badarchaeology.wordpress.com/
 Amazing Discovery Number 3 That Won’t Make You Question Anything 
1 week ago





 Wormtalk and Slugspeak
 Anglo-Saxon Medicine 
4 weeks ago





 The Heroic Age
 
1 month ago





 A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe
 Death reaches us via the Internet 
1 month ago





 Geoffrey Chaucer Hath An Extreme Blog: Go England! It ys Rad!
 Maken Melodye on Whan That Aprille Day 2015 
1 month ago





 Medieval History Geek
 Kalamazoo Registration is Up! 
2 months ago





 PaleoBabble
 New PaleoBabble blog 
1 year ago





 Research News in Late Antiquity

 
 Late Antiquity Made New: A Celebration of the Career of Elizabeth A. Clark, Duke University (Durham), April 11-13, 2013 
2 years ago





 Summer of Blood: The Middle Ages in Popular Culture
 Recent work 
2 years ago





 Got Medieval
 Medieval Batman Cosplay Worth the Click-Through 
2 years ago





 The Dubious Disciple
 



 

Goodly Sites
History vs The Da Vinci Code - Facts vs Hype
Medievalist.net
University of Reading - Medieval Book Reviews
 

About Me
My Photo Tim O'Neill  Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard.View my complete profile
 

Followers


   


 













 








 










 








 





 
Sunday, September 14, 2014


   
Hild: A Novel by Nicola Griffith




  Nicola Griffith, Hild: A Novel, (Blackfriars, 2014) 560 pages, Verdict?: 4/5 An elegantly-written and vivid recreation of seventh century Northumbria.
 Until the mid-twentieth century, scholars regarded the Old English epic Beowulf as a work of fantasy.  This was not just because it was a story with sea-monsters, trolls and a dragon in it, but also because the material world it described was far richer, elaborate and more colourful than the Anglo-Saxon world that had been uncovered by archaeology.  The Beowulf-Poet describes richly decorated helmets, jewelled belts and swords, huge painted halls and warriors decked in arm rings and riches.  Given that the Anglo-Saxon England in which the poet was writing seemed to consist of little more than thatched huts with dirt floors, these descriptions seemed fanciful.
 Then, in 1939, the great burial mound at Sutton Hoo was excavated and conceptions of both Anglo-Saxon England and Beowulf changed.  Far from being fantasy, the Beowulf-Poet was evoking the richness and splendour of Germanic nobility with great accuracy.  He was probably writing around 1000 AD and his story, complete with its trolls and dragons, was set in the misty almost-prehistory of fifth century Denmark.  But the finds in the seventh century grave at Sutton Hoo showed that the materail culture described in the poem was very real.  The intricate workmanship of the helmet, shield-mounts, brooches, belt fittings and purse lid in the grave put the descriptions in the poem into an archaeological context and showed early medieval England was a far brighter and more wealthy and sophisticated place than had been previously believed.
 The Sutton Hoo ship burial was most likely that of Raedwald of East Anglia (d. 624 AD), whose death changed the balance of power amongst the rival Anglo-Saxon and Welsh kingdoms of seventh century Britain.  As "Bretwalda", Raedwald was the nominal senior over-king of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and on his death this status passed to Edwin of Northumbria.  In Nicola Griffith's novel Hild, her heroine is the teen-aged "seer" to Edwin, her uncle, and the news of the death of Raedwald realigns the network of alliances and rivalries that makes up her world:

"Raedwald is dead!"
 Hild stood very still.  Raedwald.  Overking ofall the Angles, who had helped Edwin kill Aethelfrith and drive the Idings into exile.  Sulky Eorpwald, Raedwald's second son, who had been too young to fight at Edwin's side.  Eorpwald, who would step into the kingship of the East Angles - but Edwin would inherit the mantle of overking, the most powerful Angle in Britain.
 Hild saw immediately what this meant for them."
 (p. 114)
 Like the Beowulf-Poet, Griffith evokes a world that is hard, harsh, rich and elaborate.  Edwin's royal hall at Yeavering is brought to life with descriptions with more than a touch of Hrothgar's Heorot in Beowulf.  The king's warriors - the gesithas of his retinue and the core of his warband - glitter with arm rings, rich belt fittings and ring-hilted swords.  And Edwin wears a garnet ring that evokes the rich garnet decorations from Sutton Hoo.  There a no trolls and dragons (though there are dangers and terrors enough in Hild's world), but this novel is has the worlds of both Beowulf and Sutton Hoo as its backdrop and its recreation of this culture is intricate and effective as a result.


Replica of the Sutton Hoo Helmet
Weaving and Peaceweavers
 One of the best things about Griffith's novel is that this is a woman's view of a very male world.  If recreating Anglo-Saxon England is difficult, recreating the lives of women in this society is harder still, given that they are often absent from sources that deal more with wars, royal dynasties and church politics.  Griffith has done an excellent job of showing us the way Anglo-Saxon women and their British slaves and underclass lived and worked.  And a lot of that work centred around weaving.  Griffith's blog "Gemaecca" describes how she worked out the details of the role of women in early English society.  And one entry shows how careful her research was and how much it helped shape her story.  She describes receiving her copy of Penelope Walton Rogers' Cloth And Clothing in Early Anglo-Saxon England, AD 450-700 while she was already in the course of writing Hild:

I don't normally continue to research once I've begun the the work of actually committing fiction (facts, until they're fully assimilated, tend to sit in great undigested lumps in my imaginative path) but I had to have this book. It took a week or so to arrive and then I promptly devoured it. It not only derailed my imaginative process, it blew the whole thing off its tracks.
 ("Why Gemaecca?")
 Walton Roger's book made it clear just how central weaving and other forms of textile production was to women's lives in the period - about 65% of Anglo-Saxon women's time was spent making textiles.  A writer who did not care as much as Griffith about getting the details right would simply ignore this, but Griffith was determined to create her world properly.

"[T]heir weaving and sewing (and sowing, and harvesting and retting and scutching and beating and spinning and dyeing and weaving and...) wasn't just some boring gendered task designed to keep women occupied, it was vital to survival and quality of life. But if a woman is spending two thirds of her waking life working on textile production, how do I make her life exciting and particular"
 Griffith decided that since many textile production tasks required two women to work together, these partnerships may have been formalised.  So in the novel, the teenaged Hild chooses her friend Begu to be her "gemaecca", or weaving companion - an Old English word that Griffith chose for her imagined relationship.  This may or may not be how things worked, but its details like this that create the rich world of the novel and set it apart from historical fiction where the history is mere set dressing.  In Griffith's hands, the archaeological and historical detail is integral to the work. 
 This means that the colour, weave and cut of cloaks, clothing and blankets are noted by Griffith's young protagonist because she would have been intimately familiar with their production.  And these fine details are also useful markers for the reader to help understand the social status, wealth and even ethnic origin of the novel's characters.  A wealh-style cloak marks its wearer as British rather than "Anglisc".  A simple weave on a dress marks its owner as poor while elaborate tablet-woven decorations on a warrior's tunic shows him to be high status, and so on.
 Griffith's idea of all women having a formal "gemaecca" relationship with their weaving partner may be invented, but the relationships between women are one of the novel's great strengths.  Hild's formidable, controlling and manipulative mother Breguswith is the one who sets her daughter on the path to becoming King Edwin's seer, and Hild's emotional struggle to get some independence from her often domineering mother is a narrative arc that make this novel very much a feminine bildungsroman.  Hild's friend and "gemaecca" Begu is chatty, cheerful and trival, serving as a contrast to Hild, who is sober, serious and, at times, quite grim.  And Hild's beautiful British body-servant Gwladus illustrates the confusion that comes with puberty and burgeoning sexuality, when she becomes Hild's first lover.
 Given that Griffith is herself a lesbian, this aspect of the story may feel for some readers an anachronistic indulgence on the author's part.  But it works as part of the narrative and, once again, Griffith has done her homework.  A reference to "playful mating with another woman" in the Book of Leinster and some other snippets from medieval works indicates at least some tolerance for female same sex relationships in the early Middle Ages.  Whether pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon society was quite as relaxed about these things as is depicted in Hild is an open question.  Tacitus made it clear that male same sex relations were regarded as a capital crime in ancient Germanic society, with the penalty being burial alive.  But perhaps discreet female coupling was tolerated the way Griffith depicts.
Beowulf also depicts another form of "weaving": Hrothgar's queen, Wealhtheow is described as a "freothuwebbe" - a "peace weaver".  Whether this was a technical term or just a poetic description is not clear, but she and several other women in the Old English corpus seem to have fulfilled an important political function - a marriage that seals an alliance or heals a feud between two tribes or kingdoms.  So in Hild we see Edwin marry Aethelburh of Kent, linking the northernmost and southernmost Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and bringing pagan Northumbria into the orbit of Latin Christianity.  And later Hild sees her sister Hereswith marry Aethelric of East Anglia, bringing it into alliance with Northumbria against the rising power of the Mercians.  Women as weavers, women as hostesses in the ritual of the feast hall, women as instruments in political alliance and women as seers all appear in this novel, which makes a change from historical novels where women are barely seen or stand at stage left.  Here they are central, not peripheral.  It's the battles and council meetings that often occur off stage in Hild (though not always), while conversations in the dairy, while gathering herbs or while spinning and weaving drive the novel forwards.




Pagans and Christians
 The rather wild and grim pagan seer Hild is destined later in her life to become Saint Hilda of Whitby, one of the most revered and influential of the Anglo-Saxon saints.  But for most of Hild the eponymous character is very much a pagan and her conversion is as much a matter of practicality.  Medieval religion is usually handled extremely badly in historical fiction.  Past depictions have emphasised a syrupy idealised "Age of Faith", with pious and benevolent Christians leading earnest but misguided pagans onto the paths of righteousness.  More recently we've tended to see the modern Hollywood clichés, where churchmen are crazed fanatics, corrupt frauds or - at best - jolly Friar Tuck types.  The pagans tend to range from modern sceptics in tunics or, worse, dewy New Age romanticised cartoons.
 Griffith manages to avoid the worst of these caricatures, though she skates close to a couple of them.  The most sympathetic Christian character is the Irish priest Fursey, (very) loosely based on the seventh century Irish saint of the same name.  He is something of a guide to the young Hild and a companion to a child who is both solitary by nature but also afflicted by loneliness.  He is also instrumental in teaching her to read - a skill that she sees will give her an edge in the politics of the time and understands will transform her world.  Like all the characters in the novel, he has his own agenda, but he is a kindly figure in an often threatening world.
 At the other end of the scale is Paulinus, also called "the Crow".  The historical Saint Paulinus of York was sent by Pope Gregory as part of the Gregorian mission to the kingdoms of England.  In the novel he accompanies Edwin's queen AEthelburg from Kent and he remains an alien figure in a world of Celtic and Germanic tribal tradition.  He and his retinue of Catholic clergy strive for dominance in religious affairs in Edwin's court; first with the pagan priesthood led by Cofi, the priest of Woden, and then with the local rival Celtic church, which looks to Ireland rather than Rome.
 One thing Griffith gets very right is the idea that that conversion was a political and communal affair, not a matter of private conscience or personal piety.  As Northumbria's orbit swings south and links with Kent and then Frankia become stronger, the influence of the Catholic faith gets stronger and Paulinus increase in power.  Earlier we see Hild take part in the dedication of a new ritual enclosure for the cult of Woden - a hallucinogen-fuelled, primal, tribal celebration of the ancestral myth:

Then she stood in the heart of the enclosure.  A massive carved totem reached up and up into the now -inky night sky.  A shadowy crowd now thronged the space - not only her mother, her cousins Oswine and Osryth, but all those who had gone before: her father and his father and his, and back to Wilfgisl the Wide and his father Westerfalca .... back farther to Swebdaeg and Sigegar .... to Waedag and - embodied in the great totem - Woden himself.
 (p. 164)
 Later, as power swings away from Cofi and the pagan priests and Paulinus' priests establish a church in an old Roman basilica in York, Hild hears a choir sing Catholic style plainchant for the first time:

The music, when it came, with a rush, a gush of voice seeking its note, ripped away her indifference and tore through her as sudden and shocking as snowmelt.
 She forgot the floor.  Forgot the queen.  She felt hot, then cold, then nothing at all, like a bubble rising through water, then floating, then lifting free.
 It was cool music, inhuman, the song the stars might sing. .... The music soared.  Hild soared with it.
 (pp. 198-99)
 In these two passages we see the relative attractions of the two competing faiths.  The pagan faith is old and deeply rooted in family and ancestry and tribal myth.  The Christian competitor is alien, but also compelling, glamorous and mysterious.  Later Hild is baptised, not out of any personal conviction but because she was part of Edwin's household.  Her approach to the baptism ceremony is one of someone who doesn't question the power of magic curious about the efficacy of this new magical ritual and, in the end, a little let down by its anti-climax.  And the whole affair is tinged with an appropriate mix of pragmatism and lingering pagan belief: the spot in the river was chosen because it was not too still, since water sprites liked still water, but not so swift-flowing that someone might get swept away.
  Hild's attitude to her new faith is much the same.  She is well aware of the practical advantages it gives her king but also, sometimes precariously, maintains her status as Edwin's seer even though Paulinus sees her as a rival and a threat.  In the Sutton Hoo treasure we see a similar hedging of the pagan old against the Christian new.  There in amongst the weapons, finery and feasting gear of a Germanic warrior king ready to sail into the next world are two silver baptismal spoons with the inscriptions "Saul" and "Paul": a sign of an unbeliever's transition into belief.
 The Next Episode
 As mentioned earlier, this is a bildungsroman - the story of a young person's journey into adulthood.  We meet Hild as a precocious three year old, alone with her mother and sister in a dangerous world.  By the end of the novel she has survived and won high status.  Like many teenagers she has struggled with parental expectations, tried on several personae, rebelled and then ultimately come to terms with her adult path.  The novel ends on a high note, but it's clear that there is at least another book's worth of story in the recreation of Hild that Griffith has produced.  Given her clear and atmospheric style, her authentic eye for detail and delicate evocation of characters, any follow up will be welcome.  Historical fiction needs more novels like Hild.







 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  11:03 AM   6 comments:       
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest


  Links to this post 
 


Tuesday, March 18, 2014


   
Cartoons and Fables - How Cosmos Got the Story of Bruno Wrong




The Giordano Bruno Monument - Campo di Fiori, Rome - October 2013
(I was invited to write a post on this subject by Thony Christie for his excellent history of science blog, The Renaissance Mathematicus.  Many thanks to him for the invitation.  I'm reproducing my post here for Armarium Magnum readers)
 

A few months ago while visiting Rome I did something a tourist should not do in a strange city - I took a short cut.  Walking back from the Forum to my apartment over the Tiber, I should have taken the obvious route down the Corso Vittorio Emanuele II toward the Castel  Saint 'Angelo, but I decided I knew where I was going, so I took a more direct path through some back streets and soon became completely lost.  After winding my way through a maze of smaller laneways trying to find a major road I saw a piazza up ahead and so decided to use that to get my bearings.  I stopped under a statue in the middle of the square to get out a map, looked up at the statue and immediately knew where I was.  I realised I was in the Campo de'Fiori, because the statue was the famous monument to Giordano Bruno, raised on the spot where he was burned at the stake in February 1600.



Bruno is the poster boy of the Draper-White Thesis - the idea that science and religion have always been at war and an idea beloved by the New Atheist movement despite the fact it was rejected by actual historians of science about a century ago.  Try to engage in an attempt at intelligent discussion of the real and much more complex and nuanced interrelations between religion and what was to emerge as modern science in the medieval and early modern periods and Bruno is usually brandished as "proof" that the Church was the implacable and ignorant foe of early science.  After all, why else did they burn him for daring to say the earth wasn't the centre of the universe and that the stars were other suns with planets?  For those who prefer simple slogans and caricatures to the hard work of actually analysing and understanding history, Bruno is a simple answer to a intricate question.  Nuance and complexity are the first casualties in a culture war.



So when I saw the first preview clips of the revamped version of Carl Sagan's Cosmos, this time presented by Sagan's genial protégé Neil deGrasse Tyson, and noticed an animated sequence of someone being menaced by Inquisitors and burned at the stake, I knew that the revived Cosmos was going to be presenting some bungled history.  This was also following in Sagan's footsteps, I suppose, since in the original series he veered off into a mangled version of the story of Hypatia of Alexandria that fixed the false idea of her as a martyr for science in the minds of a generation, as I've discussed elsewhere.



So when the first instalment of the new series - Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey -  went to air last week, at its heart was an eleven minute version of the Bruno myth.  I often refer to the simplistic moral fable that people mistake for the history of the relationship between the Church and early science as "the cartoon version", because it's oversimplified, two-dimensional and reduced to a black and while caricature.  But in this case it really is a cartoon version - the sequence was animated, with the voice of Bruno provided by the series' Executive Producer, Seth MacFarlane, of Family Guy fame, which seems to be why Bruno has an Italian accent of a kind usually heard in ads for pizza or pasta sauce.



The clichés didn't end with the silly accents.  In the weirdly distorted version of the story the program tells, Bruno is depicted as an earnest young friar in Naples who was a true seeker after truth.  But DeGrasse Tyson assures us that he "dared to read the books banned by the Church and that was his undoing."   We then get a sequence of Bruno reading  a copy of Lucretius' On the Nature of Things which he has hidden under the floorboards of his cell.  The first problem here is that Lucretius' work was not "banned by the Church" at all and no-one needed to hide it under their floor.  Poggio Bracciolini had published a printed edition of the book a century before Bruno was born and it had never been banned when the medieval manuscripts Bracciolini worked from had been copied nor was it banned once his edition made it widely available.  The idea that the Church banned and/or tried to destroy Lucretius' work is a myth that Christopher HItchens liked to repeat and which has been given a lease of popular life via Stephen Greenblatt's appalling pseudo historical work The Swerve, which somehow won a Pulitzer Prize despite being a pastiche of howlers.



The DeGrasse Tyson cartoon goes on to depict Bruno having his mind opened to the idea of an infinite universe by Lucretius' book but then being kicked out of his friary by a mob of Disney villain-style Church types who turn up unexpectedly like Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition.  This, of course, makes for a much better parable than the truth - Lucretius' work wasn't "banned by the Church" and Bruno actually ran away from his religious house and wasn't thrown out for reading naughty books.



It would also have complicated this simplistic cartoon fable to note where Bruno got his ideas about a vast cosmos where the earth was not the centre, where the stars were other suns, where there was a multiplicity of worlds and where some of these other worlds could even have been inhabited just like ours.  Because this was not something Bruno got from Lucretius nor was it something he dreamed up himself in a vision, as the Cosmos cartoon alleges.  It's something he drew directly from the man he called "the divine Cusanus" - the fifteenth century natural philosopher and theologian Nicholas of Cusa.



If the writers of the series were actually interested in the real history of the origins of scientific thought, there are many people whose stories would have been far more worthy of telling than Bruno - people who actually were proto-scientists.  The writers of the show, Steven Soter and Sagan's widow Ann Druyan, seem to have known enough about Bruno to know they could not present him as a scientist and DeGrasse Tyson's narration does mention that he was "no scientist" at one point.  But they delicately skim over the fact that the guy was, to our way of thinking, a complete mystical loon.  In his defence of the criticism the Bruno sequence has since attracted Soter notes that several  other early science figures also pursued studies that we find abjectly unscientific, such as Newton's obsessions with alchemy and apocalyptic calculation.  But the difference is that Newton and Kepler pursued those ideas as well as studies that were based on real empirical science, whereas Bruno's hermetical mysticism, sacred geometry and garbled and largely invented ancient Egyptian religion were all of his studies - he did no actual science at all.



But if they wanted to be truly accurate they should have detailed or even merely acknowledged Bruno's debt to Nicholas of Cusa, who expounded on a non-finite cosmos without a centre 109 years before Bruno was even born.  Here is Cusanus on the subject in his book De docta ignorantia :



" The universe has no circumference, for if it had a centre and a circumference there would be some and some thing beyond the world, suppositions which are wholly lacking in truth. Since, therefore, it is impossible that the universe should be enclosed within a corporeal centre and corporeal boundary, it is not within our power to understand the universe, whose centre and circumference are God. And though the universe cannot be infinite, nevertheless it cannot be conceived as finite since there are no limits within which it could be confined."



That's the insight that the Bruno cartoon attributes solely to Bruno.  So why not attribute it to "the divine Cusanus"?  Well, that would ruin the whole parable.  Because far from being kicked around by grim-looking Disney villains imprisoned and burned at the stake, Cusanus was revered and actually made a cardinal.  So that doesn't lend itself very well to a moral fable about free-thinking geniuses being oppressed by dogmatic theocrats.



The cartoon then goes on to depict brave Bruno lecturing at Oxford, with grumpy and aristocratic-sounding scholars there objecting to his espousal of Copernicanism and eventually throwing fruit at him and driving him away.  Again, the reality wasn't quite as worthy.  There is zero record of any objection to heliocentrism and the problem the Oxford scholars had with Bruno was actually his plagiarism of another scholar's work.  But, again, that doesn't lend itself to a fable about a pure and persecuted freethinker.



Throughout the cartoon the idea is that he is afflicted because he supports heliocentrism and the idea of an unbounded cosmos  where the earth is not the centre.  As we've seen, the latter idea was not new and not controversial.  By the 1580s Copernicus' heliocentric hypothesis wasn't particularly new either, though it was more controversial - virtually no astronomers accepted it because it was recognised as having severe scientific flaws.  The important point to remember here is that at  that stage it was not considered heretical by religious authorities, even though some thought it had some potentially bothersome implications.



Copernicus had not even been the first proto-scientist to explore the idea of a moving  earth.  The medieval scholar Nicholas Oresme had analysed the evidence that supported the idea the earth rotated way back in 1377 and regarded it as at least plausible.  The Church didn't bat an eyelid.  Copernicus' calculations and his theory had been in circulation long before his opus was published posthumously and it had interested several prominent churchmen, including Pope Clement VII, who got Johan Widmanstadt to deliver a public lecture on the theory in the Vatican gardens, which the Pope found fascinating.  Nicholas Cardinal Schoenburg then urged Copernicus to publish his full work, though Copernicus delayed not because of any fear of religious persecution but because of the potential reaction of other mathematicians and astronomers.  Heliocentrism didn't become a religious hot topic until the beginning of the Galileo affair in 1616, a decade and half after Bruno's death.



Again, the Cosmos writers seem to be at least vaguely aware of all this and so do some fancy footwork to keep their parable on track.  In the cartoon's depiction of Bruno's trial we get the first hint that the Church's beef with Bruno might actually have been to do with ideas that had zero to do with an infinite cosmos, multiple worlds or any cosmological speculations at all.  So the Disney villain Inquisitor reads out a list of accusations such as "questioning the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ" and a few other purely religious charges.  The depiction gives the impression that these are somehow less important or even trumped up accusations, when in fact these are the actual reasons Bruno was burned at the stake, along with others beside.  As horrific as it is to us, denying the virginity of Mary, saying Jesus was merely a magician and denying Transubstantiation did get you burned in 1600 AD, though only if you refused repeated opportunities to recant.



But the cartoon wants to stick to its parable, so they tack on the final and, we are led to believe, most serious charge - "asserting the existence of other worlds".  As we've already seen, however, this was not actually a problem at all.  Here's NIcholas of Cusa on these other worlds in the book that inspired many of Bruno's beliefs:



"Life, as it exists on Earth in the form of men, animals and plants, is to be found, let us suppose in a high form in the solar and stellar regions. Rather than think that so many stars and parts of the heavens are uninhabited and that this earth of ours alone is peopled – and that with beings perhaps of an inferior type – we will suppose that in every region there are inhabitants, differing in nature by rank and all owing their origin to God, who is the center and circumference of all stellar regions .... Of the inhabitants then of worlds other than our own we can know still less having no standards by which to appraise them."



Again, remember that Cusanus was not burned at the stake, he was revered, praised and made a cardinal.



The only mention of other worlds in the accusations against Bruno specifies that he believed in "a plurality of worlds and their eternity".  It was that last part that was the problem, not subscribing to an idea that a prince of the Church had espoused a century earlier.



The cartoon concludes with DeGrasse Tyson's caveats about Bruno being "no scientist" and his ideas being no more than a "lucky guess".  Some commenters seem to think that this somehow absolves the whole sequence of its distortions and that it means the show depicts Bruno only as a martyr to free thought and a lesson on the dangers of dogmatism.  But the problem with the cartoon is that it makes up a silly pastiche of real history, fantasy and oversimplified nonsense to achieve this aim.  The real story of Cusanus would actually have been a much more interesting one to tell and wouldn't have had the Draper-White inspired baggage of the Bruno myths.  But the whole sequence seems to have had an agenda and a burned heretic story served that agenda's purpose in a way that a revered and untrammelled medieval cardinal's story would not have.



The objective here was to make a point about free thought and dogmatism in the context of the culture wars in the US about Creationism.  That Bruno was a believer in God was an idea that was repeated several times in the cartoon, even though he was actually more of a pantheist than anything.  But he is depicted as an open-minded and unconstrained believer who is oppressed and finally killed by the forces of dogmatic literalism.  The cartoon Bruno's cry to the fruit-throwing Oxford scholars  - "Your God is too small!" - is actually the point of the whole parable.  This entire sequence was aimed at the dogmatic literalists in the American culture war while still trying to appeal to believers, given the majority of the show's American audience would have been theists.  That's the framework of this fable and the writers chopped up bits of the actual historical Bruno story and then clumsily forced them into this modern message. 
Which brings me back to my encounter with the statue in the Campo de'Fiori.  The statue was created by Ettore Ferrari and erected in 1889 in the wake of the unification of Italy in the face of Church opposition.  The monument, raised by members of the Grande Orient d'Italia Masonic order, was a deliberate political symbol of anti-clericalism.  Atheists and free thinkers revere it to this day and commemorate Bruno's execution on Febrary 17 each year.



Of course, anyone who points out that Bruno is a rather ridiculous icon for atheists, given his kooky mystical views and magical practices is usually ignored.  And anyone who has the temerity to point out that he was executed for purely religious ideas and not any speculation about multiple worlds or a non-finite cosmos is usually (bizarrely) told they are somehow justifying his horrific execution.  As I've often noted, for people who call themselves rationalists, many of my fellow atheists can be less than rational.  Unfortunately, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ann Druyan, Steven Soter and Seth MacFarlane's silly Bruno cartoon will definitely not help in that regard.


 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  6:40 AM   19 comments:       
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest


  Links to this post 
 


Saturday, January 18, 2014


   
Did Jesus Exist? The Jesus Myth Theory, Again.













(A version of this article appeared on Quora, where it became the top-voted answer to the question "Do credible historians agree that the man named Jesus, who the Christian Bible speaks of, walked the earth and was put to death on a cross by Pilate, Roman governor of Judea?".  In the year since I posted it there, it has been linked to and recommended on a variety of fora, but some people don't like the fact they have to join Quora to read it.  So I am posting it here for those who would appreciate easier access to it.)





Background
Scholars who specialise in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist.  The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  Many may be more cautious about using the term "historical fact" about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that.  But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.
The opposite idea - that there was no historical Jesus at all and that "Jesus Christ" developed out of some purely mythic ideas about a non-historical, non-existent figure - has had a chequered history over the last 200 years, but has usually been a marginal idea at best.  Its heyday was in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century, when it seemed to fit with some early anthropological ideas about religions evolving along parallel patterns and being based on shared archetypes, as characterised by Sir James Frazer's influential comparative religion study The Golden Bough (1890). But it fell out of favour as the Twentieth Century progressed and was barely held by any scholars at all by the 1960s.
More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging and "print on demand" self-publishing services.  But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence and almost all have clear ideological objectives.  Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (i) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (ii) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity.  Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.
In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).







Unconvincing Arguments for a Mythic Origin for Jesus
Many of the arguments for a Mythic Jesus that some laypeople think sound highly convincing  are exactly the same ones that scholars consider laughably weak, even though they sound plausible to those without a sound background in the study of the First Century.  For example:
1.  "There are no contemporary accounts or mentions of Jesus.  There should be, so clearly no Jesus existed."
This seems a good argument to many, since modern people tend to leave behind them a lot of evidence they existed (birth certificates, financial documents, school records) and prominent modern people have their lives documented by the media almost daily.  So it sounds suspicious to people that there are no contemporary records at all detailing or even mentioning Jesus. 
But our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous - they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.  Worse still, the more obscure and humble in origin the person is, the less likely that there will be any documentation about them or even a fleeting reference to them at all.
For example, few people in the ancient world were as prominent, influential, significant and famous as the Carthaginian general Hannibal.  He came close to crushing the Roman Republic, was one of the greatest generals of all time and was famed throughout the ancient world for centuries after his death down to today.  Yet how many contemporary mentions of Hannibal do we have?  Zero.  We have none.  So if someone as famous and significant as Hannibal has no surviving contemporary references to him in our sources, does it really make sense to base an argument about the existence or non-existence of a Galilean peasant preacher on the lack of contemporary references to him?  Clearly it does not.
So while this seems like a good argument, a better knowledge of the ancient world and the nature of our evidence and sources shows that it's actually extremely weak.
2.  "The ancient writer X should have mentioned this Jesus, yet he doesn't do so.  This silence shows that no Jesus existed."
An "argument from silence" is a tricky thing to use effectively.  To do so, it's not enough to show that a writer, account or source is silent on a given point - you also have to show that it shouldn't be before this silence can be given any significance.  So if someone claims their grandfather met Winston Churchill yet a thorough search of the grandfather's letters and diaries of the time show no mention of this meeting, an argument from silence could be presented to say that the meeting never happened.  This is because we could expect such a meeting to be mentioned in those documents.
Some "Jesus Mythicists" have tried to argue that certain ancient writers "should" have mentioned Jesus and did not and so tried to make an argument from silence on this basis.  In 1909 the American "freethinker" John Remsberg came up with a list of 42 ancient writers that he claimed "should" have mentioned Jesus and concluded their silence showed no Jesus ever existed.  But the list has been widely criticised for being contrived and fanciful.  Why exactly, for example, Lucanus - a writer whose works consist of a single poem and a history of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey (in the century before Jesus' time) "should" have mentioned Jesus is hard to see.  And the same can be said for most of the other writers on Remsberg's list.
Some others, however, are more reasonable at first glance.  Philo Judaeus was a Jew in Alexandria who wrote philosophy and theology and who was a contemporary of Jesus who also mentions events in Judea and makes reference to other figures we know from the gospel accounts, such as Pontius Pilate.  So it makes far more sense that he "should" mention Jesus than some poets in far off Rome.  But it is hard to see why even Philo would be interested in mentioning someone like Jesus, given that he also makes no mentions of any of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers and Messianic claimants of the time, of which there were many.  If Philo had mentioned Anthronges and Theudas, or Hillel and Honi or John the Baptist and the "Samaritan Prophet" but didn't mention Jesus, then a solid argument from silence could be made.  But given that Philo seems to have had no interest at all in any of the various people like Jesus, the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus either carries little or no weight.
In fact, there is only one writer of the time who had any interest in such figures, who also had little interest for Roman and Greek writers.  He was the Jewish historian Josephus, who is our sole source for virtually all of the Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers and Messianic claimants of this time.  If there is any writer who should mention Jesus, it's Josephus.  The problem for the "Jesus Mythicists" is ... he does.  Twice, in fact.  He does do so in Antiquities XVIII.3.4 and again in Antiquities XX.9.1.  Mythicists take comfort in the fact that the first of these references has been added to by later Christian scribes, so they dismiss it as a wholesale interpolation.  But the majority of modern scholars disagree, arguing there is solid evidence to believe that Josephus did make a mention of Jesus here and that it was added to by Christians to help bolster their arguments against Jewish opponents.  That debate aside, the Antiquities XX.9.1 mention of Jesus is universally considered genuine and that alone sinks the Mythicist case (see below for more details).
3.  "The earliest Christian traditions make no mention of a historical Jesus and clearly worshipped a purely heavenly, mythic-style being.  There are no references to an earthly Jesus in any of the earliest New Testament texts, the letters of Paul."
Since many people who read Mythicist arguments have never actually read the letters of Paul, this one sounds convincing as well.  Except it simply isn't true.  While Paul was writing letters about matters of doctrine and disputes and so wasn't giving a basic lesson in who Jesus was in any of this letters, he does make references to Jesus' earthly life in many places.  He says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians4:4).  He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans1:3).  He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15).  He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4).  And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians1:19). 
So Mythicist theorists then have to tie themselves in knots to "explain" how, in fact, a clear reference to Jesus being "born of a woman" actually means he wasn't born of a woman and how when Paul says Jesus was "according to the flesh, a descendant of King David" this doesn't mean he was a human and the human descendant of a human king.  These contrived arguments are so weak they tend to only convince the already convinced.  It's this kind of contrivance that consigns this thesis to the fringe.





The Problems with a "Mythic" Origin to the Jesus Story
The weaknesses of the Mythicist hypothesis multiply when its proponents turn to coming up with their own explanation as to how the Jesus stories did arise if there was no historical Jesus.  Of course, many of them don't really bother much with presenting an alternative explanation and leave their ideas about exactly how this happened conveniently vague.  But some realise that we have late First Century stories that all claim there was an early First Century person who lived within living memory and then make a series of claims about him.  If there was no such person, the Mythicist does need to explain how the stories about his existence arose and took the form they do. And they need to do so in a way that accounts for the evidence better than the parsimonious idea that this was believed because there was such a person.  This is where Mythicism really falls down.  The Mythicist theories fall into four main categories:
1. "Jesus was an amalgam of earlier pagan myths, brought together into a mythic figure of a god-man and saviour of a kind found in many cults of the time."
This is the explanation offered by the New Age writer who calls herself "Acharya S" in a series of self-published books beginning with The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999).  Working from late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century  theosophist claims which exaggerate parallels between the Jesus stories and pagan myths, she makes the typical New Age logical leap from "similarity" to "parallel" and finally to "connection" and "causation".  Leaving aside the fact that many of these "parallels" are highly strained, with any miraculous conception or birth story becoming a "virgin birth" or anything to do with a death or a tree becoming a "crucifixion" (even if virginity or a cross is not involved in either), it is very hard to make the final leap from "parallel" to "causation".
This is particularly hard because of the masses of evidence that the first followers of the Jesus sect were devout Jews - a group for whom the idea of adopting anything "pagan" would have been utterly horrific.  These were people who cut their hair short because long hair was associated with pagan, Hellenistic culture or who shunned gymnasia and theatres because of their association with pagan culture.  All the evidence actually shows that the earliest Jesus sect went through a tumultuous period in its first years trying to accommodate non-Jews into their devoutly Jewish group.  To claim that these people would merrily adopt myths of Horus and Attis and Dionysius and then amalgamate them into a story about a pagan/Jewish hybrid Messiah (who didn't exist) and then turn around and forget he didn't exist and claim he did and that he did so just a few decades earlier is clearly a nonsense hypothesis.
2.  "Jesus was a celestial being who existed in a realm just below the lunar sphere and was not considered an earthly being at all until later."
This is the theory presented by another self-published Mythicist author, Earl Doherty, first in The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and then in Jesus : Neither God nor Man (2009).  Doherty's theory has several main flaws.  Firstly, he claims that this mythic/celestial Jesus was based on a Middle Platonic view of the cosmos that held that there was a "fleshly sub-lunar realm" in the heavens where gods and celestial beings lived and acted out mythic events.  This is the realm, Doherty claims, in which it was believed that Mithras slew the cosmic bull, where Attis lived and died and where Jesus was crucified and rose again.  The problem here is Doherty does very little to back up this claim and, while non-specialist readers may not realise this from the way he presents this idea, it is not something accepted by historians of ancient thought but actually a hypothesis developed entirely by Doherty himself.  He makes it seem like this idea is common knowledge amongst specialists in Middle Platonic philosophy, while never quite spelling out that it's something he's made up. The atheist Biblical scholar Jeffrey Gibson has concluded:
"... the plausibility of D[oherty]'s hypothesis depends on not having good knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. Indeed, it becomes less and less plausible the more one knows of ancient philosophy and, especially, Middle Platonism."
Secondly, Doherty's thesis requires the earliest Christian writings about Jesus, the letters of Paul, to be about this "celestial/mythic Jesus" and not a historical, earthly one.  Except, as has been pointed out above, Paul's letters do contain a great many references to an earthly Jesus that don't fit with Doherty's hypothesis at all.  Doherty has devoted a vast number of words in both his books explaining ways that these references can be read so that his thesis does not collapse, but these are contrived and in places quite fanciful.
Finally, Doherty's explanations as to how this "celestial/mythic Jesus" sect gave rise to a "historical/earthly Jesus" sect and then promptly disappeared without trace strain credulity.  Despite being the original form of Christianity and despite surviving, according to Doherty, well into the Second Century, this celestial Jesus sect vanished without leaving any evidence of its existence behind and was undreamt of until Doherty came along and deduced that it had once existed.  This is very difficult to believe.  Early Christianity was a diverse, divided and quarrelsome faith, with a wide variety of sub-sects, offshoots and "heresies", all arguing with each other and battling for supremacy.  What eventually emerged from this riot of Christianities was a form of "orthodoxy" that had all the elements of Christianity today: the Trinity, Jesus as the divine incarnate, a physical resurrection etc.  But we know of many of the other rivals to this orthodoxy largely thanks to orthodox writings attacking them and refuting their claims and doctrines.  Doherty expects us to believe that despite all these apologetic literature condemning and refuting a wide range of "heresies" there is not one that bothers to even mention this original Christianity that taught Jesus was never on earth at all.  This beggar's belief.
Doherty's thesis is much more popular amongst atheists than the New Age imaginings of "Acharya S" but has had no impact on the academic sphere partly because self-published hobbyist efforts don't get much attention, but mainly because of the flaws noted above.  Doherty and his followers maintain, of course, that it's because of a kind of academic conspiracy, much as Creationists and Holocaust deniers do.
3.  "Jesus began as an allegorical, symbolic figure of the Messiah who got 'historicised' into an actual person despite the fact he never really existed"
This idea has been presented in most detail by another amateur theorist in yet another self-published book: R.G. Price's Jesus - A Very Jewish Myth (2007).  Unlike "Acharya S" and, to a lesser extent Doherty, Price at least takes account of the fact that the Jesus stories and the first members of the Jesus sect are completely and fundamentally Jewish, so fantasies about Egyptian myths or Greek Middle Platonic philosophy are not going to work as points of origin for them.  According to this version of Jesus Mythicism, Jesus was an idealisation of what the Messiah was to be like who got turned into a historical figure largely by mistake and misunderstanding.
Several of the same objections to Doherty's thesis can be made about this one - if this was the case, why are there no remnants of debates with or condemnations of those who believed the earlier version and maintained there was no historical Jesus at all?  And why don't any of Christianity's enemies use the fact that the original Jesus sect didn't believe in a historical Jesus as an argument against the new version of the sect?  Did everyone just forget?
More tellingly, if the Jesus stories arose out of ideas about and expectations of the Messiah, it is very odd that Jesus doesn't fit those expectations better.  Despite Christian claims to the contrary, the first Christians had to work very hard to convince fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah precisely because he didn't conform to these expectations. Most importantly, there was absolutely no tradition or Messianic expectation that told of the Messiah being executed and then rising from the dead - this first appears with Christianity and has no Jewish precedent at all.  Far from evolving from established Messianic prophecies and known elements in the scripture, the first Christians had to scramble to find anything at all which looked vaguely like a "prophecy" of this unexpected and highly unMessianic event.
That the centre and climax of the story of Jesus would be based on his shameful execution and death makes no sense if it evolved out of Jewish expectations about the Messiah, since they contained nothing about any such idea.  This climax to the story only makes sense if it actually happened, and then his followers had to find totally new and largely strained and contrived "scriptures" which they then claimed "predicted" this outcome, against all previous expectation.  Price's thesis fails because Jesus' story doesn't conform to Jewish myths enough.
4. "Jesus was not a Jewish preacher at all but was someone else or an amalgam of people combined into one figure in the Christian tradition"
This is the least popular of the Jesus Myth hypotheses, but versions of it are argued by Italian amateur theorist Francesco Carotta (Jesus was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity. An Investigative Report - 2005)), computer programmer Joseph Atwill (Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus - 2005) and accountant Daniel Unterbrink (Judas the Galilean: The Flesh and Blood Jesus - 2004).  Carotta claims Jesus was actually Julius Caesar and imposed on Jewish tradition as part of the cult of the Divius Julius.  Atwill claims Jesus was invented by the Emperor Titus and imposed on Judaism in the same way.  Neither do a very good job of substantiating these claims or of explaining why the Romans then turned around, as early as 64 AD (fifteen years before Titus became emperor) and began persecuting the cult they supposedly created.  No scholar takes these theories or that of Unterbrink seriously.
No scholar also argues that Jesus was an amalgam of various Jewish preachers or other figures of the time.  That is because there is nothing in the evidence to indicate this.  This ideas has never been argued in any detailed form by anyone at all, scholar or Jesus myth amateur theorist, but it is something some who don't want to subscribe to the idea that "Jesus Christ" was based on a real person resorts to so that they can put some sceptical distance between the Christian claims and anything or anyone historical.  It seems to be a purely rhetorically-based idea, with no substance and no argument behind it.









So What's the Evidence for the Existence of a Historical Jesus?
Many Christians accept a historical Jesus existed because they never thought to question the idea in the first place or because they are convinced that the gospels can be read as (more or less) historical accounts and so don't need to be seriously doubted on this point.  But why do the overwhelming majority of non-Christian scholars also accept that he existed?
The Total Lack of Evidence for a "Mythic Christianity"
Essentially, it's because it's the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence we have.  Early Christianity, in all its forms, and the critics of early Christianity agree on virtually nothing about Jesus, except for one thing - that he existed as a historical person in the early First Century.  If there really was an original form of Christianity that didn't believe this, as all versions of the "Jesus Myth" idea require, then it makes no sense that there is no trace of it.  Such an idea would be a boon to the various Gnostic branches of Christianity, which emphasised his spiritual/mystical aspects and saw him as an emissary from a purely spiritual world to help us escape the physical dimension.  A totally non-historical, purely mystical Jesus would have suited their purposes perfectly.  Yet they never taught such a Jesus - they always depict him as a historical First Century teacher, but argue that he was "pure spirit" and only had the "illusion of flesh".  Why?  Because they couldn't deny that he had existed as a historical person and there was no prior "mythic Jesus" tradition for them to draw on.
Similarly, the memory of an earlier, original Christianity which didn't believe in a historical Jesus would have been a killer argument for the many Jewish and pagan critics of Christianity.  Jesus Mythicists claim this mythic Jesus Christianity survived well into the Second or even Third Century.  We have orthodox Christian responses to critiques by Jews and pagans from that period, by Justin Martyr, Origen and Minucius Felix.  They try to confront and answer the arguments their critics make about Jesus - that he was a fool, a magician, a bastard son of a Roman soldier, a fraud etc - but none of these apologetic works mention so much as a hint that anyone ever claimed he never existed.  If a whole branch of Christianity existed that claimed just this, why did it pass totally unnoticed by these critics? Clearly no such earlier "mythic Jesus" proto-Christianity existed - it is a creation of the modern Jesus Mythicist activists to prop up their theory.
Indicators of Historicity in the Gospels
The main reason non-Christian scholars accept that there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin of the Jesus story is that the stories themselves contain elements which only make sense if they were originally about such a preacher but which the gospel writers themselves found somewhat awkward.  As noted above, far from conforming closely to expectations about the coming Messiah, the Jesus story actually shows many signs of being shoehorned into such expectations and not exactly fitting very well.
For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast.  For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus becomes the Messiah of Yahweh and so there is no problem with him having his sins washed away by John, since prior to his point he was man like any other.  The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology.  In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet.  So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:
But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
(Matt 3:14-15)
When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again.  The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time.  So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward.  So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether.  In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33).  There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.
So in these three examples we have three different versions of the same story written at three times in the early decades of Christianity.  All of them are dealing with the baptism of Jesus by John in different ways and trying to make it fit with their conceptions of Jesus and at least two of them are having some trouble doing so and are having to change the story to make it fit their ideas about Jesus.  All this indicates that the baptism of Jesus by John was a historical event and known to be such and so could not be left out of the story.  This left the later gospel writers with the problem of trying to make it fit their evolving ideas about who and what Jesus was.
There are several other elements in the gospels like this.  gLuke and gMatthew go to great lengths to tell stories which "explain" how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem despite being from Nazareth, since Micah 5:2 was taken to be a prophecy that the Messiah was to be from Bethlehem.  Both gospels, however, tell completely different, totally contradictory and mutually exclusive stories (one is even set ten years after the other) which all but the most conservative Christian scholars acknowledge to be non-historical.  The question then arises: why did they go to this effort?  If Jesus existed and was from Nazareth, this makes sense.  Clearly some Jews objected to the claim Jesus was the Messiah on the grounds that he was from the insignificant village of Nazareth in Galilee and not from Bethlehem in Judea - John 7:41-42 even depicts some Jews making precisely this objection.  So it makes sense that Christian traditions would arise that "explain" how a man known to be a Galilean from Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth - thus the contradictory stories in gLuke and gMatthew that have this as their end.
If, however, there was no historical Jesus then it is very hard to explain why an insignificant town like Nazareth is in the story at all.  If Jesus was a purely mythic figure and the stories of his life evolved out of expectations about the Messiah then he would be from Bethlehem, as was expected as a Messiah.  So why is Nazareth, a tiny place of no religious significance, in the story?  And why all the effort to get Jesus born in Bethlehem but keep Nazareth in the narrative?  The only reasonable explanation is that it's Nazareth that is the historical element in these accounts - it is in the story because that is where he was from.  A historical Jesus explains the evidence far better than any "mythic" alternative.  





"Alexamenos worships his god" - A Roman graffito mocks the idea of a crucified god
But probably the best example of an element in the story which was so awkward for the early Christians that it simply has to be historical is the crucifixion. The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unheard of and utterly alien to any Jewish tradition prior to the beginning of Christianity, but the idea of a Messiah who was crucified was not only bizarre, it was absurd.  According to Jewish tradition, anyone who was "hanged on a tree" was to be considered accursed by Yahweh and this was one of the reasons crucifixion was considered particularly abhorrent to Jews.  The concept of a crucified Messiah, therefore, was totally bizarre and absurd.
It was equally weird to non-Jews.  Crucifixion was considered the most shameful and abhorrent of deaths, so much so that one of the privileges of Roman citizenship is that citizens could never be crucified.  The idea of a crucified god, therefore, was absurd and bizarre. This was so much the case that the early Christians avoided any depictions of Jesus on the cross - the first depictions of the Crucifixion appear in the Fourth Century, after Christian emperors banned crucifixion and it began to lose its stigma.  It's significant that the earliest depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus that we have is a graffito from Rome showing a man worshipping a crucified figure with the head of a donkey with the mocking caption "Alexamenos worships his god".  The idea of a crucified god was, quite literally, ridiculous.  Paul acknowledges how absurd the idea of a crucified Messiah was in 1Cor 1:23, where he says it "is a stumbling block to the Jews and an absurdity to the gentiles".
The accounts of Jesus' crucifixion in the gospels also show how awkward the nature of their Messiah's death was for the earliest Christians.  They are all full of references to texts in the Old Testament as ways of demonstrating that, far from being an absurdity, this was what was supposed to happen to the Messiah.  But none of the texts used were considered prophecies of the Messiah before Christianity came along and some of them are highly forced.  The "suffering servant" passages in Isaiah 53 are pressed into service as "prophecies" of the crucifixion, since they depict a figure being falsely accused, rejected and given up to be "pierced .... as a guilt offering".  But the gospels don't reference other parts of the same passage which don't fit their story at all, such as where it is said this figure will "prolong his days and look upon his offspring".
Clearly the gospel writers were going to some effort to find some kind of scriptural basis for this rather awkward death for their group's leader, one that let them maintain their belief that he was the Messiah.  Again, this makes most sense if there was a historical Jesus and he was crucified, leaving his followers with this awkward problem.  If there was no historical Jesus at all, it becomes very difficult to explain where this bizarre, unprecedented and awkwardly inconvenient element in the story comes from.  It's hard to see why anyone would invent the idea of a crucified Messiah and create these problems.  And given that there was no precedent for a crucified Messiah, it's almost impossible to see this idea evolving out of earlier Jewish traditions.  The most logical explanation is that it's in the story, despite its vast awkwardness, because it happened.
Non-Christian References to Jesus as Historical Figure
Many Christian apologists vastly overstate the number of ancient non-Christian writers who attest to the existence of Jesus.  This is partly because they are not simply showing that a mere Jewish preacher existed, but are arguing for the existence of the "Jesus Christ" of Christian doctrine: a supposedly supernatural figure who allegedly performed amazing public miracles in front of audiences of thousands of witnesses.  It could certainly be argued that such a wondrous figure would have been noticed outside of Galilee and Judea and so should have been widely noted as well.  So Christian apologists often cite a long list of writers who mention Jesus, usually including Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Thallus and several others.  But of these only Tacitus and Josephus actually mention Jesus as a historical person - the others are all simply references to early Christianity, some of which mention the "Christ" that was the focus of its worship.
If we are simply noting the existence of Jesus as a human Jewish preacher, we are not required to produce more mentions of him than we would expect of comparable figures.  And what we find is that we have about as much evidence for his existence (outside any Christian writings) as we have for other Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the time.  The two non-Christian writers who mention him as a historical person are Josephus and Tacitus.
Josephus
The Jewish priestly aristocrat Joseph ben Matityahu, who took the Roman name Flavius Josephus, is our main source of information about Jewish affairs in this period and is usually the only writer of the time who makes any mention of Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the First Century.  Not surprisingly, he mentions Jesus twice: firstly in some detail in Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 and again more briefly when mentioning the execution of Jesus' brother James in Antiquities XX.9.1.  The first reference is problematic, however, as it contains elements which Josephus cannot have written and which seem to have been added later by a Christian interpolator.  Here is the text, with the likely interpolations in bold:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
There has been a long debate about what parts of this reference to Jesus are authentic to Josephus or even if the whole passage is a wholesale interpolation.  Proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, naturally, opt for the idea that it is not authentic in any way, but there are strong indications that, apart from the obvious additions shown in bold above, Josephus did mention Jesus at this point in his text.
To begin with, several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephan in their style and phrasing.  "Now (there was) about this time ..." is used by Josephus as a way of introducing a new topic hundreds of times in his work.  There are no early Christian parallels that refer to Jesus merely as "a wise man", but this is a term used by Josephus several times, eg about Solomon and Daniel.  Christian writers placed a lot of emphasis on Jesus' miracles, but here the passage uses a fairly neutral term παραδόξων ἔργων - "paradoxa erga" or "paradoxical deeds".  Josephus does use this phrase elsewhere about the miracles of Elisha, but the term can also mean "deeds that are difficult to interpret" and even has overtones of cautious scepticism.  Finally, the use of the word φῦλον ("phylon" - "race, tribe") is not used by Christians about themselves in any works of the time, but is used by Josephus elsewhere about nations or other distinct groups.  Additionally, with the sole exception of Χριστιανῶν ("Christianon" - "Christians") every single word in the passage can be found elsewhere in Josephus' writings.
The weight of the evidence of the vocabulary and style of the passage is heavily towards its partial authenticity.  Not only does it contain distinctive phrases of Josephus that he used in similar contexts elsewhere, but these are also phrases not found in early Christian texts.  And it is significantly free of terms and phrases from the gospels, which we'd expect to find if it was created wholesale by a Christian writer.  So either a very clever Christian interpolator somehow managed to immerse himself in Josephus' phrasing and language, without modern concordances and dictionaries and create a passage containing distinctively Josephean phraseology, or what we have here is a genuinely Josephean passage that has simply been added to rather clumsily.
As a result of this and other evidence (eg the Arabic and Syriac paraphrases of this passage which seem to come from a version before the clumsy additions by the interpolator) the consensus amongst scholars of all backgrounds is that the passage is partially genuine, simply added in a few obvious places.  Louis H. Feldman's Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1984) surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and finds of 52 scholars on the subject, 39 considered the passage to be partially authentic. 
Peter Kirby has done a survey of the literature since and found that this trend has increased in recent years.  He concludes "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the (Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 passage) to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." 
The other mention of Jesus in Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1, is much more straightforward, but much more of a problem for Jesus Mythicists.  In it Josephus recounts a major political event that happened when he was a young man.  This would have been a significant and memorable event for him, since he was only 25 at the time and it caused upheaval in his own social and political class, the priestly families of Jerusalem that included his own.
In 62 AD the Roman procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, died while in office and his replacement, Lucceius Albinus, was still on his way to Judea from Rome.  This left the High Priest, Hanan ben Hanan (usually called Ananus), with a freer reign than usual. Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed.  This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests.  But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
This mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus' brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which "Jesus who was called Messiah" Josephus is referring to here.
Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand.  This rather unequivocal reference to a historical Jesus leaves Jesus Mythicists with a thorny problem, which they generally try to solve one of two ways:
(i) "The words "who was called Messiah" are a later Christian interpolation" -
Since it is wholly unlikely that a Christian interpolator invented the whole story of the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus, Mythicists try to argue that the key words which identify which Jesus is being spoken of are interpolated.  Unfortunately this argument does not work.  This is because the passage is discussed no less than three times in mid-Third Century works by the Christian apologist Origen and he directly quotes the relevant section with the words "Jesus who was called the Messiah" all three times: in Contra Celsum I.4, in Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17.  Each time he uses precisely the phrase we find in Josephus: αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου ("the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah").  This is significant because Origen was writing a whole generation before Christianity was in any kind of position to be tampering with texts of Josephus.  If this phrase was in the passage in Origen's time, then it was clearly original to Josephus.
(ii) "The Jesus being referred to here was not the Jesus of Christianity, but the 'Jesus, son of Dameus' mentioned later in the same passage."
After detailing the deposition of the High Priest Ananus, Josephus mentions that he was succeeded as High Priest by a certain "Jesus, son of Damneus".  So Mythicists try to argue that this was the Jesus that Josephus was talking about earlier, since Jesus was a very common name.  It certainly was, but we know how Josephus was careful to differentiate between different people with the same common first name.  So it makes more sense that he calls one "Jesus who was called Messiah" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus" to do precisely this.  Nowhere else does he call the same person two different things in the same passage, as the Mythicist argument requires.  And he certainly would not do so without making it clear that the Jesus who was made HIgh Priest was the same he had mentioned earlier, which he does not do.

The idea that the Jesus referred to as the brother of James was the later mentioned "Jesus son of Damneus" is further undercut by the narrative in the rest of Book XX.  In it the former high priest Ananus continues to play politics and curries favour with the Roman procurator Albinus and the new high priest by giving them rich presents.  This makes no sense if Jesus the brother of the executed James was also "Jesus the son of Damneus", since the new high priest in question is the same Jesus ben Damneus - the idea that he would become friends with his brother's killer just because he was given some nice gifts is ridiculous.
Mythicists are also still stuck with the phrase "who was called Messiah", which Origen's mentions show can't be dismissed as an interpolation.  They usually attempt to argue that, as a High Priest, Jesus the son of Damenus would have been "called Messiah" because "Messiah" means 'anointed" and priests were anointed with oil at their elevation.  Since there are no actual examples of any priests being referred to this way, this is another ad hoc argument designed merely to get the Mythicist argument off the hook.
So the consensus of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, is that the Antiquities XVIII.3.4 passage is authentic despite some obvious later additions and the Antiquities XX.9.1 passage is wholly authentic.  These references alone give us about as much evidence for the existence of a historical "Jesus, who was called Messiah" as we have for comparable Jewish preachers and prophets and is actually sufficient to confirm his existence with reference to any gospel or Christian source.
Tacitus
The mention of Jesus in the Annals of the aristocratic Roman historian and senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus is significant partly because of his status as one of the most careful and sceptical historians of the ancient world and partly because it is from what is obviously a hostile witness.  Tacitus absolutely despised Christianity, as he make clear when he mentions how the emperor Nero tried to scapegoat them after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.  He also gives an account to his readers as the origin of the Christian sect and their founder in Judea:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
(Tacitus, Annals, XV.44)
Again, this clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists.  They sometimes try to deal with it using their old standby argument: a claim that it is a later interpolation.  But this passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect Second Century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine.
A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all.  This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.
Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could.  He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:
My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history. 
(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)
Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it's highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt.  He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder.
Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, his miracles and nothing about the claim he rose from the dead.  On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred {"during the reign of Tiberius") and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.
We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus.  But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects.  None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus.  There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least quite plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.
Conclusion
The question asked if historians regarded the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact".  The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world.  There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material.  Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure. 
The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor  and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars.  The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  5:15 AM   76 comments:       
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest


  
 

Older Posts  Home


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
 


Search Amazon
   
 

Blog Information Profile for Thiudareiks
        http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/











 
 




Armarium Magnum





Subscribe To













  Posts  













  Comments  


 

Welcome to Armarium Magnum

"Armarium Magnum" translates roughly as 'the big book cabinet'. This blog aims to be a repository for book reviews, mainly of books on ancient and medieval history, but also on early Christianity, the historical Jesus, atheism, scepticism and philosophy.

 

Popular Posts


 
"Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again



 
Hypatia and "Agora" Redux



 
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald


 

Follow by Email



   
 
 
Follow on Quora
Follow Tim
 

Share it
   


 

Search This Blog



 




 

Blog Archive


►    2014 (3)


►    2013 (3)


►    2012 (3)


►    2011 (5)



►    2010 (3)

▼   2009 (16) ►    December (2)
►    October (1)
►    September (3)
►    July (1)
►    June (1)
▼   May (2) General Addenda
"Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again
►    April (2)
►    March (4)

 

Blogs of Worth and Merit





 Bryn Mawr Classical Review
 2015.04.55 
9 hours ago





 Exploring Our Matrix
 Does This Get Your Goat? 
12 hours ago





 The TOF Spot
 Oddities 
14 hours ago





 In the Middle

 
 Nothing Has Yet Been Said: On the Non-Existence of Academic Freedom and the Necessity of Inoperative Communities 
14 hours ago





 teleskopos
 PhD scholarship in history of science 
23 hours ago





 Quodlibeta
 Is the book trade too left wing for its own good? 
1 day ago





 Medieval News

 
 The Middle Ages are Not 'Medieval' and more medieval news 
1 day ago





 In Romaunce as We Rede . . .

 
 On Holy Terror 
2 days ago





 Viking Archaeology Blog
 Viking voyages began earlier than thought 
2 days ago





 Anglo-Saxon Archaeology Blog
 Viking voyages began earlier than thought 
2 days ago





 Bread and Circuses
 Ben Kane's Eagles at War 
2 days ago





 Roger Pearse
 Online: Free .pdf version of Lanciani’s “Forma Urbis Romae” 
4 days ago





 The Renaissance Mathematicus
 Abraham Ortelius and the 16th century information age. 
1 week ago





 The New Oxonian
 Atheist Martyrs? Gnus to me. 
1 week ago





 badarchaeology.wordpress.com/
 Amazing Discovery Number 3 That Won’t Make You Question Anything 
1 week ago





 Wormtalk and Slugspeak
 Anglo-Saxon Medicine 
4 weeks ago





 The Heroic Age
 
1 month ago





 A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe
 Death reaches us via the Internet 
1 month ago





 Geoffrey Chaucer Hath An Extreme Blog: Go England! It ys Rad!
 Maken Melodye on Whan That Aprille Day 2015 
1 month ago





 Medieval History Geek
 Kalamazoo Registration is Up! 
2 months ago





 PaleoBabble
 New PaleoBabble blog 
1 year ago





 Research News in Late Antiquity

 
 Late Antiquity Made New: A Celebration of the Career of Elizabeth A. Clark, Duke University (Durham), April 11-13, 2013 
2 years ago





 Summer of Blood: The Middle Ages in Popular Culture
 Recent work 
2 years ago





 Got Medieval
 Medieval Batman Cosplay Worth the Click-Through 
2 years ago





 The Dubious Disciple
 



 

Goodly Sites
History vs The Da Vinci Code - Facts vs Hype
Medievalist.net
University of Reading - Medieval Book Reviews
 

About Me
My Photo Tim O'Neill  Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard.View my complete profile
 

Followers


   


 













 








 










 








 





 
Wednesday, May 20, 2009


   
"Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again



Hollywood Hokum - Again
 It looks like some pseudo historical myths about the history of science are about to get a new shot in the arm, thanks to the new movie Agora by Chilean director Alejandro Amenabar. Now normally I'd be delighted that someone was making a film set in the Fifth Century (at least, one that wasn't another fantasy about "King Arthur" anyway). After all, it's not like there's a shortage of remarkable stories to tell from that turbulent and interesting time. And normally I'd be even more delighted that they are actually bothering to make it look like the Fifth Century, rather than assuming because it's set in the Roman Empire everyone needs to be wearing togas, forward combed haircuts and lorica segmentata. And I would be especially delighted that they are not only doing both these things but also casting Rachel Weisz in the lead role, since she's an excellent actress and, let's face it, pretty cute.
 So why am I not delighted? Because Amenabar has chosen to write and direct a film about the philosopher Hypatia and perpetuate some hoary Enlightenment myths by turning it into a morality tale about science vs fundamentalism.
 As an atheist, I'm clearly no fan of fundamentalism - even the 1500 year old variety (though modern manifestations tend to be the ones to watch out for). And as an amateur historian of science I'm more than happy with the idea of a film that gets across the idea that, yes, there was a tradition of scientific thinking before Newton and Galileo. But Amenabar has taken the (actually, fascinating) story of what was going on in Alexandria in Hypatia's time and turned it into a cartoon, distorting history in the process. From the press release timed to coincide with the film's screening at Cannes this week:
Played by Oscar-winning British actress Weisz, Hypatia is persecuted in the film for her science that challenges the Christians' faith, as much as for her status as an influential woman.
 From bloody clashes to public stonings and massacres, the city descends into inter-religious strife, and the victorious Christians turn their back on the rich scientific legacy of antiquity, defended by Hypatia.
 So we are being served up the idea that Hypatia was persecuted and, I'll assume, killed because "her science ... challenges the Christians' faith". And why have a movie with one historical myth in it when you can have two:
"Agora" opens with the destruction of the second library of Alexandria by the Christians and Jews -- after the first, famous library which was destroyed by Julius Caesar.
 At least he's done his homework enough to realise that the decline of the Great Library was a long, slow deterioration and not a single catastrophic event. But he still clings to Gibbon's myth that a Christian mob was somehow responsible. And rather niftily invents a "second library of Alexandria" so he can do so. Of course, there's an inevitable moral to all this:
The director also said he saw the film worked as a parable on the crisis of Western civilisation.
 "Let's say the Roman Empire is the United States nowadays, and Alexandria is what Europe means now -- the old civilisation, the old cultural background.
"And the empire is in crisis, which affects all the provinces. We are talking about social crisis, economic of course, this year, and cultural.
"Something is not quite fitting in our society. We know that something is going to change -- we don't know exactly what or how, but we know that something is coming to an end."
 Exactly how far or how closely he expects we can extend this analogy is unclear. If Europe is Alexandria and the US is Rome, who is Hypatia? And who are the murderous fundamentalists? I suspect the answer could be "Muslims". The LA Times article on the Cannes screening seemed to think so:
The film is at its most compelling when Amenabar shows the once-stable civilization of Alexandria being overwhelmed by fanaticism, perhaps because the bearded, black-robe clad Christian zealots who sack the library and take over the city bear an uncanny resemblance to the ayatollahs and Taliban of today.
(At Cannes: Alejandro Amenabar's provocative new historical thriller)
 However far you want to take Amenabar's parable, the outlines are clear - Hypatia was a rationalist and a scientist, she was killed by fundamentalists who were threatened by knowledge and science and this ushered in a Dark Age.


Hypatia the Myth
 Not that there is anything very new or original about this - Hypatia has long been pressed into service as a martyr for science by those with agendas that have nothing to do with the accurate presentation of history. As Maria Dzielska has detailed in her study of Hypatia in history and myth, Hypatia of Alexandria, virtually every age since her death that has heard her story has appropriated it and forced it to serve some polemical purpose.
Ask who Hypatia was and you will probably be told "She was that beautiful young pagan philosopher who was torn to pieces by monks (or, more generally, by Christians) in Alexandria in 415". This pat answer would be based not on ancient sources, but on a mass of belletristic and historical literature .... Most of these works represent Hypatia as an innocent victim of the fanaticism of nascent Christianity, and her murder as marking the banishment of freedom of inquiry along with the Greek gods.
 (Dzielska, p. 1)
 If you had asked me at the age of 15 that's certainly what I would have told you, since I had heard of Hypatia largely thanks to astronomer Carl Sagan's TV series and book Cosmos. I still have a soft spot both for Sagan and Cosmos, since - as with a lot of young people of the time - it awakened my love not only of science, but a humanist tradition of science and a historical perspective on the subject that made it far more accessible to me than dry formulae. But popularisations of any subject can create erroneous impressions even when the writer is very sure of his material. And while Sagan was usually on very solid ground with his science, his history could be distinctly shaky. Especially when he had a barrow or two to push.
 The final chapter of the book of Cosmos is the one where Sagan pushes a few barrows. Generally, his aims are admirable - he notes the fragility of life and of civilisation, makes some calm and quietly sober condemnations of nuclear proliferation - highly relevant and sensible in the depths of Cold War 1980 - and makes a rational and humanistic plea for the maintenance of a long term view on the Earth, the environment and our intellectual heritage. In the process he tells the story of Hypatia as a cautionary parable; a tale that illustrates how fragile civilisation is and how easily it can fall to the powers of ignorance and irrationality.
 After describing the glories of the Great Library of Alexandria, he introduces Hypatia as its "last scientist". He then notes that the Roman Empire was in crisis in her time and that "slavery had sapped ancient civilisation of its vitality"; which is an odd comment since the ancient world had always been based on slavery, making it hard to see why this institution would suddenly begin to "sap" it of "vitality" in the Fifth Century. He then he gets to the crux of his story:
Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, despised her because of her close friendship with the Roman governor, and because she was a symbol of learning and science, which were largely identified by the early Church with paganism. In great personal danger she continued to teach and publish, until, in the year 415, on her way to work she was set upon by a fanatical mob of Cyril's parishioners. They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, and, armed with abalone shells, flayed her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned, her works obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint.
 (Sagan, p. 366)
 I gather I was not the only impressionable reader who found this parable moving. One reader of Dzielska's study, which debunks the version Sagan propagates, wrote a breathless review on Amazon.com that declared:
Hypatia was first brought to my attention by Carl Sagan in his television series Cosmos. She has often been represented as a pillar of wisdom in an age of growing dogma. Unlike with Socrates we know much less about her life and teachings. She is remembered precisely as a martyr who was sacrificed rather than executed by a literalist Christian mob inspired by "St" Cyril, apparently as she was regarded as a threat to Christendom and theology by certain regio-political figures.
 That actually makes you wonder if they had read Dzielska's book at all.
 While Sagan is the best known propagator of the idea that Hypatia was a martyr for science, he was simply following a venerable polemical tradition that has its origin in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:
A rumor was spread among the Christians, that the daughter of Theon was the only obstacle to the reconciliation of the prefect and the archbishop; and that obstacle was speedily removed. On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypatia was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the Reader and a troop of savage and merciless fanatics: her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster-shells and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames.
 Like Gibbon, Sagan links the story of the murder of Hypatia with the idea that the Great Library of Alexandria was torched by another Christian mob. In fact, Sagan presents the two events as though they were subsequent, stating "[the Library's] last remnants were destroyed soon after Hypatia's death" (p. 366) and that "when the mob came .... to burn the Library down there was nobody to stop them." (p. 365)
 In the hands of Sagan and others both the story of Hypatia's murder and the Library's destruction are a cautionary tale of what can happen if we let down our guards and allow mobs of fanatics to destroy the champions and repositories of reason.
The Great Library and its Myths
 This is certainly a powerful parable. Unfortunately, it doesn't correspond very closely with actual history. To begin with, the Great Library of Alexandria no longer existed in Hypatia's time. Precisely when and how it had been destroyed is unclear, though a fire in Alexandria caused by Julius Caesar's troops in 48 BC is the most likely main culprit. More likely this and/or other fires were part of a long process of decline and degradation of the collection. Strangely, given that we know so little about it, the Great Library has long been a focus of some highly imaginative fantasies. The idea that it contained 500,000 o0r even 700,000 books is often repeated uncritically by many modern writers, even though comparison with the size other ancient libraries and estimates of the size of the building needed to house such a collection makes this highly unlikely. It is rather more probable that it was around less than a tenth of these numbers, though that would still make it the largest library in the ancient world by a wide margin.
 The idea that the Great Library was still in existence in Hypatia's time and that it was, like her, destroyed by a Christian mob has been popularised by Gibbon, who never let history get in the way of a good swipe at Christianity. But what Gibbon was talking about was the temple known as the Serapeum, which was not the Great Library at all. It seems the Serapeum had contained a library at some point and this was a "daughter library" of the former Great Library. But the problem with Gibbon's version is that no account of the destruction of the Serapeum by the Bishop Theophilus in AD 391 makes any mention of a library or any books, only the destruction of pagan idols and cult objects:
At the solicitation of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the Emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples.
 (Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk V)
 Even hostile, anti-Christian accounts of this event, like that of Eunapius of Sardis (who witnessed the demolition), do not mention any library or books being destroyed. And Ammianus Marcellinus, who seems to have visited Alexandria before 391, describes the Serapeum and mentions that it had once housed a library, indicating that by the time of its destruction it no longer did so.  The fact is that, with no less than five independent accounts detailing this event, the destruction of the Serapeum is one of the best attested events in the whole of ancient history.  Yet nothing in the evidence indicates the destruction of any library along with the temple complex.
 Still, the myth of a Christian mob destroying the "Great Library of Alexandria" is too juicy for some to resist, so this myth remains a mainstay for arguments that "Christianity caused the Dark Ages" despite the fact it is completely without foundation. And it seems Amenabar couldn't resist it either - thus a scene early in the movie features an anxious Hypatia scrambling to rescue precious scrolls before a screaming mob bearing crosses bursts through a barred door to destroy what he's dubbed "the second library of Alexandria" (presumably he means the Serapeum). This seems to be at the beginning of the movie, apparently setting the stage for the conflicts between science and religion that will end in Hypatia's murder. Sagan, on the other hand, put the destruction of the Library after her murder. In fact, it seems no such destruction happened either in her lifetime or after it and the idea it did is simply part of the mythic parable.

The Hypatia of History
 The real Hypatia was the daughter of Theon, who was famous for his edition of Euclid's Elements and his commentaries on Ptolemy, Euclid and Aratus. Her birth year is often given as AD 370, but Maria Dzielska argues this is 15-20 years too late and suggests AD 350 would be more accurate. That would make her 65 when she was killed and therefore someone who should perhaps be played by Helen Mirren rather than Rachel Weisz. But that would make the movie much harder to sell at the box office.
 She grew up to become a renowned scholar in her own right. She seems to have assisted her father in his edition of Euclid and an edition of Ptolemy's Almagest, as well writing commentaries on the Arithmetica of Diophantus and the Conics of Apollonius. Like most natural philosophers of her time, she embraced the neo-Platonic ideas of Plotinus and so her teaching and ideas appealed to a broad range of people - pagans, Christians and Jews. There is some suggestion that Amenabar's film depicts her as an atheist, or at least as wholly irreligious, which is highly unlikely. Neo-Platonism embraced the idea of a perfect, ultimate source called "the One" or "the Good", which was, by Hypatia's time, fully identified with a monotheistic God in most respects.
 She was admired by many and at least one of her most ardent students was the Bishop Synesius, who addressed several letters to her, calling her "mother, sister, teacher, and withal benefactress, and whatsoever is honoured in name and deed", saying she is "my most revered teacher" and describing her as she "who legitimately presides over the mysteries of philosophy" (R. H. Charles, The Letters of Synesius of Cyrene). The Christian chronicler quoted above, Socrates Scholasticus, also wrote of her admiringly:
There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not infrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in coming to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more.
(Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, VII.15)
 So if she was admired so widely and admired and respected by learned Christians, how did she come to die at the hands of a Christian mob? And, more importantly, did it have anything to do with her learning or love of science?
 The answer lies in the politics of early Fifth Century Alexandria and the way that the power of Christian bishops was beginning to encroach on that of civil authorities in this period. The Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril, had been a protégé of his uncle Theophilus and succeeded him to the bishopric in AD 412. Theophilus had already made the position of Bishop of Alexandria a powerful one and Cyril continued his policy of expanding the influence of the office, increasingly encroaching on the powers and privilages of the Prefect of the City. The Prefect at the time was another Christian, Orestes, who had taken up his post not long before Cyril became bishop.
 Orestes and Cyril soon came into conflict over Cyril's hard-line actions against smaller Christian factions like the Novatians and his violence against Alexandria's large Jewish community. After an attack by the Jews on a Christian congregation and a retaliatory pogrom against Jewish synagogues led by Cyril, Orestes complained to the Emperor but was over-ruled. Tensions between the supporters of the Bishop and those of the Prefect then began to run high in a city that was known for mob rule and vicious political street violence.
 Hypatia, whether by chance or choice, found herself in the middle of this power struggle between two Christian factions. She was well-known to Orestes (and probably to Cyril as well) as a prominen tparticipant in the civic life of the city and was perceived by Cyril's faction to be not only a political ally of Orestes but an obstacle to any reconciliation between the two men. The tensions spilled over when a group of monks from the remote monasteries of the desert - men known for their fanatical zeal and not renowned for their political sophistication - came into the city in force to support Cyril and began a riot that resulted in Orestes' entourage being pelted with rocks, with one stone hitting the Prefect in the head. Not one to stand for such insults, Orestes had the monk in question arrested and tortured, which led to the man's death.
 Cyril tried to exploit the torture and death of the monk, making out that it was effectively a martyrdom by Orestes. This time, however, his appeals to the Imperial authorities were rejected. Angered, Cyril's followers (with or without his knowledge) took revenge by seizing Hypatia, as a political follower of Orestes, in the street and torturing her to death in vengeance.
 The incident was generally regarded with horror and disgust by Christians, with Socrates Scholasticus making his feelings about it quite clear:
[Hypatia] fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles [oyster shells]. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort.
 (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, VII.15)
 What is notable in all this is that nowhere in any of this is her science or learning mentioned, expect as the basis for the respect which she was accorded by pagans and Christians alike. Socrates Scholasticus finishes describing her achievements and the esteem with which she was held and then goes on to say "Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed". In other words, despite her learning and position, she fell victim to politics. There is no evidence at all that her murder had anything to do with her learning. The idea that she was some kind of martyr to science is totally absurd.
History vs the Myths. And Movies.
 Unfortunately for those who cling to the discredited "conflict thesis" of science and religion perpetually at odds, the history of science actually has very few genuine martyrs at the hands of religious bigots. The fact that a mystic and kook like Giordano Bruno gets dressed up as a free-thinking scientist shows how thin on the ground such martyrs are, though usually those who like to invoke these martyrs can fall back on citing "scientists burned by the Medieval Inquistion", despite the fact this never actually happened. Most people know nothing about the Middle Ages, so this kind of vague hand-waving is usually pretty safe.
 Unlike Giordano Bruno, Hypatia was a genuine scientist and, as a woman, was certainly remarkable for her time (though the fact that another female and pagan scientist, Aedisia, practised science in Alexandria unmolested and with high renown a generation  later shows she was far from unique). But Hypatia was no martyr for science and science had absolutely zero to do with her murder. Exactly how much of the genuine, purely political background to her death Amenabar puts in his movie remains to be seen. It's hoped that, unlike Sagan and many others, the whole political background to the murder won't simply be ignored and her killing won't be painted as a purely anti-intellectual act of ignorant rage against her science and scholarship. But what is clear from his interviews and the film's pre-publicity is that he has chosen to frame the story in Gibbonian terms straight from the "conflict thesis" textbook - the destruction of the "Great Library", Hypatia victimised for her learning and her death as a grim harbinger of the beginning of the "Dark Ages".
 And, as usual, bigots and anti-theistic zealots will ignore the evidence, the sources and rational analysis and believe Hollywood's appeal to their prejudices. It makes you wonder who the real enemies of reason actually are.

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  4:01 PM       
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest


  
 Labels: Agora, Alejandro Amenabar, Almagest, atheism, Carl Sagan, Cyril, Fifth Century, Gibbon, Giordano Bruno, Great Library, Hypatia, Neo-Platonism, Orestes, Ptolemy, Rachel Weisz, Serapeum, Theophilus 


154 comments:


 Anonymous said...
Educational and entertaining as always, Mr. O'Neill.
I only wish my own teachers could be
as insightful as you.
 May 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM    

tenthmedieval said...
Elegantly put, indeed, and I shall probably wind up pointing a number of people at this post. I don't suppose you can do one refuting the "Inquisition burned scientists" idea too can you? :-) Meanwhile, you may be amused by this review of the film of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons which hits some of the same buttons...
 May 21, 2009 at 6:23 PM    

Bjørn Are said...
Thanks!
Well put, and a great read!
I'll certainly point to this review from my blog!
 May 21, 2009 at 9:39 PM    

Humphrey said...
The Hollywood treatment of history never ceases to amaze me. For instance 'The Patriot' had the British army burning the colonists alive in a church, an atrocity more akin to what was going on in WWII. In 'Braveheart' Mel Gibson's William Wallace gets into bed with Queen Isabella, despite the fact she would have been three years old at the time.
In one of my first lectures at St Andrews I was told that good old Mel Gibson was interviewed by a journalist who said 'don't you think Hollywood has a responsibility to make accurate historical movies, especially when this is how most of the general public comes into contact with history'.
Mel then made some comments about how 'no, there isn't really a responsibility there', Hollywood's responsibility is to make movies that people want to see.
The journalist wasn't satisfied with this and tried to push the point with some comments about how it was disrespectful to the past and historical figures to depict them inaccurately. At this point Mel exploded and said 'Look what does it really matter!, They're ALL FUCKING DEAD...OK!.'
Bout sums it up.
 May 21, 2009 at 11:18 PM    

Don Viney said...
In 1997 I published a double review of Maria Dzielska's book and the monograph of Michael Deakin (republished in 2007 by Prometheus as Hypatia of Alexandria: Mathematician and Martyr). Mr. O'Neill, I only wish I had written your review: well done! History is interesting enough without the distortions that film makers introduce to pander to public taste. Your comments on the science / religion issue are especially welcome. (Don Viney, Prof. of Philosophy, Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, Kansas)
 May 22, 2009 at 2:16 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Many thanks! This was very interesting.
 May 22, 2009 at 4:07 AM    

Roger Pearse said...
An excellent post.
Cyril inherited his uncle's position as patriarch, and, effectively, as political head of Egypt in general and the Alexandrian mob in particular. He was generally above such crude methods anyway, preferring intrigue to violence (probably because he was so good at it).
There is in Orosius somewhere a note which we need to consider, tho: "... there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen and when these temples were plundered these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our own time."
I wonder if Synesius appears in the movie? Or the moment when one of Hypatia' pupils declared he was in love with her, and she promptly threw a used tampon at him and said "*That* is what you are in love with!".
But... let's rejoice at the popularisation of the period by the movie anyway.
 May 22, 2009 at 4:10 PM    

Leslie said...
[I followed a link to this from a comment at Per Omnia Saecula.]
Being quite illiterate and kind of a moron, I found only one thing I disagreed with in your post...
"That would make her 65 when she was killed and therefore someone who should perhaps be played by Helen Mirren rather than Rachel Weisz. But that would make the movie much harder to sell at the box office."
Helen Mirren is amazing and I think the true story would be almost as awesome if she was playing the lead.
Other than that [even including that, as I thought it a very clever aside and am just a smart alec], a very interesting read. Good stuff.
 May 26, 2009 at 8:25 PM    

Narukami said...
Excellent
Thanks
 June 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM    

Cid, o Campeador said...
Greetings!
Extremely valuable information! Perhaps you could share it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbskP9utQ0M. These neo-pagans truly need some enlightenment. ;)
 June 9, 2009 at 9:58 AM    

Loren said...
I think that a more reasonable comparison might be between Hypatia and 18th-cy. French chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier.
He got guillotined by the French revolutionaries because he had been a tax collector for the former king, and possibly because one of the revolutionaries, Jean-Paul Marat, had a grudge against him. They weren't phlogistonists who were annoyed by his debunking of that hypothesis.
When Marat applied to the French Academy for membership some years before, Lavoisier turned him down, dismissing some of his scientific work as worthless. And Marat may not have forgotten that when he became a leader.
 June 12, 2009 at 2:17 AM    

returnofthespacegods said...
What a refreshing read... that were pretty much my exact feelings when I found out about this movie: great that a good looking historical movie was coming out, but shame that it's being used for hackneyed propaganda... Seems like the real story would make a more interesting plot, with all the intersections of politics, sex and religion.
Also a bit annoying that every (modern) description of Hypatia has to stress how beautiful she was, as if being an erudite philosopher wasn't enough; although from the stills it looks like they haven't gone overboard on the hair and makeup, and Rachel Weisz looks like a fairly believable librarian.
 June 12, 2009 at 8:46 PM    

 Anonymous said...
Carl Sagan does not need ammendments. His works are masterpieces. Atheists do not really exist perse and at the end of the day everyone takes a position according to his (hidden)beliefs. Hypatia was murdered by the Christian mob of Alexandria and not by some aliens from outer space. Furthermore, the Greek civilization and scientific achievmnets were destroyed and buried by the Roman empire (Western and Eastern),especially after the time the Judeochristian Byzantine emperors understood how dangerous this civilization was for their master plan of turning humanity into a flok of terrorised and uneducated sheep for thousands of years. Big Brother of medieval humanity...
 August 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Carl Sagan does not need ammendments. His works are masterpieces.
His works are very good. But not withour errors, especially when it comes to history. On the subject of Hypatia and the Great Library, his account is riddled with errors, as I detailed above.
Atheists do not really exist perse
Yes, actually, we do.
and at the end of the day everyone takes a position according to his (hidden)beliefs.
That is gibberish.
Hypatia was murdered by the Christian mob of Alexandria and not by some aliens from outer space.
Hypatia was murdered by the followers of one Christian leader for supporting a rival Christian leader. It was a political murder that had nothing to do with religion and less to do with science.
Furthermore, the Greek civilization and scientific achievmnets were destroyed and buried by the Roman empire (Western and Eastern),especially after the time the Judeochristian Byzantine emperors understood how dangerous this civilization was for their master plan of turning humanity into a flok of terrorised and uneducated sheep for thousands of years. Big Brother of medieval humanity...
And that is nonsense.
PS Learn to spell.
 August 3, 2009 at 1:49 PM    

 Anonymous said...
Looking for historic accuracy from Hollywood in the first place is as naive and as misguided as the exercise above which attempts to mask the core message by examining the miniature of a historical event. The pertinent facts are that Roman Christianity has always been hostile to women including in the area of education and its long history is ample proof of this. The Romanising of religion did bring on a dark age of ignorance that continues to this day to insist that children are taught what to think rather than how to think. Given that the historical distortions in this movie, typical of Hollywood, do contain what is an idea that is essentially true (the anti-female, anti-learning, anti-human nature of Roman Christianity) then at least it’s a reflection of a longer reality. If it stimulates people to investigate from the perspective of a longer and less smug overview than in this review that might be a good thing.
Meanwhile Roman Christianities splinter groups are building museums in the US that have dinosaurs and humans sharing the same territory. There is a long line of a historical thread from there back to the murder of Hypatia.
 August 8, 2009 at 5:56 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anonymous said...
Looking for historic accuracy from Hollywood in the first place is as naive and as misguided as the exercise above which attempts to mask the core message by examining the miniature of a historical event.
Luckily for me, because I'm neither naive nor misguided, I don't expect Hollywood to get its history right at all. The fact remains, however, that most people get their history from popular culture like this movie and when Hollywood does get its history wrong it's useful to point this out.
The pertinent facts are that Roman Christianity has always been hostile to women including in the area of education and its long history is ample proof of this.
Then it would be more useful for Hollywood (or, in this case, a European film maker) to actually depict an accurate example of this, not make one up.
The Romanising of religion did bring on a dark age of ignorance
That, however, is complete bullshit. The "dark age of ignorance" that began in the Fifth Century was due to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Christianity had zero to do with it.
 ... that continues to this day to insist that children are taught what to think rather than how to think.
Any ignorance that Christianity is propagating today has no connection to the historical events of Hypatia's time. In her time Christianity was in the process of rejecting an anti-intellectual stance and adopting the position of Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo that valued all learning as coming from God, regardless of whether it came from Christian or pagan thinkers. That tradition was what brought Europe out of that "dark age of ignorance".
Given that the historical distortions in this movie, typical of Hollywood, do contain what is an idea that is essentially true (the anti-female, anti-learning, anti-human nature of Roman Christianity) then at least it’s a reflection of a longer reality.
Nonsense. That cluster of over-simplifications shows that it certainly hasn't stimulated you to investigate anything at all.
If it stimulates people to investigate from the perspective of a longer and less smug overview than in this review that might be a good thing.
See above. It seems this distorted story has simply confirmed some of your pseudo-historical ideas about these subjects.
Meanwhile Roman Christianities splinter groups are building museums in the US that have dinosaurs and humans sharing the same territory. There is a long line of a historical thread from there back to the murder of Hypatia.
How can anything fundies are doing in the US have any connection to Hypatia's murder if that murder had nothing to do with religion? You are making no sense.
 August 8, 2009 at 7:06 AM    

 Stanley Guenter said...
Tim,
I just came across your site looking for reviews of O'Donnell's "The Ruin of the Roman Empire" and have to say I am quite impressed with your site and reviews. Excellent information!
I am an archaeologist and finishin up my dissertation at SMU in Dallas and like you an atheist who finds Hollywood's continual portrayal of the church, especially the medieval church, as populated all but entirely by perverts and power-hungry philistines to be quite reprehensible. No institution could have arisen and maintained its position for nearly two millenia that was so completely bereft of any truth or decency.
So I have quite enjoyed your ability to maintain yourself as an atheist while still being able to recognize the anti-church bias in so much of modern media and academia. That said, I think you yourself overstep a bit. There are two comments on this page that I would take issue with. In the conclusion to your article you state: "But she was no martyr for science and science had absolutely zero to do with her murder." and in your reply to Anonymous above you state " The "dark age of ignorance" that began in the Fifth Century was due to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Christianity had zero to do with it."
I think you over-generalize here. Christianity was anything but a unified body at this time (heck, at any time!) and to say that Christianity had "zero" to do with the onset of the "Dark Ages" in science and learning is over-stretching. Doubting Thomas isn't held up in a favorable light in the Gospels; Jesus is made to say that those who do not doubt and do not ask for evidence before belief are blessed. According to traditional Christian belief no one will be condemned for believing without being given evidence to support that belief. However, condemnation follows for those who do not believe, even if they do not believe the evidence is sufficient to validate the belief. Yes, it is true that there were quite a number of intellectual Christians who pursued reason and science as a means to find God, but let's be honest - these were a minority. The vast majority of Christians had little use for such niceties.
Which brings me back to Hypatia. You state unequivocally that her murder had nothing to do with science. I don't think you can make that claim as we simply have far too little evidence, especially when you consider that it was a mob that murdered her. I think you would agree that the members of this mob did not likely share in the intellectual abilities and mindset of Cyril or Socrates Scholasticus. The lower classes, who almost certainly made up the bulk of the mob that murdered Hypatia, have traditionally not had such an appreciation for learning, especially when that learning comes from a different tradition than the one they hold holy. I can easily see how quite a number of this mob might have considered pagan-derived science as scarcely different from paganism itself and that this may have been the source of her opposition to their man, Cyril. It should be noted as well that Socrates Scholasticus interpretation of her death as due to politics and not religion would be an interpretation that his own beliefs would favor, while he would have good reason to downplay any religious motives he may have been aware of, given that this would place in conflict his religion and love for his fellow Christians, as well as his respect for this woman and her learning. Similar conflicts of interest are common today with scientifically-minded Christians often trying to distance themselves from Creationists and IDers, to the point of having them deny that the Creationists and IDers are actually basing their scientific beliefs on the Scriptures they share in common.
The bottom line is that as with most ancient history, we simply don't have a lot of hard facts. While the movie Agora is simply following a lot of unsubstantiated claims, I think we should be hesitant to make too many certain statements ourself in the light of this paucity of evidence.
Again, thanks for the site and the food for thought. Cheers!
 August 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Stanley Guenter said...
 ... So I have quite enjoyed your ability to maintain yourself as an atheist while still being able to recognize the anti-church bias in so much of modern media and academia.
Thanks.

I think you over-generalize here. Christianity was anything but a unified body at this time (heck, at any time!) and to say that Christianity had "zero" to do with the onset of the "Dark Ages" in science and learning is over-stretching.
The Dark Ages are a western European phenomenon, whereas Christianity was as strong, or even stronger, in the east as well. Anyone wanting to argue that Christianity was somehow even partly responsible for the Dark Ages needs to explain, therefore, why they happened in the west and not in the even more Christianised east also. In the east the Classical intellectual tradition continued much as it always had. Christian scholars continued to study at the academies of Constantinople and Alexandria, continued to read Homer and produce commentaries on Aristotle and preserved the learning that later, via the Arabs, revived learning in the west after the Dark Ages.
The difference between the east and the west was the fact that the Empire collapsed catastrophically in the west and survived in the east. That was what caused the collapse of western learning, not Christianity.
Doubting Thomas isn't held up in a favorable light in the Gospels; Jesus is made to say that those who do not doubt and do not ask for evidence before belief are blessed. According to traditional Christian belief no one will be condemned for believing without being given evidence to support that belief. However, condemnation follows for those who do not believe, even if they do not believe the evidence is sufficient to validate the belief. Yes, it is true that there were quite a number of intellectual Christians who pursued reason and science as a means to find God, but let's be honest - these were a minority. The vast majority of Christians had little use for such niceties.
Those who pursued reason and science had always formed a tiny minority, so nothing changed there. Yes, Christianity had an anti-intellectual tradition, as expressed by several early Church Fathers. But, as I explained in my review of Freeman's book, that strand of Christianity lost the debate. In both east and west by the Fifth Century the attitude of Christianity to learning and science was that of Clement of Alexandria and Augustine - "pagan" learning was like the "gold of the Egyptians", to be taken and used by the faithful, not rejected. The hiatus in the west was caused by the near total collapse of civilisation. Once the effects of that collapse had declined, western Christians went in search of the learning they had lost precisely because of this tradition of reason and inquiry.
Which brings me back to Hypatia. You state unequivocally that her murder had nothing to do with science. I don't think you can make that claim as we simply have far too little evidence, especially when you consider that it was a mob that murdered her.
Sorry, but we have sufficient evidence to know what that crowd's motive was: revenge for the torture to death of a monk who supported Cyril. We can't simply assume some other or additional motive, based on no evidence, just because we want to.
 August 9, 2009 at 4:48 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Part II
Similar conflicts of interest are common today with scientifically-minded Christians often trying to distance themselves from Creationists and IDers, to the point of having them deny that the Creationists and IDers are actually basing their scientific beliefs on the Scriptures they share in common.
That's projecting modern conflicts onto the past without any supporting evidence. You can't simply assume that this kind of conflict was involved with Hypatia's death unless there is some evidence that it was. There isn't. We do have evidence of what caused her death - civic politics. A historian sticks to the evidence and doesn't indulge in wishful projection.
The bottom line is that as with most ancient history, we simply don't have a lot of hard facts.
We have enough hard facts to see a motive for her murder - -politics. Inventing other motives without evidence is not history, it's polemical fantasy. And to be avoided.
Again, thanks for the site and the food for thought. Cheers!
You're welcome.
 August 9, 2009 at 4:49 AM    

heich1 said...
First Socrates Scholasticus was not the only commentater on Hypatia.There was was another comentater called John of Nikiu who said that Hypatia used Satanic
means to influence Orestes and that is why she was killed.
 Also will you explain there were no significant mathematicians or scientists in the Byzantine Empire
(Eastern Roman Empire) even though it lasted more than 1000 years after Hypatia's murder.
 September 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
First Socrates Scholasticus was not the only commentater on Hypatia.There was was another comentater called John of Nikiu who said that Hypatia used Satanic
means to influence Orestes and that is why she was killed.
John of Nikiu's lurid account dates to centuries after the fact and is not reflected in the sources that were either contemporary or near-contemporary. Sorry, but you can't ignore the sources that are close to the event and then just decide to accept one written centuries later - that's absurd.
Also will you explain there were no significant mathematicians or scientists in the Byzantine Empire
(Eastern Roman Empire) even though it lasted more than 1000 years after Hypatia's murder.
And that is garbage. With a few exceptions, Roman mathematics and science had been declining steadily in sophistication and output from at least the First Century onwards. But a tradition of commentaries and elaboration on Greek science continued, especially amongst Neo-Platontic thinkers. Hypatia was part of that tradition and it continued for centuries in the academies of Alexandria and Constantinople after her death.
John Philoponus's commentaries on Aristotelian physics, Dioscorides's herbal (De Materia Medica) and commentaries on ptolomeic geography and astronomy are amongst the fruits of this tradition. Puerbach and Regiomontanus's Epitome of the Almagest exercised a strong influence on Nicolaus Copernicus. And it was the scholars of the period after Hypatia who preserved and passed on the texts of the Greek scientists to the Arab world and so ensured they found their way back to Europe in the Twelfth Century.
Stop trying to cling to myths and go educate yourself about the real history of science. It's much more rich and interesting than the cartoon version you seem to be trying to maintain.
 September 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM    

heich1 said...
Were any of the Byzantine Empire
scientists equal in importance to Menelaus, Ptolemy Claudius, Diophantus, and Pappus? The last two anyhow were after the first century? What was the reason they were not? The difference was the power of Christianity.
 September 21, 2009 at 6:50 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Were any of the Byzantine Empire
scientists equal in importance to Menelaus, Ptolemy Claudius, Diophantus, and Pappus?
Yes
The last two anyhow were after the first century?
And they were about the only such scientists in that period. Yet at that point Christianity was a tiny, marginalised and persecuted sect. So what was "holding back" science then, because compared to the scientific "dark ages" of the Second to Fourth Century, the Byzantine period was a riot of activity.
The difference was the power of Christianity.
So you keep trying to assert. Despite the fact that from the later First Century to the end of the Fourth Century you can barely come up with more than a handful of names of scientists of any worth. Yet you can't attribute that to Christianity.
Give up. Your thesis makes no sense.
 September 22, 2009 at 6:41 AM    

heich1 said...
I am sorry I am bothering you again. I am distingishing between scientists and mathematicians who were able to do original work, i.e. making a new discovery that was unknown before and those who wrote commentaries, i.e. reported what others had done before. Therefore I will repeat the question, where there any scientists and mathematicans during the Byzantine Period who did original work and if there were
would please give their names. Two
such people over three centuries is better than none over ten.
 September 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I am sorry I am bothering you again. I am distingishing between scientists and mathematicians who were able to do original work, i.e. making a new discovery that was unknown before and those who wrote commentaries, i.e. reported what others had done before.
So am I. John Philoponus' critiques of Aristotle were highly significant and represented substantial and influential new work. Impetus theory, which was to be highly influential on later Arabic and European physcists, derived from Philoponus' analysis and correction of some of Aristotle's assumptions, for example. And many other assumptions made by Aristotle and by neo-Platonic thinkers were questioned and adjusted by Byzantine scholars in the same way.
In other words, the rate of such new work continued more or less as it had been going for several centuries before Christianity became dominant. Nothing changed. That's why this "conflict thesis" of some kind of war between Christianity and science has been rejected by modern historians of science. Christianity did not stifle science at all. That is a Nineteenth Century myth.
 September 22, 2009 at 7:26 PM    

Mogi said...
I came on your discussion by chance and I'd like to thank you all for sharing such a detailed knowledge and opinions on the topic.
Mogi Vicentini
 September 25, 2009 at 6:47 PM    

Judith Weingarten said...
Sorry to be so late to the discussion but Tenthmedieval just sent me the link in a comment on my post today, Hypatia Hits the Big Screen. A pity I hadn't seen it earlier.
On the whole, I agree with you but I think Stanley's point is excellent: there is a sharp difference between what the rabble thinks (and I must include those fast-maddened monk in the 'rabble') and their leaders. You will admit, I hope, that Cyril was hotheaded and intolerant, though, as is shown by his 'canonization' of the monk who threw a stone at the governor, Orestes.
Similarly, I would not ignore the testimony of John, Bishop of Nikui (that Hypatia was a sorcerer), just because he's writing 7th C. It represents another strand of Christian thought.
Thanks for an excellent post.
 October 8, 2009 at 3:39 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
On the whole, I agree with you but I think Stanley's point is excellent: there is a sharp difference between what the rabble thinks (and I must include those fast-maddened monk in the 'rabble') and their leaders.
What motives the rabble may have had is in the realm of baseless speculation, not history. Perhaps some, all or a few of them hated Hypatia because of her learning or her paganism. Or perhaps none did. In the absence of a time machine and some kind of mind-reading device, we can never know. Assuming that they did so and that therefore the myth about Hypatia's death has some basis isn't my idea of how to do history, sorry.
Similarly, I would not ignore the testimony of John, Bishop of Nikui (that Hypatia was a sorcerer), just because he's writing 7th C. It represents another strand of Christian thought.
It represents the prejudices and ignorance of a much later strand of Christian thought and it doesn't square at all with accounts that were far closer to the events. So I don't "ignore" it, but I do dismiss its usefulness as a source. At best it tells us how the myth of Hypatia began to develop and not much more.
 October 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM    

Judith Weingarten said...
I wouldn't call it 'baseless speculation', Tim. The key part of that 'rabble' (the monks from Nitria) had form. They had been armed by Cyril's predecessor Theophilus, as his 'shock troops' in earlier battles against pagans and heretics. Socrates S specifically says that they were 'transported with ardent zeal' when they attacked Orestes and 'hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal' when they murdered Hypatia.
The accusation of 'sorcery' against one who inquires into the origin of things is hardly new in the 7th C. Start with Lucius Apuleius' defence against some similar charges in the 2nd C. As he said then, "it is a fairly common misunderstanding by which the uneducated accuse philosophers." So, perhaps not part of Hypatia's myth, but another strand of thought, as I suggested.
 October 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I wouldn't call it 'baseless speculation', Tim. The key part of that 'rabble' (the monks from Nitria) had form. They had been armed by Cyril's predecessor Theophilus, as his 'shock troops' in earlier battles against pagans and heretics. Socrates S specifically says that they were 'transported with ardent zeal' when they attacked Orestes and 'hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal' when they murdered Hypatia.
They were zealous in furthering the aims of the bishop. All the evidence indicates that the bishop’s aims against Orestes were political, since Orestes was a fellow Christian. And all the evidence indicates that the attack on Hypatia was in the context of the political tussle with Orestes. So their “form” doesn’t give us any reason to think that their motives here were anti-pagan or anti-science. The evidence indicates that their motives were anti-Orestes.
The accusation of 'sorcery' against one who inquires into the origin of things is hardly new in the 7th C.
Did I say it was? The fact remains that there is no hint of this motive in the earlier sources about her death. So it seems to simply reflect how a Seventh Century writer would have seen a (to him) bizarre and exotic figure – a scholar who was not only a pagan but a woman. We simply can’t read his later prejudices back into the earlier sources, which show no sign of such attitudes.
 October 9, 2009 at 8:51 AM    

TonyTheProf said...
I still remember coming across Dzielska's Hypatia of Alexandria a few years ago and being blown away by the detailed painstaking work she did piecing together the sources and presenting a nuanced picture of the whole scene in Alexandria at the time.
But myths - such as the Sagan version - tend to persist. Look at other myths which persist despite the best efforts of historians (1) the idea that the ancients (and sometimes up to and including the sailors with Columbus) believed the earth was flat (2) the idea that the witch craze was an attack by Christianity against an underground pagan movement (3) the exchange between TH Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce(4) the idea that the naturalist on the Beagle was Charles Darwin.
Films are very bad at this. I still remember Mel Gibson's atrocious film where he had the Romans speek Latin, whereas if he'd done any homework, he would have known they would be speaking Greek. And on the subject, Dan Brown's latest book introduces the letter H into Greek. Which is I suppose fractionaly better than Digital Fortress which has a 12 ton Enigma Machine!
Even contemporary stuff is wrong. Watching "A Beatiful Mind", one would be forgiven for thinking John Nash had visual hallucinations; he didn't - they were just auditory.
 October 9, 2009 at 6:50 PM    

Judith Weingarten said...
the bishop’s aims against Orestes were political, since Orestes was a fellow Christian
But Socrates S. tells us that the monks accused Orestes of being an idolater (i.e. pagan) and hurled other insults whereupon Ammonius threw the stone. It's quite possible that Cyril though he was playing politics, but the monks had their own issues.
The accusation of 'sorcery' against one who inquires into the origin of things is hardly new in the 7th C.
Did I say it was?
Well, yes, implicitly: It represents the prejudices and ignorance of a much later strand of Christian thought ...
... and it doesn't square at all with accounts that were far closer to the events.
I think you take too literal a view of what Socrates S said, certainly if you read the monks' "zeal" --whether "ardent" or "fierce and bigoted" -- as purely political (rather as Joe the Plumber might be said to be zealous). Anyway, Socrates S., too, certainly had his own agenda, and what he says and doesn't say is rather too much for a blog comment.
Thanks for this interesting post ... and comments.
 October 9, 2009 at 11:21 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
But Socrates S. tells us that the monks accused Orestes of being an idolater (i.e. pagan) and hurled other insults whereupon Ammonius threw the stone.
And since we know that Orestes wasn't a pagan then we know that this is all this epiphet was - an insult.
 It's quite possible that Cyril though he was playing politics, but the monks had their own issues.
Sorry, but you’re reading that into the evidence. The monks’ issue was that Orestes was obstructing their guy in his attempt at flexing some more political muscle and challenging the prefect for political dominance. That’s all the evidence indicates.
The accusation of 'sorcery' against one who inquires into the origin of things is hardly new in the 7th C.
Did I say it was?
Well, yes, implicitly: It represents the prejudices and ignorance of a much later strand of Christian thought ...
Then you’ve misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn’t claiming that this accusation was unknown before the Seventh Century. I was simply pointing out that a Seventh Century Christian would never have met a pagan, let alone a female one who was also a scholar. Such an exotic and remote figure would have been a bogeyman for such a writer, whereas she would not be (and clearly wasn’t) for the contemporary writers. So John of Nikui’s projection of dark and evil aspects onto Hypatia makes sense. But the fact that there is no hint of anything similar in the earlier sources indicates that it reflects his own fears and ignorance, which are to be expected given when he was writing, and not some historical accusation against Hypatia.
I think you take too literal a view of what Socrates S said, certainly if you read the monks' "zeal" --whether "ardent" or "fierce and bigoted" -- as purely political (rather as Joe the Plumber might be said to be zealous).
Sorry, but reading what the sources actually say rather than projecting what I’d like them to mean is what proper historians do. You’re projecting ideas that simply aren’t there onto evidence. However much you want Hypatia to have been a martyr for paganism/science/learning/whatever, that isn’t in the evidence. End of story.
 October 13, 2009 at 9:08 AM    

Judith Weingarten said...
End of story? I rather doubt it.
For one thing, I wonder how you know from our meagre sources not only what John of Nikui was thinking when he wrote his words, but what the maddened monks were not thinking (only politics! nothing else) when they murdered Hypatia.
For another thing, what is your evidence for claiming that I "want Hypatia to have been a martyr for paganism/science/learning/whatever"? What in my blog text supports that statement?
End of my comments. We've carried on long enough :-)
October 15, 2009 at 1:59 AM    

Javier Chacón said...
Well, if you really watch the movie, the truth is that two leader of Christian groups fight is shown. The fact of science is not as much a cause of her death as Cirilo jealosy.
In fact, what Cirilo hates about Hypatia is that she has influences in Orestes, and the final explanation he uses to convince the rest to kill Hypatia was "a man can't be influenced by any women".
By the way, Hypatia discovers something new that no one knows, and she is killed before she can tell anyone what she discovered, but a slave and the killers, that use it just as a "final joke", as they were going to kill her anyway. So, the way Christians avoid science evolution is just a bad luck thing. They didn't like her to refuse God and love science, of course, but it's not the motive of murderer, that is really that fight between Christians, a politic thing.
I guess you could watch it anyway, and make up your own idea instead of just reading others talking about it. And by the way, it's not Hollywood, I know you are just using it as a "bad movies" label, but it's an Spanish movie (and I'm Spanish, so I apologize for my English).
 October 16, 2009 at 2:37 AM    

Cid, o Campeador said...
Hi Tim,
I suggest you to return to the IMDb message board of Agora, because some idiot just posted there this piece of pseudo-historical nonsense: "It was high time someone put christianism in its place. Loved it.
We had more than a thousand years of scientific blackout due to christianism, this is outrageous. So much knowledge gone to waste."
WTF?! It's really amazing how many people believe that it was the rise of Christianity that caused the so-called "Dark Ages" and propagate this nonsense as historical fact. What's the matter with History teachers these days?
 October 26, 2009 at 4:42 AM    

 Dan said...
"What's the matter with History teachers these days?"
They are now, finnaly, independent of biased governamental pressures based on western christian/catholic fascism.
I know because I was a victim of that educational system during my childhood. Those cowards used the fact that "we" were children to teach us catholic religion during intervals. What little children will question a nice lady that brings candys and books with stories - and as the aproval of your own teachers?
And this is was in the end of the 80s... of the 20th century, in a EU country! One can only imagine how it must have been in the early middle ages!
 December 22, 2009 at 5:33 AM    

Cid, o Campeador said... This comment has been removed by the author.  December 23, 2009 at 10:47 AM    

Cid, o Campeador said...
"They are now, finnaly, independent of biased governamental pressures based on western christian/catholic fascism."
Tell me, do you truly think that Christianity had something to do with the general decrease in literacy in Western Europe during the period 500-1000 AD?? If so, can you explain please why the very Christian Byzantine Empire (which was even more christianized than the West) was not also affected by this particular phenomenon?
Anyway, here are a couple of books which might help your understanding of this historical period:
Regine Pernoud, Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths

Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages:Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts
And concerning the Byzantine Empire, I would recommend:
Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire

Note: all these books contain real history done by real scholars (sharp, objective and unbiased) and not some kind of ideologically driven piece of pseudo-historical fantasy like the one you seem to indulge in. Good reading!
 December 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM    

Caturo said...
The incident was generally regarded with horror and disgust by Christians, with Socrates Scholasticus making his feelings about it quite clear:»
Actually, the bishop John of Nikiu (seventh century) condemned Hypatia and supported her murder. And a bishop is a lot more important and representative than a simple historian.
 January 22, 2010 at 11:38 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Caturo wrote:
Actually, the bishop John of Nikiu (seventh century) condemned Hypatia and supported her murder. And a bishop is a lot more important and representative than a simple historian.
John of Niku was writing hundreds of years later, when the very idea of a female pagan philosopher was incomprehensible. His comments have no historical value as to the attitudes of the time at all. Try to examine the evidence in context before commenting.
 January 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM    

mamiel said...
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say in this post. I agree that we don't know the reasons for the destruction of the library in Alexandria, but we can't rule out Christian fanaticism as a possible cause.
Hypatia was caught up in between warring factions of Christians at a time when Christians were persecuting Jews and Hellenic polytheists. If she were Christian she would have been spared. This is a story of Christian persecution in the name of the "one true God". Nothing new there. During this time pagan temples were destroyed and Jews persecuted. Hypatia was, in my thinking, one of many polytheistic victims of Christian fanaticism.
 January 23, 2010 at 5:22 AM    

Caturo said...
Actually, you didn't even care to examine the arguments of John of Nikiu - no, it was not just a matter of being a woman, but also of being a Pagan.
Moreover, the argument that the coptic bishop lived hundreds of years later is in this case not important, since the Christian intolerance against Paganism was already in scene in Hypatia time. Actually, the cleric responsible for her death, Cyril, was sainted.
 January 23, 2010 at 7:19 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
mamile said:
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say in this post.
Really? I would have thought it was pretty obvious that I was saying this movie is distorting history.
I agree that we don't know the reasons for the destruction of the library in Alexandria, but we can't rule out Christian fanaticism as a possible cause.
"Reasons" aren't the issue. The issue is when the destruction happened and by whom. The EVIDENCE indicates that the Great Library didn't exist in this period and that there was no library in the Serapeum. That's why Ammianus talked about how the Serapeum had housed a library in the past and why none of the accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum mentions any library or books being destroyed. The whole idea that the destruction of the Serapeum was, somehow, a destruction of "the Great Library" is a myth however you cut it. A myth this movie perpetuates.
Hypatia was caught up in between warring factions of Christians at a time when Christians were persecuting Jews and Hellenic polytheists.
But the warring factions in question were warring over political supremacy, not religion.
If she were Christian she would have been spared.
Really? And you have evidence to back up that remarkable statement? The monk who threw a rock at Orestes was a Christian and he wasn't "spared". Orestes had him tortured to death. So Cyril's boys snatched Hypatia and did the same to her in revenge. Religion had nothing to do with it.
This is a story of Christian persecution in the name of the "one true God". Nothing new there.
So people keep insisting. Yet they can't provide any evidence to back this up. Her death was political.
During this time pagan temples were destroyed and Jews persecuted.
That had zero to do with her murder. Read the sources.
Hypatia was, in my thinking, one of many polytheistic victims of Christian fanaticism.
The actual evidence says otherwise. Your "thinking" is a fantasy.
 January 23, 2010 at 8:18 AM    

Judith Weingarten said...
Mamiel, Caturo, and others,
You are wasting your time trying to argue with Tim O'Neill. He's an "amateur historian", and that's a breed dedicated to knowing what historians can't know or don't want to know. Presumably, years of study only make you elitist or conspiratorial or whatever.
 January 23, 2010 at 8:21 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Caturo said:
Actually, you didn't even care to examine the arguments of John of Nikiu - no, it was not just a matter of being a woman, but also of being a Pagan.
Which I noted in my last comment. Yes, a bishop writing hundreds of years later in a period where a female pagan scholar was (i) unknown and (ii) a bogeyman highlighted that as the reason for her death. But the CONTEMPORARY sources did not. If any of the sources of the time said something similar then we could pay attention to Nikiu and figure he was drawing on some source, knowledge or sentiment of Hypatia's time. But they don't. So it's clear he's simply imposing the prejudices of his own time on the story.
Moreover, the argument that the coptic bishop lived hundreds of years later is in this case not important, since the Christian intolerance against Paganism was already in scene in Hypatia time.
Show me where this is found in any of the contemporary accounts of her death.
Actually, the cleric responsible for her death, Cyril, was sainted.
And the relevance of that would be ... ?
 January 23, 2010 at 8:23 AM    

Caturo said...
«Yes, a bishop writing hundreds of years later in a period where a female pagan scholar was (i) unknown and (ii) a bogeyman highlighted that as the reason for her death. But the CONTEMPORARY sources did not.»
Your problem is that there is not much difference, in the context, between contemporary and a few centuries later. Especially because the bishop is Egyptian.

«If any of the sources of the time said something similar»
Well, Damascius was born in the same century that Hypatia was murdered and he blames the Christian intolerance, including Cyril.

«then we could pay attention to Nikiu»
We could and we can, for this no reason at all why the Christians would collectively change their mind concerning the Pagans.

«Show me where this is found in any of the contemporary accounts of her death»
It's quite simple - the conflicts between Christians and Pagans in the city were quite common, as the film clearly, and intelligently, shows.

Actually, the cleric responsible for her death, Cyril, was sainted.
«And the relevance of that would be ... ?»
That a man blamed for such a nauseating murder could notwithstanding be considered a saint.
 January 23, 2010 at 8:42 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Caturo said:
Your problem is that there is not much difference, in the context, between contemporary and a few centuries later. Especially because the bishop is Egyptian.
Sorry, how is this my "problem"? Nikiu wrote centuries later and is the only source to attribute her death to anything to do with her paganism or her learning. The contemporary sources, which are far more detailed and which TELL us the motive was political, don't so much as hint this. So how the hell can you dismiss this as "not much difference". It's an enormous difference and it kills your argument dead.
Well, Damascius was born in the same century that Hypatia was murdered and he blames the Christian intolerance, including Cyril.
Garbage. Damascius says Cyril's motive was jealousy and rivalry and make absolutely no mention of "Christian intolerance". His exact words:
"When Cyril learned this he was so struck with envy that he immediately began plotting her murder."
Envy. Clear enough for you? Stop reading what you would like to be the case into the evidence.
That a man blamed for such a nauseating murder could notwithstanding be considered a saint.
You still haven't explained the relevance of that to anything I'm saying. And if you're bothered by Cyril being made a saint, I'd suggest you take that up with a Christian, not with me.
 January 23, 2010 at 9:43 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Judith Weingarten said:
You are wasting your time trying to argue with Tim O'Neill. He's an "amateur historian", and that's a breed dedicated to knowing what historians can't know or don't want to know. Presumably, years of study only make you elitist or conspiratorial or whatever.
What a bizarre comment. I have no idea why you think I need some kind of scolding about the value of the work of professional scholars, since this whole blog is devoted to reviews of books by just such people (well, mostly).
But your comment above is even more weird given that the only major study of Hypatia by a professional scholar - that of Maria Dzielska - comes to precisely the same conclusions that I do. Dzielska also details how the idea that Hypatia was a martyr for paganism/science/feminism/whatever is a persistent pot-Enlightenment myth.
And it seems to be a powerful and important one to many to this day, judging on the number of people who stop by here to insist she was a martyr in defiance of the evidence.
So, given the professional historians are on my side, what was your snide little sneering point again?
 January 23, 2010 at 11:55 AM    

TonyTheProf said...
On Sagan, in "The Demon Haunted World", he claims that "the skeptical, enquiring, experimental method" came from the Ancient Greeks.
Yes as Armand Leroy showed with Aristotle, when it came to the natural world Aristotle was an keen and sharp observationist (who would dissect to seek better observations), but had no idea of experimental method - which is why he got it wrong with spontaneous generation (biology) and the motion of a falling object (physics). And when Francesco Redi looked at spontaneous generation, he tested the idea by a controlled experiment.
Stephen Toulmin and June Goodfield in "The Fabric of the Heavens" show how the Greeks observed, computed and argued, but with rare exceptions, did not experiment, i.e., construct tests of theory.
And while Aristarchus of Samos (whom Sagan mentions in Cosmos) proposed a heliocentric view, he was only one of two Greeks who did so, and while he made extremely good calculations of solar distances, he did not consider or argue how to test his theory experimentally against the geocentric one.
Experimental methods really only began to take off in the Arab world of the early Middle Ages, so for Sagan to place it in ancient Greece is anachronistic, to say the least.
 January 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM    

Caturo said...
«Nikiu wrote centuries later»
That's of secondary importance, since the Christian intolerance was the same.

«and is the only source to attribute her death to anything»
How many sources do you have?

«The contemporary sources,»
Wait - how many sources do you have, besided Socrates Scholasticus?

««which are far more detailed»
Well, the Socrates Scholasticus' account is not far more deitalled that Nikiu's version.

«and which TELL us the motive was political,»
Yes, and Nikiu TELL us that the motive was not only political but mainly religious. So what?

«So how the hell can you dismiss this as "not much difference"»
As I did just now, again.

«It's an enormous difference»
No, it is not.

«and it kills your argument dead»
No, your problem is that it does not.
 January 25, 2010 at 10:33 PM    

Caturo said...
Well, Damascius was born in the same century that Hypatia was murdered and he blames the Christian intolerance, including Cyril.
«Damascius says Cyril's motive was jealousy and rivalry and make absolutely no mention of "Christian intolerance"»
Actually, the reference to the Christian intolerance is implicit:
"Thus it happened one day that Cyril, bishop of the opposition sect [i.e. Christianity] was passing by Hypatia's house, and he saw a great crowd of people and horses in front of her door. Some were arriving, some departing, and others standing around. When he asked why there was a crowd there and what all the fuss was about, he was told by her followers that it was the house of Hypatia the philosopher and she was about to greet them. When Cyril learned this he was so struck with envy that he immediately began plotting her murder and the most heinous form of murder at that."
So, even in that case your theory is not supported.
"When Cyril learned this he was so struck with envy that he immediately began plotting her murder."
«Envy. Clear enough for you?»
What is clear, really clear, is that you felt the need to cut the previous part, explaining WHY was he «jealous». No, it was not just a personal issue, but a «jealousy» due to Christian natural intolerance, the constant hate for the possibility that a non Christian could be socially and culturally important.

That a man blamed for such a nauseating murder could notwithstanding be considered a saint.
«You still haven't explained the relevance of that to anything»
Well, it was obvious, but, apparently, you need an explanation: if Socrates Scholasticus account that the murder was contrary to Christian tolerance was valuable, such a murderer like Cyril would never have be sainted.
 January 25, 2010 at 10:33 PM    

Caturo said...
Moreover, contrary to what you said, the temple of Serapis did have a part of the Alexandria library, which, again contrary to what you said, was not over after Caesar's fire.
 January 25, 2010 at 10:38 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
The fanatics continue:
«Nikiu wrote centuries later»
That's of secondary importance, since the Christian intolerance was the same.
That's simply assuming your own conclusion. No Christian intolerance is found in Socrates' account nor in Damascius' slightly later one. Which is why you're desperately clinging to this one from centuries later.
Yes, and Nikiu TELL us that the motive was not only political but mainly religious. So what?
So why are you ignoring the clear evidence from the contemporary account of Socrates that the motive was NOT political and paying attention to something written centuries later? Oh yes - that's why: your ideological bias.
Well, Damascius was born in the same century that Hypatia was murdered and he blames the Christian intolerance
Garbage.
Actually, the reference to the Christian intolerance is implicit:

"Implicit" so long as you use Jeremiah Reedy's translation, which helpfully reads in this idea that Cyril's envy was somehow religious rather than political. Oh, and helpfully adds the words "[i.e. Christianity]" to his translation "the opposition sect" just to make this interpretation perfectly clear.
Except this is not what the Greek says at all. Here's the key section from the Suda:
 ... τὸν ἐπισκοποῦντα τὴν ἀντικειμένην αἵρεσιν Κύριλλον ...
And the key word here is αἵρεσιν. Does it specifically mean "sect", as in a religious group? No, it doesn't. The word literally means "choice, opinion" and is from the verb αἱρέομαι, meaning "to take or choose". And it refers to any group who has chosen a position in opposition to that chosen by others - a philosophical school, a religious group or a political faction.
And we already know from Socrates Scholasticus that Cyril was the head of "the opposing faction" - the political faction that opposed his fellow Christian and political rival Orestes. The same Orestes who counted Hypatia amongst his supporters.
So translating αἵρεσιν as "sect" and then adding "[i.e. Christianity]" skews the interpretation of the what the text says. It doesn't say "(religious) sect" at all - it uses a much broader term. And Damascius' account fits quite happily with that of Socrates - Cyril was motivated by his political rivalry with Orestes. He makes no reference to any religious motives, which have to be read into the text to make them magically appear in the translation. They aren't there in the Greek.
Well, it was obvious, but, apparently, you need an explanation: if Socrates Scholasticus account that the murder was contrary to Christian tolerance was valuable, such a murderer like Cyril would never have be sainted.
Apart from not being coherent or literate as English, that sentence doesn't even make logical sense.
 January 25, 2010 at 11:46 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
And so it goes on ...:
Moreover, contrary to what you said, the temple of Serapis did have a part of the Alexandria library, which, again contrary to what you said, was not over after Caesar's fire.
Really? And you just jumped in your time machine and found this out, did you? I go over the evidence that it didn't contain any library by the time it came to be destroyed in my post. Simply shouting "IT DID!" doesn't make the fact that Ammianus referred to a library having been in IN THE PAST TENSE suddenly go away.
I didn't say it was wholly destroyed by the fire in Caesar's time anyway:
"More likely this and/or other fires were part of a long process of decline and degradation of the collection."
Please stop wasting my time with this dribble. You clearly don't have a clue and are now just having a little hissy fit. Go away.
 January 26, 2010 at 12:00 AM    

Judith Weingarten said...
Catura, I told you that you were wasting your time. 'Amateurs' are remarkably certain of their interpretations and know exactly what our meagre sources really mean. That's what Charles Freeman was trying to explain in connection with another post.
Tim, before you scold people whose native language may not be English for poor sentence structure, you might also correct your 'dribble' (unless you are foaming at the mouth) to 'drivel' which, if I may be allowed to interpret, is what you meant to say.
 January 26, 2010 at 12:12 AM    

Caturo said...
«That's simply assuming your own conclusion. No Christian intolerance is found in Socrates' account nor in Damascius' slightly later one.»
That's blatantly wrong. The Christian intolerance is visible in Damascius' account.
And the fact that you so nervously try to deny it does not favour your fragile position.

«Which is why you're desperately linging to this one from centuries later.»
Actually, the despair is entirely yours, since, after all, your so-called «sources» is... one source... against two of mine.

Yes, and Nikiu TELL us that the motive was not only political but mainly religious. So what?
«So why are you ignoring the clear evidence from the contemporary account of Socrates that the motive was NOT political»
Make up your mind. Was it political or not?

«that's why: your ideological bias»
No, the ad hominem «argument» does not help you either. Especially because that one also turns against you, since your bias is evident since the first lines of your mediocre post, namely, but not only, in your hurry to discredit all the aspects of the film and in your feeble attempt of being sarcastic.

Well, Damascius was born in the same century that Hypatia was murdered and he blames the Christian intolerance
«Garbage»
No, solid argument. Deal with it.
 January 26, 2010 at 1:19 AM    

Caturo said...
Actually, the reference to the Christian intolerance is implicit:
«"Implicit" so long as you use Jeremiah Reedy's translation, which helpfully reads in this idea that Cyril's envy was somehow religious rather than political. Oh, and helpfully adds the words "[i.e. Christianity]" to his translation "the opposition sect" just to make this interpretation perfectly clear.
Except this is not what the Greek says at all. Here's the key section from the Suda:
... τὸν ἐπισκοποῦντα τὴν ἀντικειμένην αἵρεσιν Κύριλλον ...
And the key word here is αἵρεσιν. Does it specifically mean "sect", as in a religious group? No, it doesn't. The word literally means "choice, opinion" and is from the verb αἱρέομαι, meaning "to take or choose". And it refers to any group who has chosen a position in opposition to that chosen by others - a philosophical school, a religious group or a political faction.»
Which, still, does not help you, for what is known is that Hypatia was not a Christian. Therefore, the most obvious conclusion, until further and more precise proof, Cyril acted out of religious intolerance.
Also, contrary to what you implied, and conveniently forgot to mention this time, the conflicts between Pagans and Christians were quite common in those days, in Alexandria.

«So translating αἵρεσιν as "sect" and then adding "[i.e. Christianity]" skews the interpretation of the what the text says. It doesn't say "(religious) sect" at all»
It does not say the contrary as well - and, given the religious context of Alexandria, it is quite plausible that Damascius was referring the known Christian intolerance.

«And Damascius' account fits quite happily with that of Socrates»
In your interpretation, only, not at it's face value.

Well, it was obvious, but, apparently, you need an explanation: if Socrates Scholasticus's account that the murder was contrary to Christian tolerance was correct, such a murderer like Cyril would never have been sainted.
«Apart from not being coherent»
Read it again.
 January 26, 2010 at 1:20 AM    

Caturo said...
«Really? And you just jumped in your time machine and found this out, did you?»
No. I just read honestly, contrary to what you did.

«I go over the evidence that it didn't contain any library by the time it came to be destroyed in my post.»

And you go over wrongly: the Serapeum did have a part of the library of Alexandria.

«Simply shouting "IT DID!" doesn't make the fact that Ammianus referred to a library having been in IN THE PAST TENSE suddenly go away.»
The only one here who is shouting is you, only to divert attentions from your grotescque attitude of of giving a mere hypothesis as a proven fact. That is, again, poor scholarship of yours. The fact that the reference you quote is «IN THE PAST TENSE», as you so vividly yell, does NOT OBVIOUSLY MEAN that the library had gone entirely by the time that the temple was burned down by the Christian mob.
 January 26, 2010 at 1:29 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
The howling continues ...
Catura, I told you that you were wasting your time. 'Amateurs' are remarkably certain of their interpretations and know exactly what our meagre sources really mean.
You're an amateur when it comes to history as well Judith, so who exactly are you trying to smear here? And, as I pointed out to you already, the professional historian who has examined these "meagre sources" - Maria Dzielska - agrees with ME. You've fallen on your arse once with that feeble little jibe. Now it's twice. A third time for luck?
That's what Charles Freeman was trying to explain in connection with another post.
Sorry, all I saw in Freeman's meandering mumble was a long excuse for not actually tackling my critique of his flawed book. PS Freeman is also one of those horrid "amateurs".
you might also correct your 'dribble' (unless you are foaming at the mouth) to 'drivel' which, if I may be allowed to interpret, is what you meant to say.
I meant precisely what I said. And I clearly meant that it's this "Caturo" person who is doing the dribbling.
Now, unless you actually have something of substance to add rather than rather flaccid attempts at being slightly bitchy, you can now go away.
Goodbye.
 January 26, 2010 at 6:50 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Mr "If I Say It Enough It Becomes True!" stated:
That's blatantly wrong. The Christian intolerance is visible in Damascius' account.
Where? In your imagination only. Damascius tells us that Cyril's motive was "envy". Nothing more. And he even notes that while "according to some, [this was the fault of] Cyril", he points out that others attributed it to "the inveterate insolence and rebelliousness of the Alexandrians".
No, the ad hominem «argument» does not help you either.
What frigging "ad hominem"? Your anti-Christian bias in this is perfectly blatant. What bias do I have? I'm an atheist, so if anything I should be inclined towards the idea that she was the victim of Christian intolerance. Except, unlike you, I'm looking at the sources objectively and making sure I don't read in things that aren't there or clutching at a later source simply because it says what I want the earlier ones to say.
Especially because that one also turns against you, since your bias is evident since the first lines of your mediocre post, namely, but not only, in your hurry to discredit all the aspects of the film and in your feeble attempt of being sarcastic.
What fucking twaddle. I only wanted to criticise ONE aspect of this film: its distortion of history and its perpetuation of this myth of Hypatia as some kind of martyr. And I do so because I don't like biases that warp the objective analysis of history.
Which, still, does not help you, for what is known is that Hypatia was not a Christian. Therefore, the most obvious conclusion, until further and more precise proof, Cyril acted out of religious intolerance.
That isn't the "most obvious conclusion", it's simply your assumption. Damascius says NOTHING about "religious intolerance", nor does he imply any such thing. You had to use Reedy's mistranslation to even try to pretend he does, but unfortunately for you αἵρεσιν doesn't specifically mean "sect". Damascius tells us Cyril's motive was "envy" and Socrates says explicitly "(Hypatia) fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed". So that's "envy" and "political jealousy" in BOTH of our earliest sources. Could they make it more clear to you? Open your eyes.
if Socrates Scholasticus's account that the murder was contrary to Christian tolerance was correct, such a murderer like Cyril would never have been sainted.
That still makes no sense.
The fact that the reference you quote is «IN THE PAST TENSE», as you so vividly yell, does NOT OBVIOUSLY MEAN that the library had gone entirely by the time that the temple was burned down by the Christian mob.
So Ammianus tells us that the Serapeum used to contain a library and then goes on in the very same sentence to talk about how the former Great Library was burned by Caesar. Yet - somehow - this sentence ISN'T telling us that it contained no library when Ammianus visited Alexandria? This makes sense to you?
And Rufinus Tyrannius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Theodoret and Eunapius of Antioch all give us accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum, yet none of them so much as hint about any library or books being destroyed. Eunapius was a vehement anti-Christian, yet he somehow forgets to mention that this Christian mob not only destroyed a beautiful temple but also burned the last part of the Great Library of Alexandria. This all makes sense to you?
What absolute garbage. There is NO evidence that there was still any kind of library in the Serapeum when it was destroyed. Ammianus makes it perfectly clear that it no longer contained any book collection when he was there. Again, your warped bias has you imagining things that simply aren't in the evidence.
 January 26, 2010 at 7:26 AM    

Caturo said...
«Catura, I told you that you were wasting your time. 'Amateurs' are remarkably certain of their interpretations and know exactly what our meagre sources really mean.»
Right on the mark, Judith. Actually, I was thinking precisely the same, it's typical of non academic observers to take as absolute certainties their feeble hypothesis.
 January 26, 2010 at 7:37 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
When will this bullshit stop?:
Right on the mark, Judith. Actually, I was thinking precisely the same, it's typical of non academic observers to take as absolute certainties their feeble hypothesis.
Yet again, I've got the academic who has devoted a whole monograph on Hypatia in history and myth on my side. In fact, I first got an inkling that the standard "Hypatia as martyr" story was crap from reading Dzielska's study. So who are the "non academic observers" in this little discussion again?
You've failed at every turn and your little friend hasn't even bothered to actually enter the debate and is simply squealing from the sidelines. Give up. Seriously, just give up.
 January 26, 2010 at 7:45 AM    

Caturo said...
That's blatantly wrong. The Christian intolerance is visible in Damascius' account.
«Where? In your imagination only. Damascius tells us that Cyril's motive was "envy"´»
Wrong again. Your habilities as an «historian» are violently limited by your narrow analysis, quite common in pre-university students. Again, once and for all: the fact that Damascius use the word «envy» DOES NOT, by any mean, imply that it was just a personal matter, let alone a political matter - because, since we are chosing to be petty, well, no political dispute and fear of being politically defeated in the political arena is explained by the meaning of the word «envy».

«And he even notes that while "according to some, [this was the fault of] Cyril", he points out that others attributed it to "the inveterate insolence and rebelliousness of the Alexandrians".»
Oh really, but which Alexandrians? The Pagan Alexandrians? Certainly not. The Christians, evidently, just like Nikiu confirms.

«Your anti-Christian bias in this is perfectly blatant»
Actually, that is irrelevant after the blatant, and non informed, and mediocre, bias that you display against a film which you most probably did not see.
 January 26, 2010 at 8:34 AM    

Caturo said...
«Except, unlike you, I'm looking at the sources objectively»
That you are not being objective is a given. Or else, I am discussing with a ten years old child who does not distinguish between hypothesis and certainties.

«clutching at a later source»
No, you are just dismissing a later source just because you don't like it. And what is more significant, and blatantly show your lack of academic background, is that you really believe to be acting brilliantly just by saying that «it's a later source!», as if it were enough.
What we do have in fact is:
 - sources that can be interpreted differently according the different perspectives;
 - a blatantly direct source, saying what you don't like to read.
That's all - objectively speaking.

«What fucking twaddle. I only wanted to criticise ONE»
Garbage. You even pick the hypothetical «old age» of Hypatia to say that Amenabar chosed a younger actress, as if all that he wanted was to be comercial. What is worst is that even there you have no certainties that allow you to accuse Amenabar of distorting anything.

«aspect of this film: its distortion of history»
Not a single distortion of history in the film.
 January 26, 2010 at 8:34 AM    

Caturo said...
Which, still, does not help you, for what is known is that Hypatia was not a Christian. Therefore, the most obvious conclusion, until further and more precise proof, Cyril acted out of religious intolerance.
«That isn't the "most obvious conclusion", it's simply your assumption»
No, it's what Nikiu says.

«Damascius says NOTHING about "religious intolerance",»
He does imply it, according one of the translations available. Yours is different, which does not mean that yours is the right one, or that «sect» could not mean «religious PARTY».

«nor does he imply any such thing»
Yes, he does.

«Damascius tells us Cyril's motive was "envy"»
A word that you certainly do not understand in it's general meanings.

«and Socrates says explicitly "(Hypatia) fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed".»
Yes - but, unfortunately for you, he does not says that such «political jealousy» is not related to religion, and this is happening in a social a political context dominated by the hate between religions, including Paganism.
Also, "she became the head of the Platonist school at Alexandria in 400" (Wikipedia), and Platonism was not well accepted by the Christians at the time - actually, the Neoplathonic Academy was closed by Justinian, precisely because it was a center of Hellenism.

if Socrates Scholasticus's account that the murder was contrary to Christian tolerance was correct, such a murderer like Cyril would never have been sainted.
«That still makes no sense.»
Yes, it does - Socrates Scholasticus's word deserves some doubt, thus it cannot be accepted as a certainty. Also, he MIGHT be hiding something or trying to deny it.


The fact that the reference you quote is «IN THE PAST TENSE», as you so vividly yell, does NOT OBVIOUSLY MEAN that the library had gone entirely by the time that the temple was burned down by the Christian mob.
«So Ammianus tells us that the Serapeum used to contain a library and then goes on in the very same sentence to talk about how the former Great Library was burned by Caesar. Yet - somehow - this sentence ISN'T telling us that it contained no library when Ammianus visited Alexandria? This makes sense to you?»
What does not make any sense, not by a long shot, is to presume that the very place in which he SAID that there was a library, suddenly stops having a library, as if the books were, what?, eaten by mice?
It is quite evident: if one says that a famous public building containning a library was burned down, it is not needed to say that each piece inside was equally burned, it goes without saying.
So, according to yourself, Ammianus SAID that the Serapeum had a library. And that's ALL. No more talk about books. And you assume that suddenly there were no books at the library?
...
Now, that is utterly ridiculous.

«And Rufinus Tyrannius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Theodoret and Eunapius of Antioch all give us accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum, yet none of them so much as hint about any library or books being destroyed.»
Same as above... unless you imply that Ammianus was lying when he mentioned the library at the Serapeum.

«Ammianus makes it perfectly clear that it no longer contained any book collection»
WHERE does Ammianus says that?
 January 26, 2010 at 8:35 AM    

Caturo said...
«Yet again, I've got the academic who has devoted a whole monograph on Hypatia in history and myth on my side. In fact,»
Well, bring her then to the debate, because your arguments, in particular, are not convincing.

«You've failed at every turn»
No, I debased each and every one of your arguments and «objections» to the film. And that's what is irritating you so much.
 January 26, 2010 at 8:38 AM    

JuliannaLees said...
I've just come home from seeing the film - which I ENJOYED despite certain longueurs interspersed with horribly violent scenes. I knew that the film was fiction and not a documentary but looked forward to the reconstructions of Alexandria. So I was not disappointed. Now I've had the fun of learning how it really was as my previous knowledge of Hypatia's story was tenuous.
I've had an enjoyable film experience, I've learnt a lot from reading your site, tomorrow I'll discuss the ins & outs with husband & friends - so what's the problem? Let's have more films like "Agora"!
 January 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM    

Judith Weingarten said...
This is exhausting but, Tim, I am an academic (sorry for that) albeit 1) I have also written an historical novel [shock,horror] and it's true that my academic specialization is in an earlier period. Say what you will, though, I am not an 'amateur' and neither, in my opinion, is Charles Freeman.
I have read, by the way, Dzielska's excellent study. She handled the sources well but I still think she was wrong to take Socrates Scholasticus so literally -- as if he didn't have an agenda, too.
 January 26, 2010 at 10:11 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
The torrent continues ... :
Wrong again. Your habilities as an «historian» are violently limited by your narrow analysis, quite common in pre-university students.
I love the way you keep trying to throw out this kind of crap and then have the balls to accuse me of ad hominems. Newsflash: I have a Masters degree and Dzielska has a PhD. "Pre-university students"?
the fact that Damascius use the word «envy» DOES NOT, by any mean, imply that it was just a personal matter, let alone a political matter
Damascius says Cyril was motivated by "envy" and calls him part of "the opposing faction". Socrates tells us Hypatia was murdered as a result of "political jealousies". I'm simply going on what the earliest sources tell us. You, on the other hand, are reading in some religious element that simply isn't there.
Actually, that is irrelevant after the blatant, and non informed, and mediocre, bias that you display against a film which you most probably did not see.
It hasn't been released in Australia yet, so my comments were made about what the director of the film said he was trying to depict. Was he lying? And what "bias" am I supposed to have? What position do you think I hold that somehow makes me unreasonably "biased" agains this film?
That you are not being objective is a given.
Yet you can't explain what position I hold that would make me unobjective. I'm not a Christian, so it can't be that. What is it then?
Or else, I am discussing with a ten years old child who does not distinguish between hypothesis and certainties.
I can distinguish between what is most likely given what the evidence says vs some wishful thinking motivated by a biased, anti-Christian agenda.
No, you are just dismissing a later source just because you don't like it. And what is more significant, and blatantly show your lack of academic background, is that you really believe to be acting brilliantly just by saying that «it's a later source!», as if it were enough.
I have a rather solid academic background thanks, so you might want to drop that rather pathetic insult. If Nikiu's version had any support in the earlier source, I wouldn't be arguing with you on this at all. But he doesn't. The motives he imputes are found nowhere in either Damascius nor Socrates. And any history undergraduate would tell you that when you find something in a much later source that is not in the earlier sources, the later source is suspect.
You even pick the hypothetical «old age» of Hypatia to say that Amenabar chosed a younger actress, as if all that he wanted was to be comercial.
If Hypatia was older, then this is another historical inaccuracy. So this is inconsistent with my criticisms of the film's depiction of history ... how, exactly? You're making no sense.
What is worst is that even there you have no certainties that allow you to accuse Amenabar of distorting anything.
I said that "but Maria Dzielska argues this is 15-20 years too late and suggests AD 350 to be more accurate". Then I say that if this were true then "should perhaps be played by Helen Mirren rather than Rachel Weisz".
"Argues"? "Suggests?" "Perhaps"? I know your grasp of English is weak, but how even you can translate those words into "certainties". In other words, more petty misrepresentation on your part.
 January 26, 2010 at 10:15 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Part II:
That isn't the "most obvious conclusion", it's simply your assumption
No, it's what Nikiu says
We're talking about what Damascius says.
He does imply it, according one of the translations available.
No, the translator choose to read that in by translating αἵρεσιν as "sect" rather than "faction" or simply "group". So the translator has skewed the text to make it mean something that isn't there.
or that «sect» could not mean «religious PARTY»
The word "sect" isn't in the text - the word is αἵρεσιν, which has a much broader meaning. Take "sect" out of the translation and give it its broader meaning and all religious implications disappear
and Socrates says explicitly "(Hypatia) fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed"
Yes - but, unfortunately for you, he does not says that such «political jealousy» is not related to religion
And over and over again your argument depends on what the texts don't say and your consistent assumption of what you'd like them to mean. Damascius doesn't say anything about religion, but you blithely read that into his text anyway. Socrates says nothing about religion either, but because he doesn't specifically say the politics weren't religious (?!! why would he do that?), you read that in there as well.
In other words, it doesn't matter what they say, you're still going to read in a religious motive because ... well, because if you don't your whole anti-Christian hissy fit falls on its face.
this is happening in a social a political context dominated by the hate between religions, including Paganism.
Which is irrelevant since both the factions involved in this particular dispute are Christian ones.
Also, "she became the head of the Platonist school at Alexandria in 400" (Wikipedia), and Platonism was not well accepted by the Christians at the time
Right. And this would be the head of the neo-Platonic school that Socrates praises for her wisdom and who counted Bishop Synesius amongst her admirers? This would be the neo-Platonism that Clement of Alexandria embraced and began to reconcile with Christian theology a full century and a half before Hypatia was even born? The neo-Platonism that had been brough to a synthesis with Christianity long before Hypatia's time?
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
the Neoplathonic Academy was closed by Justinian, precisely because it was a center of Hellenism.
Garbage. A neo-Platonic academy in Athens was closed by Justinian over a century after Hypatia's death because it had been founded by an anti-Christian and remained a centre of anti-Christian teachings. Other neo-Platonic schools remained open throughout the Empire, including the one in Alexandria. And neo-Platonism remained the primary philosophy system thought to underpin Christian theology.
Socrates Scholasticus's word deserves some doubt, thus it cannot be accepted as a certainty. Also, he MIGHT be hiding something or trying to deny it.
Again with the wishful thinking. "Faction" might mean "sect". "Political jealousy" might be a reference to religious rivalry. Socrates might be hiding something.
And you still haven't explained why some Christians like Socrates may have disapproved of Cyril and yet he could still become a saint. You do realise that there was no "canonisation" process in the Fifth Century don't you? If enough people in your home city came to call you a saint, you were a saint. That's all it required back then.
 January 26, 2010 at 10:18 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Part III:
What does not make any sense, not by a long shot, is to presume that the very place in which he SAID that there was a library, suddenly stops having a library, as if the books were, what?, eaten by mice?
He says it had housed a library in the past. And then he refers to the burning of the Great Library. We know the Serapeum had suffered several fires in the past and had been rebuilt entirely at least once. Exactly how any library it had once housed came to be destroyed we aren't told, but Ammianus makes it clear that it didn't house any library when he was there. The fact the accounts of its final destruction don't mention any library supports this.
So, again, you're assuming something that is not only not there but is contradicted by what Ammianus says.
if one says that a famous public building containning a library was burned down, it is not needed to say that each piece inside was equally burned
So you're ignoring the fact that Ammianus, writing some years before the destruction of the Serapeum uses the past tense about it housing a library, are assuming it still did and then are assuming none of the five accounts of its destruction mentions that the remains of the fabled Great Library also went up in smoke because this somehow didn't need to be said?
Your capacity for seeing things in the texts that aren't there and ignoring things that are is nothing short of astonishing.
Well, bring her then to the debate, because your arguments, in particular, are not convincing.
I'm not sure that Dr Dzielska has a blogger account. And my arguments and her's are the same. Perhaps you can write a book full of all your "maybes" and "might haves" and "it's implied" bullshit and see if you can get an academic press to publish it. Or perhaps winged monkeys will fly out your arse.
Let's see which happens first.
 January 26, 2010 at 10:19 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
JuliannaLees said:
I've just come home from seeing the film - which I ENJOYED .... I knew that the film was fiction and not a documentary
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a "historical" film on that basis and with that realisation in mind. Hell, I enjoy far schlockier pseudo-historical movies all the time: I just watch them as fantasies.
so what's the problem?
The problem is that people tend not to do their homework on whether what they have seen in a "historical" film or read about as "history" in a novel is accurate, they usually just accept it. So when a director like Amenabar assures them what he's depicted all happened, they believe him. It was the same when Dan Brown assured millions that the so-called "history" in The Da Vinci Code was "all true", most believed him.
Most people get their grasp of history from popular culture. That's why most people believe Medieval people thought the world was flat - because Washington Irving made this up in a novel in 1828 and popular culture has been perpetuating the myth ever since.
That's the problem - the distortion of accurate history.
 January 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Judith:
This is exhausting but, Tim, I am an academic (sorry for that) albeit 1) I have also written an historical novel [shock,horror] and it's true that my academic specialization is in an earlier period.
According to your profile, your field is archaeology, not history. Mine is Medieval literature, not history. I have no doubt you've studied history in the course of your degrees, but then so have I. And I've also taught at university level.
So I am about as qualified as you, have about as much training in history as you and have even been a professional academic in the past. So stop the pathetic sneering about how I don't have the training or background to engage in this kind of analysis - I have as much as you do.
I am not an 'amateur' and neither, in my opinion, is Charles Freeman.
Perhaps you have a paid teaching or research position at an accredited university, but Freeman doesn't. So he's an amateur, like me. Amateurs can do excellent work, so there's nothing wrong with being an amateur scholar. Your rather pathetic attempts at school yard bitchiness tried to imply I don't have the background or training to do the kind of analysis I do here. You were totally wrong.
So unless you have something of substance and relevance to add to this discussion, you can now butt out.
Goodbye.
 January 26, 2010 at 10:40 AM    

TonyTheProf said...
I think you are always going to get a degree of oversimplification and distortion in film; it's that kind of medium. Look at even recent history - "The Dish" (about the Australian relaying the Apollo signal from the moon) distorted some of what had occurred, while anyone watching "A Beautiful Mind" would never think that John Nash's hallucinations were auditory, and not visual as portrayed in the film. I've seen countless dramatised TV and film versions of the TH Huxley/Bishop Wilberforce debate, which is almost certainly a case of "spin" by Huxley.
If recent history and people can be distorted in film, then I don't think too much sleep should be lost over the film about Hypatia. Those that are interested will come across your site, and the excellent book by Maria Dzielska, which will show the limitations of the film.
 January 26, 2010 at 10:45 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Tony wrote:
Those that are interested will come across your site, and the excellent book by Maria Dzielska, which will show the limitations of the film.
Absolutely. It's not like I'm picketing theatres or trying to boycott the film. Hell, I wrote a fucking blog post, I did't shoot the director.
What is remarkable is how many people have come here and tried so hard to defend the film's pseudo-history by pretending it's valid. Some people have some big, rusty, blunt axes to grind and don't want nasty reality to shatter their dearly-held ideological myths.
 January 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM    

TonyTheProf said...
People often have a vested interest in pseudohistory, especially when it feeds conspiracy theories.
Look at the popularity of Dan "this is really factual" Brown, with his Da Vinci Code and Digital Fortress (the one with the 12 ton Enigma machine!)
Another example is the Margaret Murray myth of the "burning times" of witch trials as a persecution by Christians of an underground pagan movement.
In our current culture, usually anything that can be taken up as a cudgel to beat against Christianity is accepted at face value.
The only really nuanced historical film I've seen in the last five years is Ararat, because it is very subtle in its exploration of the Armenian genocide.
 January 26, 2010 at 11:11 AM    

Humphrey said...
Edward Watts has a nice little essay on this in ‘Violence in Late Antiquity’ (ed Harold Allen Drake). He points out that John of Nikiu, writing in the seventh century, was ‘heavily dependent on the texts of John Malalas, John of Antioch and, for the Theodosian dynasty, Socrates Scholasticus (or another source who was dependent on Socrates). You can see the dependence on Socrates in his description of Cyril’s anti Jewish actions (also in the list of bishops and other details). The difference is that John of Nikiu was a monophysite bishop like Cyril and appears to presented the episode of Hypatia’s death in a more favourable light to reflect the providential role God had played in shaping events. Hence it doesn’t make a lot of sense to prefer his account because a) he is writing centuries later b) he is clearly relying on Socrates Scholasticus, the very source you are claiming is biased c) as a monophysite he has an interest in justifying Cyril’s actions.
As are engaging in an academic willy showing competition, I should also point out I have a masters in modern history.
 January 26, 2010 at 9:20 PM    

TheOFloinn said...
he points out that others attributed it to "the inveterate insolence and rebelliousness of the Alexandrians".»
Oh really, but which Alexandrians? The Pagan Alexandrians? Certainly not. The Christians, evidently
All of them. The Romans were very familiar with the Alexandrine [and Egyptian] proclivity to riot long before there were any Christians on the scene. Egyptians vs. Greeks and Romans; vs. Jews. Later, Socrates Scholasticus would write: The Alexandrian public is more delighted with tumult than any other people: and if at any time it should find a pretext, breaks forth into the most intolerable excesses; for it never ceases from its turbulence without bloodshed. There were Jewish riots against Christians and pagans; pagan mobs attacked Christians Jews; Christians attacked pagans and Jews.
For example, Sozomen tells of an especially grotesque murder of several Christian women by a pagan mob in Heliopolis some time before the murder of Hypatia, during the reign of Julian: they were eviscerated and swine fodder mixed with their intestines, after which swine were set loose on them.
In another incident, related by Socrates Scholasticus, the Jews of Alexandria raised an alarm that the church of St. Alexander was on fire, and when the Christians rushed out to extinguish it set upon them and slew many. It was this incident which led the bishop to expel the Jews from Alexandria, which got him embroiled with the prefect, who disliked seeing such a chunk of population lost to the city. In the course of which Ammonius, one of the Nitrian monks, threw a rock at the prefect and bloodied him, was seized by the other citizens, and tortured to death by the prefect, which goaded the mob led by Peter the Reader to retaliate against one of Orestes' supposed supporters, whom they supposed to be the obstacle to the bishop and prefect reconciling.
Yet, despite such incidents as the virgins of Heliopolis, the ambush of the Christians, the murder of Hypatia, and the general hooliganism, the "three tribes" of the city got along tolerably well for most of the period under consideration.
In Socrates Scholasticus' Book VII: 13-15 you can see the whole thing building up from an essentially trivial beginning involving the regulation of public drunkedness and dancing.
 January 27, 2010 at 7:53 AM    

Caturo said...
Wrong again. Your habilities as an «historian» are violently limited by your narrow analysis, quite common in pre-university students.
«I love the way you keep trying to throw out this kind of crap and then have the balls to accuse me of ad hominems.»
Yes - after you call me a fanatic, I do indeed accuse you of ad hominems. But perhaps this is not accurate to you, maybe you need another source, an older source, to prove that...

«I have a Masters degree and Dzielska has a PhD. "Pre-university students"?»
Well, I don't know what Dzielska says, but if she is an academic, I doubt that she ever declared that the film «Agora» is a blatant lie and a dishonest piece based only on her THEORIES. But I know that you did just that. And the fact that you now say that you have a Masters, that just makes your case even worst.

the fact that Damascius use the word «envy» DOES NOT, by any mean, imply that it was just a personal matter, let alone a political matter
«Damascius says Cyril was motivated by "envy" and calls him part of "the opposing faction". Socrates tells us Hypatia was murdered as a result of "political jealousies". I'm simply going on what the earliest sources tell us»
No. You are saying that Amenabar is lying and, lo, even that Nikiu is lying, just because Socrates Scholasticus does not refer (NOR DOES HE DENY) that the motive was religious.
Well – he does not say that on YOUR interpretation. Because, what Socrates really says is, I quote,
«it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop.»
He does refers THE CHRISTIANS. Not the entire population of Alexandria, not the Pagans, not the Jews, not even «the populace», but THE CHRISTIAN populace. So, what this means, objectively, was that there was a RELIGIOUS element in her murder.
Not even the Amenabar's movie show that, at least not directly.
And that is written in your most precious, well, your only source about this subject.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:24 AM    

Caturo said...
Wrong again. Your habilities as an «historian» are violently limited by your narrow analysis, quite common in pre-university students.
«I love the way you keep trying to throw out this kind of crap and then have the balls to accuse me of ad hominems.»
Yes - after you call me a fanatic, I do indeed accuse you of ad hominems. But perhaps this is not accurate to you, maybe you need another source, an older source, to prove that...

«I have a Masters degree and Dzielska has a PhD. "Pre-university students"?»
Well, I don't know what Dzielska says, but if she is an academic, I doubt that she ever declared that the film «Agora» is a blatant lie and a dishonest piece based only on her THEORIES. But I know that you did just that. And the fact that you now say that you have a Masters, that just makes your case even worst.

the fact that Damascius use the word «envy» DOES NOT, by any mean, imply that it was just a personal matter, let alone a political matter
«Damascius says Cyril was motivated by "envy" and calls him part of "the opposing faction". Socrates tells us Hypatia was murdered as a result of "political jealousies". I'm simply going on what the earliest sources tell us»
No. You are saying that Amenabar is lying and, lo, even that Nikiu is lying, just because Socrates Scholasticus does not refer (NOR DOES HE DENY) that the motive was religious.
Well – he does not say that on YOUR interpretation. Because, what Socrates really says is, I quote,
«it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop.»
He does refers THE CHRISTIANS. Not the entire population of Alexandria, not the Pagans, not the Jews, not even «the populace», but THE CHRISTIAN populace. So, what this means, objectively, was that there was a RELIGIOUS element in her murder.
Not even the Amenabar's movie show that, at least not directly.
And that is written in your most precious, well, your only source about this subject.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:25 AM    

Caturo said...
«You, on the other hand, are reading in some religious element that simply isn't there»
It is on Nikiu's version.

Actually, that is irrelevant after the blatant, and non informed, and mediocre, bias that you display against a film which you most probably did not see.
«It hasn't been released in Australia yet,»
Really, why am I not surprised?...

« so my comments were made about what the director of the film said he was trying to depict.»
Did he say that the case of Hypatia's murder was a matter of religion against science?...
Well, here,http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-agora-interview-dalejandro-amenabar-5986197.html
he clearly states that Hypatia was NOT murdered because of her science, but because
1 – she was not baptized
2 – she was an influent female.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:25 AM    

Caturo said...
«And what "bias" am I supposed to have?»
Those you show and were pointed out.

«What position do you think I hold that somehow»
That's your problem. It could be a non declared sympathy for Christianity (yes, it exists among declared right wing intellectual atheists), or just pure elitistic arrogance, whatever. The cause is not important.
That you are not being objective is a given.
«Yet you can't explain what position I hold that would make me unobjective.»
Nor do I need to do that. What I can say is what I see, and what I see is a bias in your arguments, a notorious prejudice (prejudice, pre-judgment based on non verified conceptions) against the film.
«I can distinguish between what is most likely»
Oh, most likely is DIFFERENT than a certainty. And it is not honest to accuse a film of being dishonest just because it's version SEEMS «unlikely», when in fact it is the most current version and it is openly confirmed by at least one source (oh dear, but the 21th century blogger O'Neill says that Nikiu's source is not important...).
 January 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM    

Caturo said...
«If Nikiu's version had any support in the earlier source, I wouldn't be arguing with you on this at all. But he doesn't. The motives he imputes are found nowhere in either Damascius nor Socrates.»
Yes, it does, as can be read above. Also, he was a bishop on the city where it all happened. It is not likely, not by a long shot, that he did not have any other source, including oral sources of popular and even church «tales» about the case, in an age in which the oral testemonies and the collective social contacts were a lot stronger than today.

«If Hypatia was older, »
If. As a matter of fact, the most current account says that she was born in 370. So, by 415, she would be 45. Not that older than Rachel Weisz (which was 39 in 2009). Yes, your favorite author SAYS that most PROBABLY she was born in 350, but that's not Amenabar's fault.

«but how even you can translate those words into "certainties"»
Yes, this is an excellent example of your modus operandi – you start with suggestions and, suddenly, you end up with a certainty – Amenabar is trying to distort the historical past, oh what a vile snake's fat seller he is.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:27 AM    

Caturo said...
He does imply it, according one of the translations available.
«No, the translator choose to read that in by translating αἵρεσιν as "sect" rather than "faction" or simply "group".»
And why is that certainly wrong? It is not the first time that «airesin» is translated as «sect».
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/139.htm
Definition - choice, opinion
NASB Word Usage - factions (2), heresies (1), sect (6).
From haireomai; properly, a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion -- heresy (which is the Greek word itself), sect.
Moreover, «group» and «faction» can work the same way.
«So the translator has skewed the text to make it mean something that isn't there.»
Another certainty of yours based in your constant wish to denigrate whoever contradicts your bias.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:27 AM    

Caturo said...
or that «sect» could not mean «religious PARTY»
«The word "sect" isn't in the text - the word is αἵρεσιν, which has a much broader meaning. Take "sect" out of the translation and give it its broader meaning »
After all, you just can't do that, as proven above.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM    

Caturo said...
«and Socrates says explicitly "(Hypatia) fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed"»
Hes does not say that the «jealousy» was exclusively political.

«And over and over again your argument depends on what the texts don't say »
Actually, YOUR arguments depend on what the texts don't say, and worst, they ignore or distort the parts of the text that do not favour your speech.
MINE, on the contrary, are based on blatant words, «official», explicit sources, that you just chose to consider as not valid.

this is happening in a social a political context dominated by the hate between religions, including Paganism.
«Which is irrelevant since both the factions involved in this particular dispute are Christian ones»
No, it is not irrelevant, since Hypatia was not a Christian. And so, the fact that she was not a Christian, made her position to become more fragile and an easier target.

Also, "she became the head of the Platonist school at Alexandria in 400" (Wikipedia), and Platonism was not well accepted by the Christians at the time
«Right. And this would be the head of the neo-Platonic school that Socrates praises for her wisdom and who counted Bishop Synesius amongst her admirers?»
Yes. It wasn't neither Synesius nor Socrates who killed her – and the last one is curiously interested in denying that the crime was a Christian attitude.

«This would be the neo-Platonism that Clement of Alexandria embraced and began to reconcile with Christian theology a full century and a half before Hypatia was even born?»
Yes – because, indeed, that effort of Clement was not convincent enough to make Justinian to spare the Academia.

«Again, you have no idea what you're talking»
Again, you have not a single objection to facts that don't fall down your head.

the Neoplathonic Academy was closed by Justinian, precisely because it was a center of Hellenism.
«A neo-Platonic academy in Athens was closed by Justinian over a century after Hypatia's death because it had been founded by an anti-Christian»
Actually, the Academy was a continuation of the previous one, that was it's intention.
«Other neo-Platonic schools remained open throughout the Empire,»
Only because they accepted Christianity as their faith.
«including the one in Alexandria»
And the head of this one was not a Christian.
Quite logic, indeed.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM    

Caturo said...
«And you still haven't explained why some Christians like Socrates may have disapproved of Cyril and yet he could still become a saint.»
“Maybe» because Socrates is just an historian, an intellectual with no influence neither amongst the people nor amidst the church?...
«If enough people in your home city came to call you a saint, you were a saint.»
So, the vast majority of the Christians did not see any contradiction in calling saint to a murderer. Thank you...

What does not make any sense, not by a long shot, is to presume that the very place in which he SAID that there was a library, suddenly stops having a library, as if the books were, what?, eaten by mice?
«He says it had housed a library in the past. And then he refers to the burning of the Great Library. We know the Serapeum had suffered several fires in the past and had been rebuilt entirely at least once. »
Yes, and it had a library after that.
«Exactly how any library it had once housed came to be destroyed we aren't told,»
Case closed. Next...

«but Ammianus makes it clear that it didn't house any library when he was there»
No, he does not.
Meanwhile,
Aphthonius of Ephesus says that there was a library there, in the fourth century, precisely.

Also, Orosio admits that the Christians use to steal the books from the Pagan temples:
«

Today there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.»

«The fact the accounts of its final destruction don't mention any library supports this»
No, it does not. Again, you take assumptions and hypothesis as certainties.

if one says that a famous public building containning a library was burned down, it is not needed to say that each piece inside was equally burned
«So you're ignoring the fact that Ammianus, writing some years before the destruction of the Serapeum uses the past tense»
That's a minor detail, compared to what was said before.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:29 AM    

Caturo said...
«Yet, despite such incidents as the virgins of Heliopolis, the ambush of the Christians, the murder of Hypatia, and the general hooliganism, the "three tribes" of the city got along tolerably well for most of the period under consideration.»
Really... despite all that violence, there was tolerance. Quite a feeble oxymoron.
 January 27, 2010 at 10:30 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
So, the vast majority of the Christians did not see any contradiction in calling saint to a murderer. Thank you...
In which of the sources is Cyril guilty of murder? I don't mean "some say this, but others say that." It's what you'd expect from the partisans of each side in a dispute when matters were still fresh.
But surely, X can be envious of Y's popularity, and even bad mouth Y, and not be guilty of a crime carried out by someone else. Not every union leader was guilty of the attempted assassination of Frick by a union fanatic. It is a failure of the modern imagination, especially of those living in socialist societies, to be puzzled when people take action without being told to do so by an authority.
It is on Nikiu's version.
Of course, if we take Nikiu's version at face value, you would have to say that Hypatia really was a sorceror - and pagan Roman law proscribed the death penalty for that. Another possibility is that Nikiu is no more necessarily reliable on matters centuries before his birth than Washington Irving was on Columbus' voyage.
just because Socrates Scholasticus does not refer (NOR DOES HE DENY) that the motive was religious.
NOR DOES HE DENY that the motives were commercial;
NOR DOES HE DENY that the motives were socialist;
NOR DOES HE DENY that the motives were communist;
NOR DOES HE DENY that the motives were nautical;
Gee, this is fun.
+ + +
«Yet, despite such incidents as the virgins of Heliopolis, the ambush of the Christians, the murder of Hypatia, and the general hooliganism, the "three tribes" of the city got along tolerably well for most of the period under consideration.»
Really... despite all that violence, there was tolerance. Quite a feeble oxymoron.
How so? Don't suppose that every member of a community participated in the mobs, or that such things happened day-in and day-out. Based on the historical record, most years, even lifetimes, passed peacefully. For example, among Hypatia's devoted students was a Christian bishop. The evidence is that Christians attended lectures by pagans; pagans attended lectures by Christians; etc. That for most of the time the atmosphere was one of live-and-let-live. Convivencia.
None of this is startling if you discard the Boogey-man Theory of History and suppose as a starting point that people are people. The stark, ugly things do make the news, and they wind up in the history.
I do notice that you skipped over the examples of other riots that had taken place, since they did not fit your world-view of the Christians as uniquely wicked.
 January 28, 2010 at 3:40 AM    

Humphrey said...
Anyone else having a heck of a lot of trouble reading Caturo's rants? Partly it's because there are so many quotations mixed in there and partly it's because there doesn't even appear to be any trace of a coherent argument.
Only thing I can really add is that 'Orosio' (you mean Paulus Orosius) isn't talking about the Serapeum since it had been raised to the ground by the time he was writing. All we can tell from his remark is that some temples (which were still standing) were emptied of books (by either pagans or Christians - it isn't clear) which were presumably sold or taken to other libraries.
There is scarcely any evidence that the Serapeum held a library at the time of it's destruction. Ammianus account says of the building "in it have been valuable libraries" which would count against this. It seems archaeological work at the Serapuem has shown that there were colonnaded spaces along the side of the temenos which could have held books (although M Rodziewicz points out that these were destroyed in the ‘early Roman period’).
As regards what happened to the semi legendary 'Great Library of Alexandria'. When this came up previously I wrote (borrowing heavily from Roger S Bagnall that
'The important point however is that while papyrus can last for hundreds of years under good conditions, the climate in Alexandria was far from ideal (Mediterranean conditions with high humidity). Combine that with the vagaries of mice, insects, fires and continual use and the upper limit for the survival of papyrus scrolls is about two to three hundred years. Hence ‘the likelihood is that by the reign of Tiberius, relatively little of what had been collected under the first three Ptolemies was still usable’. Bagnall concludes ‘even without hostile action, then, the library or libraries of Alexandria would not have survived antiquity. Indeed any library almost certainly would have been a sorry remnant well before late antiquity unless its books were constantly replaced by new copies’. There is no evidence that such replacement was going on in Alexandria, indeed to maintain such a large number of scrolls would have required an immense budget provided by the authorities. Hence I think the blame for the disappearance of the library lies both in the destruction exacted in Alexandria by Caesar, Caracalla, Aurelian and Diocletian and the more mundane (but no less important) lack of ‘sustained maintenance and management’ which would have halted the decay. Of course, the aforementioned political turmoil would have been little help in maintaining the impetus and continuing interest needed to keep the collection going. I doubt there was much left by 391AD which explains the silence.'
Subsequently I was listening to a lecture by Lawrence Principe and he said that the library was almost certainly destroyed by Diocletian when he levelled the palace district so who knows.
 January 28, 2010 at 3:51 AM    

Caturo said...
So, the vast majority of the Christians did not see any contradiction in calling saint to a murderer. Thank you...
«In which of the sources is Cyril guilty of murder?»
Again?...
In Damascius'.

«It's what you'd expect from the partisans of each side in a dispute when matters were still fresh.»
Certainly. But it is not reasonable to just dismiss the partisans' claims just because they are partisans. All the sources must be analyzed.

It is on Nikiu's version.
«Of course, if we take Nikiu's version at face value, you would have to say that Hypatia really was a sorceror - and pagan Roman law proscribed the death penalty for that»
Wrong again. That was not always appliable - and, actually, Neo-Platonism was strictly associated to Magic.

«Another possibility is that Nikiu is no more necessarily reliable on matters centuries before his birth than Washington Irving was on Columbus' voyage.»
Quite a grotescque comparison, ignoring the natural continuity that existed in the official culture of Alexandria, thus, in the access to all sort of sources that Nikiu could have and that are now lost.

just because Socrates Scholasticus does not refer (NOR DOES HE DENY) that the motive was religious.
«NOR DOES HE DENY that the motives were commercial;
NOR DOES HE DENY that the motives were socialist;
NOR DOES HE DENY that the motives were communist;
NOR DOES HE DENY that the motives were nautical;
Gee, this is fun.»
That might be fun for you, but it looks certainly ridiculous, since,
Cyril, Orestes and Hypatia, etc., were not businessmen,
Cyril, Orestes and Hypatia, etc., were not socialists,
Cyril, Orestes and Hypatia, etc., were not communists,
Cyril, Orestes and Hypatia, etc., were not sailors,
and since there were serious conflicts between Pagans and Christians,
and since Socrates clearly says that the CHRISTIAN (not businessmen, socialist, communist or sailor, but c h r i s t i a n) mob was against Hypatia.

«Yet, despite such incidents as the virgins of Heliopolis, the ambush of the Christians, the murder of Hypatia, and the general hooliganism, the "three tribes" of the city got along tolerably well for most of the period under consideration.»
Really... despite all that violence, there was tolerance. Quite a feeble oxymoron.
«Don't suppose that every member of a community participated in the mobs,»
That's not even an argument. It does not matter wether all or just the majority did this or that, but that there were mobs doing all that because of religious matters. And that is a fact, that no contemporary relativism can hide.

«For example, among Hypatia's devoted students was a Christian bishop.»
One exception, two, three, do not change the rule - moreover, there is a clear difference between intellectuals that happened to chose Christianity and Christian mobs and partisans, entirely devoted to the worship and imposition of the cult of Jesus.

«That for most of the time the atmosphere was one of live-and-let-live. Convivencia.»
No. Destroying an entire temple, burning it down, is not, and never was, considered as convivencia.

«suppose as a starting point that people are people»
Interestingly, people who were people were generally not destroying temples or killing because of religious matters before Christianity.

«I do notice that you skipped over the examples of other riots that had taken place, since they did not fit your»
Since they were not relevant for this discussion, and since they did not alter the fact that there were Christian mobs attacking Pagans and Pagan temples, and since this last tendency was frequent in other parts of the Empire. Only in a world-view based on trying to rewrite History in order to hide this or that can these evidences be forgotten.
 January 29, 2010 at 12:06 AM    

Caturo said...
«only thing I can really add is that 'Orosio' (you mean Paulus Orosius) isn't talking about the Serapeum since it had been raised to the ground by the time he was writing»
Good - the only thing that Humphrey can add is what was already said, i.e., that Orosius did not mention the Serapeum. Quite a «coherent» contribution, but worthless. Because the fact that Orosius says that the Christians did that, strikes down the feeble and dishonest attempts to state that Amenabar is being dishonest just by showing the Christians doing havoc in a temple and in a library.


«All we can tell from his remark is that some temples (which were still standing) were emptied of books (by either pagans or Christians - it isn't clear)»
He says «our men». And he is a Christian.

«There is scarcely any evidence that the Serapeum held a library at the time of it's destruction»
Again - it is known that the Serapeum had a library. Period. And there is no reference to that library being emptied by Pagans before it's destruction by a Christian mob. And that's all. Just facts.

«Hence ‘the likelihood is that by the reign of Tiberius, relatively little of what had been collected under the first three Ptolemies was still usable’. Bagnall concludes ‘even without hostile action, then, the library or libraries of Alexandria would not have survived antiquity.»
Oh, great, and so the Christian face is saved. Our almost... if only bloody Orosius could shut up his big mouth!...

«Indeed any library almost certainly would have been a sorry remnant well before late antiquity unless its books were constantly replaced by new copies’. There is no evidence that such replacement was going on in Alexandria,»
And there is no evidence that such replacement was not going on in Alexandria. What is known is that part of that library was at the Serapeum, that there were scholars there, that the Serapeum had a Museum, and so, that most probably that replacement could have been going on.

«Hence I think the blame for the disappearance of the library lies both in the destruction exacted in Alexandria by Caesar, Caracalla, Aurelian and Diocletian and the more mundane (but no less important) lack of ‘sustained maintenance and management’ which would have halted the decay.»
Yes, the lack of budget from the authorities, as Humphrey says... and why was that? Because... the Christian rule determined that no Pagan temples would ever receive any budget from the State.
 January 29, 2010 at 12:06 AM    

Humphrey said...
I can only tell you what I think. You can of course use the source material to string out any account you like but to me the evidence is thin. We have Aphthonius’s rhetorical description which mentions that
'Chambers are built within the colonnades. Some are repositories for the books, open to those who are diligent in philosophy and stirring up the whole city to mastery of wisdom.'
It is unclear whether this is a first hand account but it most likely comes second hand from Libanius of Antioch. However, when Ammianus’s visited around 363 he says of the temple:
'In here have been valuable libraries and the unanimous testimony of ancient records declares that seven hundred thousand books, brought together by the unremitting energy of the Ptolemies, were burned in the Alexandrine War when the city was sacked under the dictator Caesar'
Now at this point it can be argued that, despite being a first hand account, Ammianus could be mistaken or that his account is too brief for the weight which is placed upon it. Well the kicker for me is that Eunapius of Antioch doesn't mention the destruction of any books in his anti-christian account of the sack of the temple (neither do any of the other accounts for that matter). If the temple still contained a library I would have expected him to have used that in his polemic.
Then we have the account concerning George of Cappadocia who appears to have ransacked the temple sometime around AD361. Tellingly the pagan emperor Julian appears to have written to Ecdicius asking that the murdered George's 'very large and complete' personal library be transported to him.
As for lack of budget, I'm really referring to what had happened earlier in the troubled history of Alexandria; massacres, sieges, looting and the levelling of entire quarters of the city. It would have been hard to keep up the maintenance required to preserve what was left of the Great Library. Despite this Alexandria remained pre-eminent in medicine and philosophy until Arab forces invaded Egypt in the seventh century.
 February 2, 2010 at 11:01 PM    

 Dulce said...
I find there are two types of people when looking at history, there are those who are heavily textual, relying heavily on accounts from surviving sources, and there are those who attempt to read what was between the lines.
I read an opening to a book once that all the surviving texts we have from the entire Roman Empire would be enough to fill a single subsection at the library of congress. How little we know of what actually happened, especially in an age when exaggerating accounts was not seen as intellectually dishonest, nor purging materials seen contradictory to how one would want the story to be told for centuries after the events.
Imagine the decade of 2000-10, even not factoring in the internet, how much wealth of information and written texts there would be? Imagine it reduced to row on a bookshelf. Imagine great events like the 9/11, the War in Iraq, the economic crisis, being reduced to single paragraph descriptions from select different others. Imagine centuries of various powers with their own agenda being the holders of this information. How much left of it do you think there would be to paint an accurate picture of how the events transpired? That doesn't even begin to reveal how history of the antiquities is known. For then, there may have been only a few select scribes taking the responsibility of writing down history.

Agora may tell one side, but if it were to explore all possible scenarios it wouldn't be a movie, it would a documentary. Sometimes it's necessary to collapse our mind and enjoy "one" possible scenario for the entertainment of viewing history of how it *might* have occurred.
To me it was refreshing to see the period of history being covered. Likewise, it was refreshing to see somebody accurately depict the climate and mood of the Roman Empire in it's waning days without walking on eggshells to Christianity. Like it or not, these events did occur. Pagans and Christians clashed violently in the streets. And science and philosophy were often seen as extensions of the pagan false idols. What more was there to learn now that they had the Bible? This movie isn't a glamorization of paganism, science, nor the greco-roman culture. If anything, it shows the seething hatred of a young slave boy, how easy he could be swayed by giving bread to the poor that he walked by everyday instead of his wealthy masters in their secluded houses. Masters that he could never hope to achieve the same status. How the wealthy aristocratic children were guaranteed to find positions of authority regardless of the religious turmoil on the streets.
And the fact that these considerations were taken into account and applied them to the story of Hypatia, i found this to be a highly accurate account of history, even though it may not necessarily be an exact portrayal of how the events actually occurred.
To ignore the possibilities that the events as depicted are not plausibly accurate is intellectually dishonest. By relying on a couple paragraphs of hypatia's contemporaries in a seething review and imposing it as an authoritive account of "actual" history is a disservice to your readers.
 February 20, 2010 at 1:32 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I find there are two types of people when looking at history, there are those who are heavily textual, relying heavily on accounts from surviving sources, and there are those who attempt to read what was between the lines.
I find there is a third type: those who begin with what they would like to find and who read their pre-supposed (and usually ideologically-driven) conclusions into the evidence. Or when they can’t do that, they insist that their conclusions are implicit but you have to “read between the lines”. They also like to dismiss those who insist on sticking to what the evidence actually says as being too narrow and rigid to see the bigger picture that’s just … well … there
The approach of this third type is called “dishonest pseudo historical crap”.
I read an opening to a book once that all the surviving texts we have from the entire Roman Empire would be enough to fill a single subsection at the library of congress. How little we know of what actually happened, especially in an age when exaggerating accounts was not seen as intellectually dishonest, nor purging materials seen contradictory to how one would want the story to be told for centuries after the events.
Anyone who has studied ancient or medieval history is well aware of the scanty nature of our source material and of our need to weigh the biases of our sources and, often, to make educated guesses about what they may not be telling us. But good training in the historical method also teaches us to be very wary of the temptation to see what we want to see both in the evidence we have and in the gaps between our sources.
Agora may tell one side, but if it were to explore all possible scenarios it wouldn't be a movie, it would a documentary. Sometimes it's necessary to collapse our mind and enjoy "one" possible scenario for the entertainment of viewing history of how it *might* have occurred.
And if Alejandro Amenabar had had the honesty or the brains to simply present his movie as what “might have been” I’d be prepared to cut him a fair degree of slack. I’d still have written an article on why the evidence indicates that Hypatia’s death had nothing to do with religion or science, but I’d acknowledge that he wasn’t claiming his version was historical fact. But he didn’t do that – he claimed it was historical fact.
(continued)
 February 20, 2010 at 5:18 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
(continued)
To me it was refreshing to see the period of history being covered. Likewise, it was refreshing to see somebody accurately depict the climate and mood of the Roman Empire in it's waning days without walking on eggshells to Christianity. Like it or not, these events did occur. Pagans and Christians clashed violently in the streets. And science and philosophy were often seen as extensions of the pagan false idols. What more was there to learn now that they had the Bible?
I would find it far more “refreshing” to see this period covered accurately. Yes, pagans and Christians clashed violently in the streets. People of all kinds had been clashing violently in the streets of Alexandria for centuries – the place was notorious for it. But pagans and Christians also worked happily alongside each other and pagan and Christian scholars studied philosophy together, to mutual benefit. That’s why Socrates Scholasticus was so rich in his praise of Hypatia and shocked at how she got caught up in the city’s violent politics or why a devoted pupil of hers, Synesius, could be a devotee of her philosophy and also a bishop. Yes, some Christians rejected philosophy as “pagan” and said that the Bible was all that was needed. And others said exactly the opposite, revered philosophy, recognised that reason was a key intellectual tool and fought (successfully) to preserve these things.
And that’s where this movie’s cartoonish depictions gets things so badly wrong. It finishes with the idea that Hypatia’s death ushered in “the Dark Ages” and that this was due to Christian fanaticism. In fact, the Dark Ages happened far away in western Europe, they had zero to do with Hypatia’s death or with any Christian fanaticism and there was no Dark Age in Alexandria or anywhere in the Eastern Empire. More importantly, the Christians who rejected the idea that “pagan” philosophy was to be rejected WON that debate and preserved enough logic and philosophy to plant the seeds of the revival of learning in the west in the Twelfth Century. And that revival sparked the greatest burst of activity in philosophy and science since the ancient Greeks and, in turn, laid the foundations of the Scientific Revolution.
Does Agora tell us any of this? Ummm, no – it depicts quite the opposite. In fac, it depicts a totally false version of history. And you think this is somehow a good thing?
To ignore the possibilities that the events as depicted are not plausibly accurate is intellectually dishonest. By relying on a couple paragraphs of hypatia's contemporaries in a seething review and imposing it as an authoritive account of "actual" history is a disservice to your readers.
See above for evidence of who is being “intellectually dishonest”. Amenábar presents a totally warped and ideologically-driven piece of pseudo history and trying to justifying with some hand waving about “reading between the lines” doesn’t change that. The contemporary accounts say nothing about Hypatia being murdered for anything other political revenge. All the creative, hopeful and wishful “reading between the lines” to discern things that aren’t there doesn’t change that for a second.
And most of my readers are pretty capable of looking after themselves.
 February 20, 2010 at 5:20 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
Sometimes it's necessary to collapse our mind and enjoy "one" possible scenario for the entertainment of viewing history of how it *might* have occurred.
You are perfectly welcome to collapse your mind. I find mine functions better when fully erect.
To me it was refreshing to see the period of history being covered ... without walking on eggshells to Christianity.
What would actually be daring would be to depict Christianity with any sympathy.
science and philosophy were often seen as extensions of the pagan false idols.
By whom? The Academy of Alexandria passed without perceptible bump from pagan scholars to Christian and came to an end only after the muslim conquest. The pursuit of "science" (as the ancients conceived it) by Christian scholars like Philoponus and other was unabated. Hypatia, for example, appears as a neoPlatonist in the surviving records. That is a far cry from paganism. NeoPlatonists, for example, believed that God was unique, could not be portrayed, and existed as three divine "hypostases": the One, the Intellect, and the Soul.
What more was there to learn now that they had the Bible?
Plenty. They did not consider the Bible to be a science textbook. (That had to wait until scientism infected backwoods American revivalism.) Augustine said that you should not read the Bible to learn about the course of the sun and moon. You learn all you need to know about the natural world in the schools. The Christians did not use their texts the way a muslim or a modern fundamentalist do: as a complete set of rules for everything in life. They used them as a basis for reasoning about the world. The Christians believed in synderesis or "conscience," meaning that people were capable of reaching correct conclusions about the world through reason.
Ultimately, I believe that the complexities of realism are far more dramatic than the simplicities of fable. Portrayal of the tragedy would be more wrenching than the melodrama of the myth.
 February 20, 2010 at 5:54 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
TheOFloinn said...
The Academy of Alexandria passed without perceptible bump from pagan scholars to Christian and came to an end only after the muslim conquest. The pursuit of "science" (as the ancients conceived it) by Christian scholars like Philoponus and other was unabated.
Exactly. And if we look at the context and the aftermath of Hypatia's murder, do we find some pogrom against pagans or crackdown on Neo-Platonic scholars? No, we don't. It's business as usual. In fact, in the generation after Hypatia we find pagan Neo-Platonic philosophers happily continuing to teach - people like Syrianus, Hermias and Aedesia.
And the fact that Aedesia - not only a renowned pagan philosopher and teacher but a woman - was a revered scholarly figure in Alexandria also makes a nonsense of this "read between the lines" garbage about how Hypatia's death was part of some anti-pagan, anti-science, anti-woman oppression. The actual context shows it was nothing of the sort.
Of course, Aedesia and her compatriots stayed out of Alexandria's notoriously vicious city politics. Unlike Hypatia.
 February 20, 2010 at 7:19 AM    

Ardagastus said...
Great review but what a hot thread!
I am mostly with you Tim, as I believe contemporary and near-contemporary sources should be most valued. Any other approach is wishful thinking.
For the cultural metamorphoses of the European West a good read (though perhaps a bit obsolete) is Pierre Riché's Education et culture dans l'Occident barbare (VIe-VIIIe siècle). As for Alexandria and the East in the 5th century I found a great perspective in the narratives of Peter Brown.
 February 23, 2010 at 9:14 PM    

Caturo said...
« The Academy of Alexandria passed without perceptible bump from pagan scholars to Christian and came to an end only after the muslim conquest.»
Oh really, the imperial edicts fotbiding Pagan rituals under death penalty, were not a «perceptible bump», no sir...
 February 26, 2010 at 2:43 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
To the extent that the Academy of Alexandria taught the neoPlatonism of Plotinus, "pagan rituals" would not have been practiced there. Plotinus in fact developed a triune monotheism very similar to the Christians' and was not especially friendly toward the old pagan irrationalism.
 February 26, 2010 at 6:58 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
It's bizarre the way whenever these people who scream so hysterically about how Christianity murdered ancient learning and philosophy are challenged to produce some evidence they are always forced to fall back on some vague reference to the Christian suppression of pagan cults. As though this irrelevant side issue somehow supports their case.
Charles Freeman also did this in his meandering non-reply to my critique of his The Closing of the Western Mind. I asked him what the hell the trashing of some gloomy Mithraeums and the closing down of weird superstitious cults where men in silly hats waved incense at painted statues had to do with the preservation of science and reason. As usual, he didn't reply.
The truth is that these people have a misty-eyed romanticised view of the ancient world that conflates anything "pagan" with the things they like (eg science and reason). Therefore any attack on anything pagan simply has to be an attack on the things they like.
This is nonsense.
The early Christians who DEFENDED the use of pagan wisdom and who WON THE DEBATE on that topic thus ENSHRINING THE RATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD IN THE WESTERN TRADITION FOR CENTURIES TO COME (I'll keep using capital letters until certain recalcitrants jackhammer this stuff through their skulls) were perfectly capable of differentiating the wisdom of philosophers who happened to be pagans from the silly superstitions of gelded priests shaking rattles at garish statues of Cybele. Even if people like "Caturo" and Mr Freeman aren't capable of that simple and pretty damn obvious distinction.
 February 26, 2010 at 8:58 AM    

Jonathan Wolfe said...
I just want to address one of Caturo's assertions (which does not even lend credit to his rather futile argument), which is that, Cyril of Alexandria was made a saint only because he instigated the killing of people like Hypatia out of religious fervor. The underlying assumption here is that being affiliated with murder should have disqualified him from sainthood. Unless it was "religious".
The underlying assumption is but a half-truth. No doubt, the murder of Hypatia was instigated by Cyril's factional wrangling, not by any "religious intolerance". How then could he have been made a saint if they knew that?
People have this misguided view that a saint must be a constant stream of virtue and perfection all his or her life. No saint is like that. Cyril may well have been canonized even with all his sins in mind, including those against Orestes and Hypatia. For crying out loud, St. Paul had Christians executed. St. Augustine was a libertine. There is even an anti-Pope in the ranks of the Western saints.
The fact of Cyril's sainthood is not an evidence of Christian intolerance of paganism or of religious motivations in Hypatia's murder. You'll have to do a lot of logical gymnastics to get from that point to "Hypatia was a pagan martyr".
 February 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM    

berenike said...
:bow:
Mr O'Neill, you have the patience of a saint.
:bow:
I find there is a third type: those who begin with what they would like to find and who read their pre-supposed (and usually ideologically-driven) conclusions into the evidence.
I guffawed. I get this about three times a week. My sweet, rosy-cheeked, blue-eyed, silver-haired, materialist atheist granny, who lives with me, adheres to a sadly common school of biblical criticism. All the bits she doesn't like were made up, usually to "persuade the primitive people of the time to observe the wise moral code being proposed".
me: "But granny, there's no evidence for that at all, of any kind, whatsoever."
Gran: "They made it up to convert more people to the teaching of Jesus about loving your neighbour as yourself."
me:"Granny, why would proclaiming what struck hearers as an abominable heresy make Jews more likely to listen to the bits that weren't abominable heresy?"
Gran: "They wanted to make the primitive people observe the beautiful ethical teaching of Jesus"
Me: "Granny, the Gospels suggest they quite liked the ethical teaching, it was the I and the Father are One stuff that made people really hostile. And again, why would Jesus make his acceptable rabbincal teachings, or his slightly radical-but-you-can-see-where-he's-coming-from ones, more acceptable by saying "the really important bit is that actually I'm pretty much God" ?"
Gran: "I can't argue with you, I'm too stupid, I just think we should all observe the teaching of Jesus"

OR:
Gran: "the miracles of Jesus were added in later by the disciples to make people believe in the ethical teaching they wanted to convince them of"
Me: "But there's absolutely no, none, not one eekle teeny bit of evidence for that."
Gran: "Obviously Jesus didn't walk on water or any of that stuff."
Me: "But even if you don't think he did, there's no evidence that they were added in later. You could say the evangelists were wrong or were lying, but there's nothing to suggest the miracles were later additions to an existing text."
[I've forgotten what she says to this, but you get the idea :D]
Usual ending: I roll my eyes and put the kettle on.

:)
You have much more patience than I do!
 February 27, 2010 at 9:20 AM    

Ilíon said...
Stanley Guenter: "Doubting Thomas isn't held up in a favorable light in the Gospels; Jesus is made to say that those who do not doubt and do not ask for evidence before belief are blessed."
Mr Guenter, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Christ criticized Thomas not for questioning, but for doubting -- there is a difference between the two. Christ criticized Thomas for being unreasonable, and indeed, for being anti-reasonable.
Thomas knew Christ, personally. He knew, and had personally witnessed, Christ's miracles. He knew what Christ had said. He knew the persons, and their characters, telling him that they themselves had seen the risen Christ. Thomas' doubt was unreasonable.
On the other hand, we who have followed do not have the advantage that Thomas had of first-hand experience and knowledge. That is why we are more blessed than he for our belief and trust. It has nothing to do with "not asking for evidence."
Stanley Guenter: "... those who do not doubt and do not ask for evidence before belief are blessed."
Can you see me rolling my eyes?
You really ought to stop worshipping doubt. Who do you think you are, Hume?
 February 28, 2010 at 8:48 PM    

 Tom said...
I'm no historian, but I saw the movie, and Hypatia was clearly NOT killed for her beliefs (or lack thereof), but in order to weaken Orestes and as revenge for the execution of the radical Christian who threw the stone at the prefect's head...so your main point of critique actually doesn't exist at all...
The fact that her philosophy was not compatible to the radical Christianity shown in the movie simply made her an easier target, but it wasn't the reason for her being killed.
 March 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
The fact that her philosophy was not compatible to the radical Christianity shown in the movie simply made her an easier target, but it wasn't the reason for her being killed.
So the director's comments about his own movie were wrong then? Sorry, but I find that rather strange.
"From bloody clashes to public stonings and massacres, the city descends into inter-religious strife, and the victorious Christians turn their back on the rich scientific legacy of antiquity, defended by Hypatia."
You're saying this isn't in the movie?
 March 13, 2010 at 2:58 PM    

 Tom said...
Tim, you're quote certainly reflects the overlaying theme of the movie. The radical Christians in the movie certainly don't care for science but only for the word of god (and I don't think that's far from the truth).
But I've seen the movie and Hypatia most certainly wasn't killed because of her beliefs.
After the monk who attacked Orestes was executed, there's a scene where the parabolani debate. They want to take revenge on Orestes. Someone says that they can't get to Orestes himself as he's heavily guarded, so another one proposes to hit him somewhere else where it would hurt him, namely by killing Hypatia, which is what they go on to do.
Also, the criticism of Hypatia was basically never about her philosophy directly.
A moderate Christian once asks her why he should listen to someone who professes to not believe in anything, but that's about it and it was within a rather open atmosphere and not intimidating in any way.
Her science itself is never once attacked. One of the pagans once said that heliocentrism doesn't make sense, but this was all within some kind of scientific spirit.
The criticism on Hypatia by the radical Christians was always a tool to get to Orestes who was very close to her.
The decisive scene is when Cyril quotes the Bible (to Orestes) which said that women shouldn't teach and should be silent.
So again it was not about her science, but about her person. And at every point it is made clear, that this is part of the power struggle between Orestes and Cyril.
 March 13, 2010 at 11:41 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Thanks for the details Tom. My article was about the comments the director made when the film was first released and I made it clear that I had not seen the movie myself (at that stage, May last year, virtually no-one had).
But it's the "overlaying theme of the movie" that I'm objecting to. Hypatia's death did NOT usher in some "Dark Age". Philosophy and science continued to be practised in Alexandria by both pagans and Christians for some time to come and continued to be practiced in the Eastern Empire long after that.
And Cyril's victory did NOT lead to some kind of fundamentalism. In fact, at around this time, the Christians who rejected Greek philosophy and learning and wanted to base all knowledge on the Bible [i]lost[/i] that debate. Reason and philosophy were enshrined in Christian thought as a result and the foundations of a later flowering of rational inquiry in the Christian West were laid.
This movie still preaches a message that is, historically-speaking, bullshit.
 March 14, 2010 at 9:37 AM    

Anebo said...
Library is a misleading term. More accurate is the Museum or temple to the Muses. This was an administrative entity set up by Ptolemy II, which owned many buildings, including the Serapeum. In that sense, the Museum was destroyed by a Christian mob, aided by soldiers.
The Coptic life of Cyril accuses Hypatia of magic--probably in the mind of simple people like Paul the reader, her philosophical investigations amounted to magic, which as you say is not quite the same as a war between Christianity and science.
She was killed with ostraca. While the root meaning of that word is oyster shell, it more commonly referred to broken pieces of cermaics. So what the texts mean is that she was stoned to death with broken roof tiles, jugs, and any other trash lying to hand, not that she was butchered with stone age tools.
But in general a nice analysis of the film. I only wish I could see it.
 March 22, 2010 at 2:35 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
1. Where do we read that the Museum owned the Serapeum?
2. Where do we read that there were any books in the Serapeum at the time it was profaned?
3. Where do we find in the primary sources any hint that Peter the reader or anyone else thought a) neoplatonic philosophy was magic or b) Hypatia was so accused? The motives described by those closest in time to the events were purely political.
4. I had read somewhere that the roof tiles were called "oyster shells" as a colloquialism due to their rounded shapes. The style of curved roof tiles is still common around the Med, as I understand it.
 March 27, 2010 at 10:21 AM    

Anebo said...
The OFloinn? Is a type of troll?
In any case he seems to attempting to force the embarrassing confession that I don't know what I am talking about. I am sorry I can't oblige him.
For the administrative affairs of the Alexandrian Temple of the Muses, I will refer to any of the countless monographs on that institution.
To answer your remaining questions, I refer you the original sources, not any secondary sources that the unwashed mob (clearly not you) could more conveniently fine.
P.Coll.Youtie I.30=P. Yale 299 mentions that in the fourth century the Canopic Sarapeum (you didn't think we were talking about he Alexandrian one, did you?) possessed a scriptorium, hence also a library. The same source--ita fragmentary church hsitory--describes the Sarapeum as a school of black magic. For the specific accusations of magic made against Hypatia by Cyril, see the Coptic life. I see no reason his servant Paul would have had a different opinion. I do't see how you have read the scholarship over the last 50 years (Tupet, Fowden Athanassiadi--oh so many others)--on the place of the public intellectual in Late Antique society--and naturally you have read it, I'm sure--without realizing that the charge of magic is essentially political?
When you wrote this: "Of course, if we take Nikiu's version at face value, you would have to say that Hypatia really was a sorceror - and pagan Roman law proscribed the death penalty for that." you seem to have known all about the accusation of magic against Hypatia--but now you don't. Very interesting. It couldn't possibly, be, could it, that you knew when it suited your purpose to refute for the sake of refutation, and didn't know it now when ignorance suited the same purpose?

Ostracn is not a colloquialism. It is the ordinary Greek word for Oyster Shells, which was used to metaphorically describe pieces of broken ceramic. The term was quite common in every region and register of Greek.
To comment on some other areaqs of your pontification, the Neoplatonism of 415 was not Plotinian. The pressure of Christianity drove Neoplatonism more and more back toward ritual, as can be seen in the work and careers of Iamblichus, and Julain, and ultimately Proclus. Also, Cyril's persecution killed Hypatia and drove Isidorus and his circle out of Alexandria--to Athens, and eventually out of the Empire.
Philoponus as the successor of Isidore!
And don't bother to reply. I won't play anymore after this.
 March 29, 2010 at 8:34 AM    

Minhyong Kim said...
Dear Mr. O'Neill,
Thank you very much for the informative article. I certainly share your dismay over the simplified projections of history and human motives that permeate public discourse. In fact, like you, I am (probably) an atheist, but find the liberal classification into the fundamentalists in black hats and enlightenment humanists in white about as disturbing as Mr. Bush's purported beliefs in axes of good and evil. Such simplications certainly affect and are affected by large-scale media events with consequences that are probably serious.
Nevertheless, I hope you won't mind too much if I put forward one suggestion: I do think it's possible to phrase your basic arguments in terms that are less aggressive, and hence, more likely to be read and understood. (Hence, I am referring mostly to the comments, rather than the main article.) During the years I lived in America, probably the aspect of the political culture I found most disappointing was the ingrained habit of almost any commentator, public or private, to present arguments intended only for those who already agreed. What I gathered from your post and the few links I've discovered here is that your genuine intention is to do better than that. But then, the question of persuasive style needs to be taken seriously. In particular, my feeling is that your exchange with Ms. Weingarten could have gone in a much more constructive direction had this question of style been dealt with more carefully.
Once again, I apologize for the unsolicited advice. It is only because I'm tremendously impressed by your learning, resources, and energy, and because I believe you are genuinely trying to do good with them that I trouble you with it at all.
Sincerely,
Minhyong Kim
 April 20, 2010 at 9:39 AM    

Ilíon said...
On the other hand, is there really any idea more simplistic than the amusing -- and self-contradictory! -- denial that there is moral good, that it is knowable, and that some people choose to repudiate it?
 April 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM    

H Niyazi said...
I'm not sure why you have "Hollywood" in your title Mr. O'Neill. This is very much a Spanish production, with US companies such as Miramax and Paramount acting as distributors in UK/US.
But hey, don't let facts stop you!
I actually just saw the film today. Whether or not it meets your lofty standards, if it inspires one person to go read more about Hypatia, or gives courage to a young woman interested in Science, then it isn't all bad.
It's a shame that the useful historical information in your article is hidden amidst bile and vitriole for your pet causes. At your age, if you still feel the teenage need to tell us "umm...Im like totally an atheist, dude", It makes progressing through the rest your work somewhat daunting - and I say that as a devoutly unreligious person!
I think I much rather prefer to hear about Hypatia from Bettany Hughes ;)
H.
 April 27, 2010 at 2:08 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
H Niyazi wrote:
I'm not sure why you have "Hollywood" in your title Mr. O'Neill. This is very much a Spanish production, with US companies such as Miramax and Paramount acting as distributors in UK/US.
It was shorthand for "distorted pseudo historical film-making". I originally entitled it something like that, but Blogger limits the length of your post title. So I went for something snappier.
I actually just saw the film today. Whether or not it meets your lofty standards, if it inspires one person to go read more about Hypatia, or gives courage to a young woman interested in Science, then it isn't all bad.
Just not as good as an actual historical film that told the real story without trying to crowbar a clumsy sermon into it. Unfortunately, if those people are inspired to read about the real Hypatia they will now have to work hard to jettison a whole raft of nonsense about how she was killed for her learning, how her death ushered in a dark age of ignorance and how she discovered elliptical orbits and heliocentrism etc.
It's a shame that the useful historical information in your article is hidden amidst bile and vitriole for your pet causes. At your age, if you still feel the teenage need to tell us "umm...Im like totally an atheist, dude"
Then you seem to have totally missed my point. I was making a criticism of unthinking atheists who accept any anti-Christian version of a story without checking their facts. So I was hardly simply inserting the fact that I was an atheist into my post as some teenage need to flaunt my atheism. I was noting this purely to fend off the inevitable response that I was only criticising this movie because it offended my Christian faith etc - an assumption people have consistently made about me when I used to point out the pseudo historical gibberish in The Da Vinci Code.
Exactly how you've come to the conclusion that I mentioned being an atheist because I "still feel the teenage need to tell us "umm...Im like totally an atheist, dude"" is a mystery, given that my mentioning of my atheist was totally relevant to what I was saying and is the only time that I can think of that I've mentioned it on this blog.
It seems you didn't read my article carefully at all and your response was merely looking for nits to pick at. Did my article bother you for some reason? Perhaps you need to go away and ponder why.
 April 27, 2010 at 6:42 AM    

Ilíon said...
H Niyazi (of Two-Tongues): "... But hey, don't let facts stop you!
... Whether or not it meets your lofty standards, if it inspires one person to go read more about Hypatia, or gives courage to a young woman interested in Science, then it isn't all bad."
By all means, let's "raise consciousness" and "make people feel good about themselves." Regardless of the truth of the matter.

H Niyazi (of Two-Tongues): "- and I say that as a devoutly unreligious person! "
Thank God!
Now, if Mr O'Neill can see his way to come over to the right side, Cosmic Balance shall be restored.
 April 27, 2010 at 7:32 AM    

Ilíon said...
TimO'Neill: "It was shorthand for "distorted pseudo historical film-making". I originally entitled it something like that, but Blogger limits the length of your post title. So I went for something snappier."
I think that was clear to anyone not playing "Gotcha!"
 April 27, 2010 at 7:34 AM    

Ilíon said...
TimO'Neill: "... I was noting this purely to fend off the inevitable response that I was only criticising this movie because it offended my Christian faith etc ..."
I think that was *also* clear to anyone not playing "Gotcha!"
 April 27, 2010 at 7:36 AM    

Humphrey said...
Almost a year since this review was written and still the outraged Hypatians keep coming (I think that says more about the film's limited distribution and relatively poor performance outside of Spain than anything else)
 May 5, 2010 at 1:04 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Please note that in the film it is clear that the library is located in the Serapeum, and that it is NOT the Great Library of Alexandria. The fact is mentioned indirectly on a couple of occasions throughout the film.
 May 5, 2010 at 11:07 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Please note that in the film it is clear that the library is located in the Serapeum, and that it is NOT the Great Library of Alexandria. The fact is mentioned indirectly on a couple of occasions throughout the film.
That doesn't make any difference - the evidence still indicates that there was no longer any library in the Serapeum either. So what the movie shows is still pseudo historical fantasy presented to push an ideological agenda.
 May 5, 2010 at 11:16 PM    

 Anonymous said...
Mr. O'Neill, excuse me please, I want to ask you, if I can write you personaly, in what way?
 May 8, 2010 at 9:59 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
You can contact me via the e-mail address at the bottom of this link:
http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/author.html
But if you're thinking of doing so to try to convert me to Christianity forget about it now - you will be ignored.
 May 9, 2010 at 7:14 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Since you seem to ironically embody the most Catholic of principles ("ROMA LOCUTA EST, CAUSA FINITA EST") in your definitive criticism of Hollywood's historical ineptitude, do you hold the same contemptuous opinions of other anti-clerical works of art and literature,(both speculative and historical) being such an ardent atheist as you proclaim? And what of Brecht's Galileo? Luther by John Osborne? Goya's Ghosts by Milos Forman? Bunuel's L Age d' Or? The Mission by Roland Joffe?
Scorsese's Last Temptation? Godard's Hail Mary? Preminger's The Cardinal? Pasolini's Salo?
Abigail Williams and the Reverend Samuel Parris? Constantine's Sword by James Carroll?
All cheap revisionist trash as well?
 May 31, 2010 at 2:09 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
do you hold the same contemptuous opinions of other anti-clerical works of art and literature,(both speculative and historical) being such an ardent atheist as you proclaim? And what of Brecht's Galileo? Luther by John Osborne? Goya's Ghosts by Milos Forman? Bunuel's L Age d' Or? The Mission by Roland Joffe?
Scorsese's Last Temptation? Godard's Hail Mary? Preminger's The Cardinal? Pasolini's Salo?
Abigail Williams and the Reverend Samuel Parris? Constantine's Sword by James Carroll?
All cheap revisionist trash as well?
You seem highly confused. My objections to this movie are based on (i) its distortions of history and (ii) its director's pretentions to presenting history accurately. That's all.
As it happens, I like and admire most of the works you mention. Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ and Joffe's The Mission are two of my favourite films of all time. But the former never claimed to be presenting accurate history and the latter didn't distort history as badly as this movie does.
You might want to get that bee out of your bonnet.
 May 31, 2010 at 2:41 PM    

Baron Korf said...
It is kind of funny really. We Catholics seem to produce our holiest men and women in times of persecution, and display our sins most brazenly when we are in power. That might be why our faith, at its core, does not have a socio-political structure.
Nice job. It is refreshing to see an atheist who does his research. So many out there will latch on to the slightest rumor that it must make your work all the more difficult.
Don't get me wrong, I'll still pray for your conversion. But in the meanwhile I can still respect you as a man of learning.
 June 3, 2010 at 8:04 AM    

 Anonymous said...
While noting that the following does not, by any logical necessity, lead to error or falsehood in terms of conclusions, it seems somewhat telling (or at least, shall we say, intellectually "suspicious") that those who have most adamantly critiqued O'Neill in his portrayal of Christians in relation to this particular episode of history, use some rather ideologically loaded terms of ideas within their own accounts.
For example, speaking of "Christian natural intolerance, the constant hate for the possibility that a non Christian could be socially and culturally important."
Or, "Roman Christianity has always been hostile to women including in the area of education and its long history is ample proof of this. The Romanising of religion did bring on a dark age of ignorance that continues to this day to insist that children are taught what to think rather than how to think."
One could argue for particular examples or instances of course, but what makes these particularly eye-raising is the absolute generality of such claims; claims which a variety of historical arguments and examples can readily contradict. These are rather absolutized simplications and amount to, I would suggest, a caricature.
I cannot help but note that there is a certain irony in this given the themes under discussion.
 June 7, 2010 at 4:15 AM    

 Alvin said...
To Tim O Neill,
I am a deist and consider myself sympathetic to Christianity, First of all, if you have time and are reading this. I would like to thank you for your brilliant defence of the objectivity of History and not History as distorted by anti-christian bigoted media producers and bloggers like the ones you've talked to.
Although it shocks me that in this day and age of such strident secularism, and access to information via the internet, educated people can willingly maintain ignorance and be blinded by their ideology in the face of asserted facts just to debunk Christianity, most of them are atheists, so thanks again for being one of the rare few that can still maintain the balance between objectivity and skepticism of religion.
You do christians in the west at least a favour, by honouring the truth about their history despite being told to be bigoted, ignorant, and crazy people by the huge majority of fundamentalist secularists who like the Nazis and pseudo-christians in europe viewed minority groups who don't hold to their values as sub-human, which I'm seeing more and more in the west.
I know that you're an atheist and you would most likely disagree with me on the merits of Christianity, but Thanks again for being one of the few who could at least see the truth and are willing to follow it wherever it leads
 June 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM    

 Alvin said...
To Tim O Neill,
I am a deist and consider myself sympathetic to Christianity, First of all, if you have time and are reading this. I would like to thank you for your brilliant defence of the objectivity of History and not History as distorted by anti-christian bigoted media producers and bloggers like the ones you've talked to.
Although it shocks me that in this day and age of such strident secularism, and access to information via the internet, educated people can willingly maintain ignorance and be blinded by their ideology in the face of asserted facts just to debunk Christianity, most of them are atheists, so thanks again for being one of the rare few that can still maintain the balance between objectivity and skepticism of religion.
You do christians in the west at least a favour, by honouring the truth about their history despite being told to be bigoted, ignorant, and crazy people by the huge majority of fundamentalist secularists who like the Nazis and pseudo-christians in europe viewed minority groups who don't hold to their values as sub-human, which I'm seeing more and more in the west.
I know that you're an atheist and you would most likely disagree with me on the merits of Christianity, but Thanks again for being one of the few who could at least see the truth and are willing to follow it wherever it leads
 June 7, 2010 at 12:47 PM    

Homage said...
This is a really interesting post. I only found it after I wrote about Agora, but I've added a link so my readers - both of them, ha ha - can follow on to your expert perspective. Thanks.
 June 9, 2010 at 2:30 PM    

 Anonymous said...
Thanks for clearing up a lot of questions I had while squirming through 2 (or was it 4?) hours of watching Agora. Greatly enjoyed reading your insights.
What bugged me though was your absolute certainty that Hypatia was not killed for being a freethinker - how can you rely so faithfully on accounts authored by people who had "their own wheelbarrows to push". It would not be the first time that a proud woman who was not intimidated by males or dogmas was persecuted as a witch. Isn't it interesting and revealing about their motives, that the lynching monks felt the need to strip Hypatia naked. And don't tell me they had to do that in order to skin her properly. In that sense the movie's version is as believable as any other. Historians, who, as you well know (from your comments on Gibbon) can be a very prejudiced bunch of "arrogant bastards" (sorry, borrowed from your self description). In particular the christian historians must have had definitive agendas. So even Hollywood's interpretation might have some truth when it comes to why Hypatia was chosen by christian fanatics for a good bit of stoning and skinning.
As a Jerusalemite I know a bit about this type of mentality.
 June 12, 2010 at 11:50 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anonymous asked;
What bugged me though was your absolute certainty that Hypatia was not killed for being a freethinker - how can you rely so faithfully on accounts authored by people who had "their own wheelbarrows to push".
I said nothing about "absolute certainty". The study of history is about what is most probable, given the evidence. To simply say the accounts had "their own wheelbarrows to push" doesn't give us the right to, therefore, ignore what they say and make up some other story that appeals to us more. Unless we can see clear indications that our sources have an agenda, we have to accept what they say.
In this case, it's hard to see that the consistent story we find in our two most detailed and earliest sources can be due to any such agendas. Scholasticus was a Christian and one with no love for Cyril. He also gives a detailed political context that makes it clear that Hypatia was killed in revenge for the murder of one of Cyril's followers. And Damascius supports this, yet he was a pagan. So why would both a pagan and a Christian, with very different agendas, tell us the same story - that her murder was political? The most obvious answer is that it's because this was true.
It would not be the first time that a proud woman who was not intimidated by males or dogmas was persecuted as a witch.
No, it wouldn't be. So we have to look at the context and see if this is likely to have been the case here - we can't just assume it because it makes for a good story. Firstly, as I note above, we have two early detailed sources by two totally different types of writer who say it was due to politics and had nothing to do with her being a female teacher. Secondly, we have an another example of a female teacher in Alexandria - Aedesia - who was also a neo-Platonist, a pagan and a renowned teacher. If she had also been killed or oppressed you have a case. But she wasn't. So why would uppity women teachers be a problem in the 410s but not in the following decades?
Isn't it interesting and revealing about their motives, that the lynching monks felt the need to strip Hypatia naked. And don't tell me they had to do that in order to skin her properly.
Sorry, but why can't I tell you that? Is it possible to skin someone alive through their clothes? Hypatia's murder was revenge for the death of Ammonius, who Orestes had tortured to death. So Cyril's followers took revenge by torturing Hypatia to death.
The movie may tell a story we find plausible. But it doesn't tell the story we find in the evidence. History is about evidence, not neat little stories.
 June 13, 2010 at 3:00 AM    

Anebo said...
Could you get off the 'skinning' please.
Evidently this comes from Gibbon. I assume you have a sufficient command of the sources to see that there is no mention of any such thing in any ancient text. Killing someone with tiles means stoning them to death. I said this before, and it is not some bizarre pet theory. Go look it up the uses of 'ostracon' in the LSJ yourself.
 June 13, 2010 at 3:15 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Good point.
 June 13, 2010 at 3:49 AM    

Jarett said...
Of course, we don't "know" the motivations of the players and the mob, and thus the question of to what degree and in which ways dogmatism actually played a role in the historical incident, is of course debatable - but that merely makes the movie speculative, not inaccurate, or pseudo-historical. Moreover, it's important to note that the theme of the film is not really a judgement on the historical incident at all. It's a modern theme aimed at a modern audience, and is really about the modern world - and to read into the film's exploration of the political and social consequences of dogmatism a definite (as opposed to speculative) statement on the history itself is to misunderstand the theme and the purpose of the film.
Essentially, if anyone is walking away from the film with the historical notion that Christian fundamentalism in the fourth century gave rise to the Dark Ages of western Europe through the persecution and killing of philosophers and scholars such as Hypatia, it's because they brought that idea into the theatre with them. And that isn't a failing on the part of the film, because the film never presents that notion at all.
(Of course it doesn't go out of its way to counter any such misconceptions either, but I don't think 'doing your utmost to correct common historical fallacies' was on the director's agenda when deciding to make this film.)
So if this is one of your main objections to the film, I'd have to say that IMO you're guilty of reading into the film your own preconceptions about what its theme must entail. The ideas you object to in your comment simply aren't in the film.
 June 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM    

Jarett said...
Hi Tim,
Now that this movie is out in Canada I was able to see it (personally, I loved it). Read through some of the arguments here - quite interesting - and wanted to comment that I quite disagree with your view of the theme of the movie. Specifically, per your comment:
"But it's the "overlaying theme of the movie" that I'm objecting to. Hypatia's death did NOT usher in some "Dark Age". Philosophy and science continued to be practised in Alexandria by both pagans and Christians for some time to come and continued to be practiced in the Eastern Empire long after that.
And Cyril's victory did NOT lead to some kind of fundamentalism. In fact, at around this time, the Christians who rejected Greek philosophy and learning and wanted to base all knowledge on the Bible [i]lost[/i] that debate. Reason and philosophy were enshrined in Christian thought as a result and the foundations of a later flowering of rational inquiry in the Christian West were laid."
I don't think there is really anything in the film to support either of these ideas. Nowhere in the film is it suggested that this event ushered in a Dark Age, or signaled a rise in religious fundamentalism. Essentially, you are objecting to a theme that doesn't exist (in this film).
The film tells the story of Hypatia in the vein of Gibbon, which may not be accurate, but is at the very least informed (certainly far more informed than the historical sensibilities of the average filmgoer). And importantly, it was, to me at least, very clear from the film that the story is somewhat fictionalized and not 100% historical 'fact'. Her death is shown in the film as directly of political motivation (which I gather from the discussion above is the academic consensus on the history). But the theme of the movie revolves around its portrayal of the beliefs and motivations of those surrounding the circumstances of her death - specifically that their thinking, and their values, stem from dogmatism (in this case religious), a dogmatism which serves as a tool for the politics of ambitious leaders (Cyril). Hypatia is merely one more casualty, made all the more tragic by the film's speculation over what learnings this intelligent woman may have discovered (or been capable of discovering) had history evolved differently. In short: the theme is that dogmatism mixed with politics leads to tragic and undesirable consequences, intended or unintended (such as the death of the brightest philosopher of the time).
 June 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Jarett said:
I don't think there is really anything in the film to support either of these ideas. Nowhere in the film is it suggested that this event ushered in a Dark Age, or signaled a rise in religious fundamentalism. Essentially, you are objecting to a theme that doesn't exist (in this film).
Then we must have seen different movies. As I detail in my more recent follow up article (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html), this is precisely what is strongly emphasised both in the movie itself and in what the director said about it.
Why else does it emphasise that the "library" it (wrongly) claims was in the Serapeum contained "all that remains of the wisdom of men"? How does that not imply that its destruction somehow also destroyed knowledge found nowhere else? Why did Amenábar introduce the movie at Cannes by claiming that without the destruction of this "library" we might now be living in colonies on Mars? Why does this video promoting the movie in Germany explicitly claim that Hypatia DID discover heliocentrism? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNlDCCvNyJY) To pretend that the movie doesn't make precisely these claims is totally naive - the theme is quite clear. The director has even said that this was his intention, so perhaps you better go explain to him what his movie does and doesn't mean.
In short: the theme is that dogmatism mixed with politics leads to tragic and undesirable consequences, intended or unintended (such as the death of the brightest philosopher of the time).
Except there is nothing in the sources that indicates that religious dogmatism was part of the equation at all. The movie changes the history to delibrately distort things to introduce that element at every turn, as I detail in my follow-up article.
 June 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM    

Anebo said...
That German video is bizarre. Of course she could not have discovered Heliocentrism (remember Aristarchus about 500 or 600 years earlier).
 June 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
She also couldn't have espoused heliocentrism because (i) she was the daughter of the most famous editor of Ptolemy and almost certainly accepted the Ptolemaic model and (ii) someone would have mentioned it if she had because any espousal of Aristarchus' theory would have been highly unusual given that it had long since been rejected.
We only know of Aristarchus' ideas from two brief, dismissive mentions. It was regarded as nonsense.
 June 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
Aristarchus did not discover heliocentrism.
a) It's not clear from the surviving fragment if he thought the sun the center or the Central Fire. Pythagoreans thought the sun was a mirror.
b) He did not discover it; he simply asserted it. The Fire was in the center because Fire was nobler than Earth and the center was a nobler position than the periphery. There are many names for this kind of reasoning, but "science" isn't one of them. Neither is "discovery."
c) If Aristarchus discovered heliocentrism, then Jonathon Swift discovered the moons of Mars.
 June 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM    

 Anonymous said...
You know? I actually miss Caturo's feeble ranting and raving. Good comedy.
 June 18, 2010 at 11:11 PM    

 Anonymous said...
The Dark Ages are a western European phenomenon, whereas Christianity was as strong, or even stronger, in the east as well.
It could have quite simply been a different power dynamic.
Taking your account of Hypatia's death into it, the Christian Church in the West looks to have been subject to a destabilising power struggle at the time of the fall.
While the East possibly either wasn't, or the struggle was more disproportionate and thus more quickly overcome.
In the West it is difficult to imagine that such a power struggle would be devoid of Christian arguments for which side should win.
 June 22, 2010 at 3:19 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
An anonymous person tried this:
In the West it is difficult to imagine that such a power struggle would be devoid of Christian arguments for which side should win.
In other words, you clearly have no clues about what was happening in the West and are now just grasping hopefully at anything that makes it sound like you have some kind of case. Pathetic.
 June 22, 2010 at 6:20 AM    

 Abraxas123 said...
Finally saw the film almost a year after its release, hardly having enough car chases and explosions to merit a big PR push in the Bible Belt.
So you really think this was just another Church-bashing pandering to neo-atheists? Without repeating some of the other objections above, do you really believe:
1) that Cyril was just doing what any good bishop would do under like circumstances? Do you know what the Novations stood for and why he persecuted them? Why he called in his personal army of Nitrian monks (though how they could remotely be considered "men of God" is beyond me) to do his dirty work?
2) that Giordano Bruno's brutal execution was just because he was a nutcase and raving mystic, so not really a true attack on science?
3) that what we now think of as scientific principles of investigation were not undermined, threatened, and eventually completely subjugated by the forced primacy of "Christian" scripture?
Come on! Hypatia's brutal murder at the hands of a Christian mob of "Taliban" may not have signaled the beginning of the Dark Ages, but it was entirely consistent with the end of rational free-thinking represented by Hellenistic science.
This film bent over backwards to present a balanced view of the murder of Hypatia. If anything, it made the Christians look better than how most of the historical references presented it.
 July 25, 2010 at 1:13 PM    

TonyTheProf said...
Surely the question is not whether Cyril was a Christian fanatic, but whether he was more representative of the Christian church than the Christians who studied under Hypatia (and who saw nothing inherently anti-Christian in her beliefs)?
And to lump this together with Giordano Bruno etc as "crimes by the church" is rather like looking at "crimes of Rome" as something that was inherently part of the Roman Empire, and a reason for not looking at the good that Rome did as well.
 July 25, 2010 at 9:55 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
do you really believe:
1) that Cyril was just doing what any good bishop would do under like circumstances?<
No.
Do you know what the Novations stood for and why he persecuted them? Why he called in his personal army of Nitrian monks (though how they could remotely be considered "men of God" is beyond me) to do his dirty work?
Yes, yes and yes.
2) that Giordano Bruno's brutal execution was just because he was a nutcase and raving mystic, so not really a true attack on science?
Yes.
3) that what we now think of as scientific principles of investigation were not undermined, threatened, and eventually completely subjugated by the forced primacy of "Christian" scripture?
No. What we now think of as scientific principles didn’t exist in Greek or Roman times any more than they existed in the Medieval period.
Come on! Hypatia's brutal murder at the hands of a Christian mob of "Taliban" may not have signaled the beginning of the Dark Ages, but it was entirely consistent with the end of rational free-thinking represented by Hellenistic science.
Garbage. Go crack open a book on rational inquiry in the Middle Ages. Grant’s God and Reason in the Middle Ages would be a good place to start. Educate yourself before cluttering up this discussion with your bigoted nonsense again.
 July 26, 2010 at 7:47 PM    

 Tony said...
I'd agree in part - Bruno's trial focussed more on his pantheistic beliefs than his science, but nevertheless the Catholic church was by that time become firmly entrenched in Aristotelian science as underpinning its theology, which was a bad mistake (and of the kind that Augustine had warned about centuries before)
 July 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Bruno never did any "science". He accepted heliocentrism because it fitted with his purely mystical world view. And heliocentirsm wasn't even heretical anyway. 77 years before Bruno was put to death for his religious ideas, Pope Clement VII enjoyed a lecture on Copernicus' theories by Johann Widmanstadt delivered in the Vatican gardens. He found the lecture so fascinating he rewarded Widmanstadt with a gift of a precious manuscript.
Funny how these "Christianity stifled science" clowns don't seem to know about things like that.
 July 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM    

 Tony said...
"he defended his theories as scientifically founded and by no means against the Holy Scriptures: "Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures […]. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting[…]). "
That's from the Vatican Archives
http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1597.htm
So I don't think you can totally write off his scientific ideas. There's precious little in the way of documents, because most have been lost, so we have to take what we can (and not assume because there is little scientific material, that some at any rate did not underpin Bruno's ideas)
The Vatican's own published note states:
"In the same rooms where Giordano Bruno was questioned, for the same important reasons of the relationship between science and faith, at the dawning of the new astronomy and at the decline of Aristotle’s philosophy, sixteen years later, Cardinal Bellarmino, who then contested Bruno’s heretical theses, summoned Galileo Galilei, who also faced a famous inquisitorial trial, which, luckily for him, ended with a simple abjuration. "
I think the Vatican's assessment is a fair one, but maybe I'm biased towards Catholicism!
 July 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
In 1600 it was not considered heretical to believe the sun went around the earth. As I noted, 77 years before Bruno's trial the Pope himself was happily contemplating this very idea. Bruno, however, also believed that the Trinity was a fraud, that Jesus wasn't divine, that Mary wasn't a virgin, that Transubstantiation wasn't true and that souls reincarnated.
Those are the reasons he was tried for heresy, not his beliefs about heliocentrism.
Of course he was questioned about heliocentrism too and of course he pointed to the fact that they could be substantiated by reason. New Age teachers try to defend their claim that "we create our own reality" with reference to quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make them quantum physicists.
To depict this mystic as a scientist is a wild distortion of history.
 July 27, 2010 at 1:36 PM    

TheOFloinn said...
The translator of Bruno's Ash Wednesday Supper commented that, if they had bothered to read the book, the Copernicans themselves would have happily burned Bruno. Where he mentions Copernicus, he disparages him in favor of the genius of Bruno. Yet where he tries to get specific about astronomy, he shows he is unfamiliar with it.
 July 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Over one year and 153 comments later, I think it's time to close this discussion. We've been over the same ground several times and it's now becoming little more than place where those outraged that their myths are being questioned can come and shreik and stamp their feet. Besides, there is a much more detailed analysis of this movie in my recent blog post and anyone who really wants to discuss the history (as opposed to shout that Hypatia WAS murdered for being a pagan/scientist/woman/rather pretty) can do so there.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html
Comments closed.
 July 28, 2010 at 11:26 AM   
Post a Comment



Newer Post  Older Post  Home


Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 


Search Amazon
   
 

Blog Information Profile for Thiudareiks
         http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html








 
 




Armarium Magnum





Subscribe To













  Posts  













  Comments  


 

Welcome to Armarium Magnum

"Armarium Magnum" translates roughly as 'the big book cabinet'. This blog aims to be a repository for book reviews, mainly of books on ancient and medieval history, but also on early Christianity, the historical Jesus, atheism, scepticism and philosophy.

 

Popular Posts


 
"Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again



 
Hypatia and "Agora" Redux



 
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald


 

Follow by Email



   
 
 
Follow on Quora
Follow Tim
 

Share it
   


 

Search This Blog



 




 

Blog Archive


►    2014 (3)


►    2013 (3)


►    2012 (3)


►    2011 (5)



▼   2010 (3) ▼   May (2) Hypatia and "Agora" Redux
God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Rod...
►    February (1)
►    2009 (16)








 

Blogs of Worth and Merit





 Bryn Mawr Classical Review
 2015.04.55 
9 hours ago





 Exploring Our Matrix
 Does This Get Your Goat? 
12 hours ago





 The TOF Spot
 Oddities 
14 hours ago





 In the Middle

 
 Nothing Has Yet Been Said: On the Non-Existence of Academic Freedom and the Necessity of Inoperative Communities 
15 hours ago





 teleskopos
 PhD scholarship in history of science 
23 hours ago





 Quodlibeta
 Is the book trade too left wing for its own good? 
1 day ago





 Medieval News

 
 The Middle Ages are Not 'Medieval' and more medieval news 
1 day ago





 In Romaunce as We Rede . . .

 
 On Holy Terror 
2 days ago





 Viking Archaeology Blog
 Viking voyages began earlier than thought 
2 days ago





 Anglo-Saxon Archaeology Blog
 Viking voyages began earlier than thought 
2 days ago





 Bread and Circuses
 Ben Kane's Eagles at War 
2 days ago





 Roger Pearse
 Online: Free .pdf version of Lanciani’s “Forma Urbis Romae” 
4 days ago





 The Renaissance Mathematicus
 Abraham Ortelius and the 16th century information age. 
1 week ago





 The New Oxonian
 Atheist Martyrs? Gnus to me. 
1 week ago





 badarchaeology.wordpress.com/
 Amazing Discovery Number 3 That Won’t Make You Question Anything 
1 week ago





 Wormtalk and Slugspeak
 Anglo-Saxon Medicine 
4 weeks ago





 The Heroic Age
 
1 month ago





 A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe
 Death reaches us via the Internet 
1 month ago





 Geoffrey Chaucer Hath An Extreme Blog: Go England! It ys Rad!
 Maken Melodye on Whan That Aprille Day 2015 
1 month ago





 Medieval History Geek
 Kalamazoo Registration is Up! 
2 months ago





 PaleoBabble
 New PaleoBabble blog 
1 year ago





 Research News in Late Antiquity

 
 Late Antiquity Made New: A Celebration of the Career of Elizabeth A. Clark, Duke University (Durham), April 11-13, 2013 
2 years ago





 Summer of Blood: The Middle Ages in Popular Culture
 Recent work 
2 years ago





 Got Medieval
 Medieval Batman Cosplay Worth the Click-Through 
2 years ago





 The Dubious Disciple
 



 

Goodly Sites
History vs The Da Vinci Code - Facts vs Hype
Medievalist.net
University of Reading - Medieval Book Reviews
 

About Me
My Photo Tim O'Neill  Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard.View my complete profile
 

Followers


   


 













 








 










 








 





 
Sunday, May 30, 2010


   
Hypatia and "Agora" Redux









Redux
 Well, it's been just over a year since I wrote my article on Alejandro Amenábar's film Agora and expressed my misgivings that it would perpetuate some Gibbonian myths about how Hypatia of Alexandria was some kind of martyr for science, how wicked Christians destroyed "the Great Library of Alexandria" in AD 391 and how her murder and the Library's destruction ushered in the Dark Ages.  That article certainly attracted some attention and stirred up emotions - so far it's racked up 4,872 page views and attracted 125 comments, many highly hostile.
 Of course, when I wrote that article the film had only been screened at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival and so I was simply able to comment on what the director and star said about it in press releases and interviews and on what could be gleaned from trailers and a couple of brief clips.  Inevitably, some of those who weren't happy with what I had to say pounced on this and claimed that I couldn't criticise the movie until I'd seen it, even though I made it very clear that I wasn't criticising the film per se and that I would withhold judgement on it as a whole until I'd seen it.
Agora has now been released in both the UK and US and so is attracting rather more attention.  Since there is still no sign of when (or if) it will be released here in Australia, I decided to put aside my usual principles and download a copy from the internet so I could finally see it for myself.
The Good, the Bad and the Silly
 To begin with, there's actually quite a bit to like about this movie.  The cinematography is rich and engaging and the sets combine nicely with some judicious use of CGI to give us a vivid reconstruction of late Fourth and early Fifth Century Alexandria.  At several points Amenábar pulls the camera out of the action, up into the sky for a bird's eye view of the city and then out into space to look down on the earth as a whole.  A few critics have called these the "Google Earth shots", but personally I thought it worked well as a way of noting how petty and insignificant the violent political and religious squabbles at the centre of the story actually were.  Amenábar has noted in interviews that he was originally inspired to make the movie by Carl Sagan's 1980s TV series Cosmos and these shots were a nice nod to Sagan's ability put our human concerns into a cosmic perspective (even if, as I detailed in my original article, Sagan also managed to bungle the history of Hypatia rather badly in that series).
 I also thought  Rachel Weisz and most of the rest of the cast did a very good job with a story and, at times, a script that had the potential to be highly unwieldy.  The dialogue was often clunky, as it certainly can be in historical epics like this, but Weisz managed to make scenes where she expounds on the Ptolomaic cosmological model interesting and certainly captured the "self-possession and ease of manner" that Socrates Scholasticus says Hypatia was known for very nicely.
 While the sets were impressively detailed, with Roman and Hellenic elements mixed with Egyptian motifs, the same can't be said for the costumes, which tended to be "generic ancient tunics and togas" rather than clothing of the specific period.  Even less thought was given to the arms and armour of the Roman troops and the warring factions.  It seems no-one can make a "Roman" film without equipping Roman soldiers in generic First Century AD helmets, swords and armour, regardless of what century the film is actually set in.  So here the Romans wear what look like left-overs from Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, with brassy-looking pseudo-First Century helmets, short gladius swords and, of course, leather lorica segmentata for armour.  It would have been nice for nitpicky obsessives like me to finally see a movie set in the later Roman Period where the soldiers actually look like late Roman troops, but that was probably expecting too much.
 The movie does do some playing around with the timeline of events and with the major characters in the story, but most of this can be excused on dramatic grounds.  In the first half of the story the Prefect Orestes (Oscar Isaac) is depicted not just as one of Hypatia's students but also as the one who, according to the famous story, publicly declared his love for her and got rebuffed.  It's said the historical Hypatia rejected him by presenting him with rags stained with her menstrual blood and said "This is what you're in love with".  But because the film never bothers to make her neo-Platonist asceticism clear - exactly what her philosophical views might be is never explored except in the vaguest terms - this incident doesn't really make much cultural sense - she comes across as a modern career academic "married to her job" rather than a disciple of the school of Plotinus. 
 We know that Synesius (Rupert Evans), who later became Bishop of Cyrene, was one of her students.  And in the movie he comes back into the latter part of the story as well and tries to convince Hypatia to placate her enemies by converting to Christianity.  Finally, a fictional slave, Davus (Max Minghella), is introduced to provide the third element in an unrequited love triangle with Orestes and Hypatia.  All these changes to the historical accounts are fairly tolerable, but where the "history" in the story goes widly off the rails is when Amenábar and fellow screenplay writer Mateo Gil begin their hamfisted sermonising.  Then things get silly.





The Library That Never Was
 The screenplay includes sufficient elements and details from the actual historical story to indicate that Amenábar and Gil did enough homework to have been able to depict things as they actually happened.  But this is a movie with a message and an agenda, so these elements get mixed around, downplayed, countered or simply distorted to suit Amenábar's objectives.  More importantly, most of the elements that support the "message" the director is preaching are wholesale fictional inventions.
 To begin with, "the Library of Alexandria" forms the focus of the first half of the film.  Amenábar depicts this "Library of Alexandria" as forming the core of the Temple of Serapis - in fact, the Temple itself seems almost an adjunct to it - and it is described as containing "all that remains of the wisdom of men".  This is historically problematic on several fronts.  To begin with, as I detailed in my article last year, there was no "Great Library of Alexandria" as such in the city at this time.  The former Great Library had degraded and suffered several major losses of books over the centuries but it had ceased to exist by this stage - the last clear reference to it that we know of dates all the way back to AD 135.  We do know from several sources that the colonnades of the Serapeum did contain a collection of books at one time and this was a "daughter library" former Great Library's collection.  But Ammianus Marcellinus, who may have visited Alexandria himself when he was in Egypt in the late 360s, refers to the "two priceless libraries" it had once housed in the past tense, indicating they were no longer there by his time.  This fits with the descriptions we have in no less than five sources about the sack and destruction of the Serapeum at the hands of the Christians in AD 391: none of which mention any library or books at all.  This silence is made more significant by the fact that one of these sources was Eunapius of Sardis, who was not only a vehement anti-Christian but also a philosopher himself.  If anyone had an incentive to at least mention this aspect of the destruction it was Eunapius, but he makes no mention of any library or any destruction of books.
 So the idea that any "Library of Alexandria" or any library at all was destroyed by the Christian mob in AD 391 is simply without evidential foundation.
 Amenábar's screenplay gives some indication that he is aware of at least some of this.  The opening titles (in Spanish) do declare explicitly that in Hypatia's time "Alexandria .... possessed ... the (world's) largest known library" (poseia .... la biblioteca mas grande conocida) and a subtitle a few minutes later declares the site of Hypatia's lecture in the opening scene is "the Library of Alexandria" (Biblioteca de Alejandria).  But later one of the characters mentions " ... the fire that destroyed the mother library ... ", though this is in a piece of background dialogue while Hypatia is saying something else - less attentive viewers may even miss it completely.  Amenábar himself referred in one interview last year to the library in his film as "the second Library of Alexandria", so he clearly understands that the original Great Library no longer existed in AD 391.  But he doesn't exactly go out of his way to make this clear to his audience.  And he not only includes a library in the Serapeum, despite the evidence even this smaller library no longer existed at this point, but makes it the centre and focus of the whole complex.
 Not surprisingly, it is also the focus of the scenes of the storming of the Serapeum by the Christian mob that form the climax of the first half of the film.  The accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum make it clear that the mob did not just storm the temple, they tore it to the ground, leaving little more than its foundations.  But the movie doesn't depict this at all.  Apart from toppling the great statue of Serapis and some other vandalism, the Christians leave the building intact and concentrate almost entirely on dragging the scrolls out of the library and burning them in the temple courtyards.  At one point as they swarm through the gate someone can even be heard shouting "Burn the scrolls!", as though this was the whole point of the exercise  So, oddly, Amenábar doesn't bother depicting what the mob did do and concentrates instead on something not even hinted at in the source material.  He wants to keep the emphasis firmly on the idea of Christians as destroyers of ancient knowledge and reason.  One reviewer, accepting this scene as wholly factual, calls it "the movie's most emotionally powerful moment" and says "it really makes you cry".  She's blissfully unaware that the whole scene is almost entirely fiction.





 Alexandrian Street Politics
 The second act of the film concentrates on the disputes within the city that led to the murder of Hypatia.  Again, Amenábar and Gil's screenplay indicate that they are aware of some of the complexities of the situation, but their movie's agenda means that it's almost always the Christians who are cast in the worst possible light.  Socrates Scholasticus makes it clear that the political struggle for civic dominance between Bishop Cyril and the prefect Orestes had its origin in the Orestes torturing to death a follower of Cyril's, Hierax, who the Jewish community in the city accused of stirring up emnity against them.  In response, Cyril threatened the Jews, ordering them to "desist from their molestation of the Christians" and the Jews reacted by setting an ambush for Christians in the Church of Alexander, killing a number of them.  Cyril retaliated by setting his mob on the Jews and driving them (or at least some of them) out of the city.
 Amenábar depicts some of this tit-for-tat series of threats and violence, but invents a scene where the Taliban-style Parabolani instigate the whole dispute by sneaking into the theatre where the Jews are holding a Sabbath celebration and stoning them.  This is found nowhere in the sources but, once again, Amenábar introduces a fictional incident into the story to make the whole conflict with the Jews and the subsequent feud between Cyril and Orestes into the fault of Cyril's faction - a clear distortion of the reported facts.
 He also distorts other incidents in the dispute.  Again, Socrates Scholasticus reports that Cyril made overtures of a negotiated settlement with the prefect, but "when Orestes refused to listen to friendly advances, Cyril extended toward him the book of gospels, believing that respect for religion would induce him to lay aside his resentment." (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, VII, 13).  Orestes, however, rejected the gesture and refused to be reconciled with the bishop.  A garbled version of this incident appears in the movie, but - yet again - Amenábar adds a fictional scene where Cyril implicitly condemns Orestes, not for supporting the Jews, but for being influcenced by Hypatia: something not mentioned in the sources.  In this scene, during a church service Cyril reads the passage in 1Timothy 2 where Paul orders women to be modest, to submit to men and to be silent and condemns women teaching men.  He then orders Orestes to kneel before the Bible he's just read from in acknowledgement that what Cyril has read is true and Orestes refuses.  Amenábar changes the incident to put its focus on Hypatia, despite the fact this scene is almost totally invented.
 The movie then moves from this fictional scene to Cyril ordering the Parabolani to respond by attacking Hypatia.  So while it does make it clear that this was in retaliation for the torture and death of another of Cyril's followers by Orestes and due to the political struggle between the two rivals - which is factual - by inventing a scene where Cyril condemns Hypatia for being a woman who teaches men  Amenábar sets up the idea that this was the also a reason Hypatia was targeted - which is not factual at all.  But it serves his ideological purpose of implying that Hypatia's learning was a major issue, not simply the political faction fighting.
 None of the factions come out of the movie looking particularly good, but these invented scenes do their best to cast Cyril and his followers as the instigators of the trouble and make them the clear villains in what was, on all sides, a rather grubby power struggle.  It's very odd that Cyril and most of his Parabolani fanatics are swarthy types who, despite being native Alexandrians, speak with thick Middle Eastern accents.  They also always wear black.  The pagans and members of Orestes' faction, on the other hand, all speak with clipped upper-class English accents and tend to wear white.  The implications here are less than subtle.





Fictional Science and Supposed Atheism
 The final major invention by Amenábar which also suits his agenda is the rather fanciful idea that Hypatia was on the brink of not only proving heliocentrism when she was murdered but at establishing Keplerian elliptical planetary orbits into the bargain.  The film makes reference to the fact that Aristarchus of Samos had come up with a heliocentric hypothesis in the 300s BC, and mentions a couple of reasons it was regarded as making "no sense at all" (though doesn't mention the primary one - the stellar parallax problem).  But it invents a series of scenes depicting Hypatia pressing on with this idea despite these (then) not inconsiderable objections.  The whole purpose of these sequences is to make the murder of Hypatia seem like more of a loss to learning at the hands of ignorant fundamentalists.  Hypatia was certainly renowned for her learning, but there is actually no evidence she was any great innovator, let alone that she had any interest at all in Aristarchus' long-rejected hypothesis.  In fact, as the daughter of Ptolemy's most famous ancient editor and commentator, the idea that she would reject the Ptolemaic model of cosmology is pretty far fetched.  Once again, it's Amenábar's invented elements that work to support his agenda of simplifying the story into one of "ignorance and fanaticism versus scholarship and inquiry".
 The movie also heavily implies that Hypatia was entirely non-religious or even an atheist - something else not found in any of the source material.  Confronted with the accusation that she is without any religion ("someone who, admittedly, believes in absolutely nothing") Hypatia replies, rather vaguely, "I believe in philosophy".   Later Cyril describes her as "a woman who has declared, in public, her ungodliness".  In fact, of all the pagan schools of thought, the neo-Platonists were the closest to a monotheistic view of the world, which is why first Jewish and then early Christian theologians took on board so much of their philosophy and integrated it into their ideas.  Yet again, Amenábar invents something that has no basis in any of the evidence that suits the sermon his movie is preaching.
 Over and over again, elements are added to the story that are not in the source material: the destruction of the library, the stoning of the Jews in the theatre, Cyril condemning Hypatia's teaching because she is a woman, the heliocentric "breakthrough" and Hypatia's supposed irreligiousity.  And each of these invented elements serves to emphasise the idea that she was a freethinking innovator who was murdered because her learning threatened fundamentalist bigots.  The fact that Amenábar needs to rest this emphasis on things he has made up and mixed into the real story demonstrates how baseless this interpretation is.
Reactions
 It may be baseless, but it's receiving a predictably enthusiastic reception by many critics and moviegoers.  One IMDB reviewer certainly got the message, writing a glowing review entitled "Atheists of the all the world unite!". Another notes, "Amenábar made a statement before the screening that if the Alexandria library had not been destroyed, we might have landed on Mars already."  A third declares "I hope the film is appreciated and understood, and that we learn a little bit from its depiction of history so that we can't allow the destruction of art, history, knowledge, and the respect that allows civilizations to flourish."  And these comments are typical.  These viewers accepted all the invented pseudo historical additions to the story without question and happily swallowed the sermon they rest on.
 Several blog posts and articles have attempted to counter these distortions of history (notably Father Robert Baron, decentfilms.com, Jeffrey Overstreet, and the Catherine of Siena Institute).  All these writers are, however, Christians.  While several of them have attempted to deflect the charge that they are biased by reference to my article of last year (one poster on artsandfaith.com notes that I am "an atheist, no less!"), I know from my encounters with true believers in The Da Vinci Code that their Christianity will mean these attempts will be generally rejected or ignored - people like to cling to myths that confirm their ideas.
 Which means, rather ironically, this film exposes who are the true fundamentalists in this picture.

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  12:46 PM       
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest


  
 Labels: Agora, Alejandro Amenabar, Alexandria, Cyril, Great Library, Orestes, Rachel Weisz, Serapeum, Theophilus 


183 comments:


 Cecelia said...
Thank you for a thorough discussion - reading the reviews I was astonished at the ignorance of the reviewers - the film seems to be trying to set atheists and religious folk against each other based on fabrications - what a foolish thing to do. Cause we really need more conflict nowadays
 May 30, 2010 at 2:36 PM    

Baerista said...
Thank you for this balanced and thoughtful review. I think you hit on all the major points. The "astronomy" depicted in this film is anachronistic beyond belief (witness Hypatia carrying out an "experiment" an a ship drawn straight from the works of Galileo Galilei). I also agree that the notion of Hypatia being an "atheist" is quite silly. As numerous scholars have pointed out over the years, the fact that she still held an influential teaching position by the year 415 in a predominantly Christian city, strongly indicates that her brand of philosophy must have been quite compatible with Christianity.
 May 30, 2010 at 6:28 PM    

 Anonymous said...
It seems like your standards for this film are way too high. You seem to be nitpicking (what the Romans wore, etc). As movies go, this is about as accurate as you are ever going to get. And I don't think you gave any proof that the writer and director had an anti Christian agenda. You assume too much. If anything, this movie is rather fair to the Christians of Alexandria, who were like the Taliban. And from what I can gather from your review, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of any real historical evidence either way for Hypathia. Also, your writing is very clunky.
 May 30, 2010 at 11:42 PM    

 Emanuel said...
Muito interessante!
Already we saw this filme in Portugal, there is many months sinse release.
Obrigado (thanks)!
 May 31, 2010 at 1:01 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anonymous wrote:
It seems like your standards for this film are way too high. You seem to be nitpicking (what the Romans wore, etc). As movies go, this is about as accurate as you are ever going to get.
Actually, sadly enough, this is about as accurate as we're likely to get. Which is kind of sad. And I made it pretty clear that my comment on the armour was clearly nitpicking compared to the other criticisms - thus my use of the phrase "for nitpicky obsessives like me".
And I don't think you gave any proof that the writer and director had an anti Christian agenda. You assume too much.
You seem to be the one who is assuming things. If you read over my review again you'll find I never said his agenda is "anti-Christian" at all. Several of the Christians are presented in a fairly positive way. His agenda is to present a rather clumsy dichotomy between the "bad guys" (who are all religious) and the "good guys" (who are non-religious or not fanatically so). And to present Hypatia as a martyr of science and reason to religious ignorance. And he has to resort to twisting of the story and invented elements to do this.
And from what I can gather from your review, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of any real historical evidence either way for Hypathia.
We have enough evidence to show us that she was murdered because of the political dispute between Cyril and Orestes, not because she was a philosopher, because she was a woman or because she was a pagan. And that's the point. This movie distorts that evidence to paint a picture that fits Amenábar's sermon.
Also, your writing is very clunky.
*Chuckle* Well, as a guy with a Masters in English who is also a published freelance journalist, I think I'll manage. Thanks all the same.
 May 31, 2010 at 7:50 AM    

Doctor Mirabilis said...
Great review, Tim! I agree that the film has some redeeming qualities but, on the whole, is just as simplistic and manichean as any peplum from the 50s, perhaps even more. "Quo Vadis", although extremely pious, at least had a sympathetic pagan villain (the emperor Nero) delightfully played by the great Peter Ustinov. And if I remember well the character of Petronius (another pagan) was the most noble and complex of that film.
While, in "Agora", the Christian characters are all deeply unsympathetic: Cyril, Ammonius and the Parabolani are nothing more than a bunch of hateful fanatics, and even the moderate ones like Orestes and Synesius are ultimately shown in a negative light, acting for their own personal gain in the name of political opportunism. The character of Synesius is particulary problematic, since he humiliates Orestes over his loyalty to Hypatia and then viciously abandons her when she refuses to convert to Christianity. This, of course, contradicts all the historical evidence we have about him, available here: http://www.livius.org/su-sz/synesius/synesius_cyrene.html.
 May 31, 2010 at 10:25 AM    

James van Maanen, said...
This was really thorough, Tim, and for the most part, fair. Though, I think you overstate Amenábar's mistakes and/or inventions. They don't seem to me to work that much against either his thesis or the facts. They elaborate, probably for purposes of telescoping and making it easier for those of us who don't have all the facts at our fingertips. You're probably right, though: This IS just about as close to accurate as we're likely to get...
 May 31, 2010 at 1:25 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
James wrote:
I think you overstate Amenábar's mistakes and/or inventions. They don't seem to me to work that much against either his thesis or the facts. They elaborate, probably for purposes of telescoping and making it easier for those of us who don't have all the facts at our fingertips.
If that's all they actually did I'd have no problem with them. Several fictional additions to the film (eg Davus, Orestes as her student etc) are there simply for this kind of reason.
But the problem lies in additions/changes that do far more than this. The whole business with "the Library" is the most obvious example. We have five accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum and none of them mention any library there. And Ammianus tells us why - it wasn't there any more. Yet the movie makes the destruction of this non-existent library the focus of its first half. That's hardly a small addition for the purposes telescoping etc - that's a major addition designed to support the film maker's heavy-handed agenda.
And there are multiple other examples: Cyril's sermon on 1Timothy 2, the scene where the Parabolani burn the pagan aristocrat in the agora, the fictional stoning of the Jews in the library etc. All of these additions are there purely to keep the movie's agenda clear, despite the fact they are all fictional inventions.
Yet over and over again I keep reading reviews of this movie that accept its distorted history as fact. And that's the problem.
 May 31, 2010 at 2:14 PM    

Denise said...
As someone who tried herself to turn what is known about Hypatia into a screenplay I know just what an amazing job Agora did.
And while I found it desperately hard to find any meaning in her hideous death, this was beautiful and I must commend this scriptwriter for how he managed to make it work.
Lovely review, by the way. Very in-depth, learned and clever, although you don't make any reference to that wonderful line someone or other made back in 4th century Alexandria "This is an act of savagery that future generations will choose to blame on the villains of their own age."
I thought, if you'd have come across that in your research, you could have used it as a frame for your entire review.
 May 31, 2010 at 2:15 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Denise wrote:
although you don't make any reference to that wonderful line someone or other made back in 4th century Alexandria "This is an act of savagery that future generations will choose to blame on the villains of their own age."
I thought, if you'd have come across that in your research, you could have used it as a frame for your entire review.
It's a good quote (though I must say it does sound suspiciously modern), but I didn't use it because I've never come across it. I also can't find any references to it online.
Where is it from?
 May 31, 2010 at 2:28 PM    

 Wildrow12 said...
Your review was a joy to read and incredibly informative, Mr. O'Neil. But at this point, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
Bravo sir!
 May 31, 2010 at 3:54 PM    

Baerista said...
Maybe I'm just being obtuse here, but if a film among whose central claims it is that heliocentrism + elliptical planetary orbits were discovered 1600 years ago by Hypatia of Alexandria (the daugher of Theon, Ptolemy's most important editor) is allowed to qualify as being "as accurate as it gets" I think we're in serious trouble. What's next? A movie about Galen discovering Pennicilin?
 May 31, 2010 at 7:06 PM    

Suburbanbanshee said...
Well, Ayla from Clan of the Cave Bear discovered all the major human inventions.... :)
I don't think it's nitpicky to want late Romans to wear late Roman armor. Sheesh, it's like seeing people run around in WWII with weapons and armor from the War of the Roses.
The problem is that most people believe and remember the history they're shown on screen, whether or not it's true. Since they believe it, they won't read Synesius or Cyril or any of the sources. If they do read the sources, they'll be sure the moviemakers had some more definitive source, and that the rest of it is a cover-up.
The whole thing makes me sick to the stomach. Also, as a feminist, it disgusts me to see a great lady of history turned into a puppet for men to play with. Yes, we only exist so that male filmmakers can use us as ideological points. Why try to recreate the probable thoughts and feelings of a Neoplatonic philosopher, as if she were a real person to be taken seriously? Why not just pull something out of your butt that you can set up on a pedestal and then kill, pulling sad faces over your own little fantasy sexy professor?
There are worse things than just being in love with a woman's body instead of her soul, or of wanting her but not wanting to accept the real facts of her daily life. This movie illustrates its utter contempt for Hypatia by setting up a bizarre ideal in her place; and therefore, shows contempt for all the complexity of all humanity and history.
 June 1, 2010 at 1:28 AM    

Suburbanbanshee said...
Oh, and a few more things:
Christian catechism in Alexandrian history all descended from St. Clement of Alexandria's philosophical school, which taught philosophy, theology, and Bible interpretation. So to reject philosophy entirely would have been to spit upon their own hometown saints and martyrs. The Christian mob was volatile, but not that volatile.
Plenty of patrician women and wealthy widows studied philosophy, though of course most didn't become famous for it. But unless the ladies were studying an austere philosophy like Neoplatonism or Stoicism, the general idea a lot of people got about it was that the ladies were just studying as an excuse to get out of the house and have pleasant intellectual conversation with men (not that there's anything wrong with that) or to find and sleep with guys they weren't married to (thus preserving their money).
So if Hypatia wanted to be taken seriously as a philosopher, instead of as a dabbler and 'cougar' hunting for pretty young men, she either had to come down hard on students coming onto her, or marry them and take on a load of trouble.
But there were married female philosophers out there, too, IIRC; they usually seem to have married distinguished male philosophers. (Sort of a family business merger as well as a marriage, perhaps.)
 June 1, 2010 at 1:39 AM    

Baerista said...
"The problem is that most people believe and remember the history they're shown on screen, whether or not it's true."
This is indeed a crucial point, which is often unfairly pooh-poohed by those who believe they have to defend Amenábar's artistic license.
To illustrate this point:
There's a recent promotional video for "Agora", produced by a German movie website. It consists of a street survey, in which random people are asked whether the earth revolves around the sun (or vice versa) and about the shape of planetary orbits. They are subsequently asked whether they know which scientist "proved" all these astonishing facts, only to be told that it was really a woman in the fourth century AD, as depicted by the forthcoming movie "Agora".
Funnily enough, one of the kids interviewed is already well-versed in Amenábar's mythology: He's even able to tell how Hypatia's "research results" were held back at the time "because she was a woman" etc.
I find this somewhat frustrating. One important task that both professional historians and history teachers are faced with today, is to debunk the (sometimes dangerous, sometimes plainly stupid) historical myths that still dominate so much of public historical consciousness. But guys like Amenábar make it seem like a sisyphean task.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNlDCCvNyJY&feature=player_embedded
 June 1, 2010 at 5:57 AM    

 james_joyce said...
Nice review - I'm not actually bothered by the historical distortion, probably because while I was watching it I didn't assume that any of the characters were even historical. I had never heard of Hypatia or Cyril or Orestes. I knew vaguely about the takeover of the Roman world by Christians, but didn't know any details.
So I didn't watch this film as a window into history - I watched it as a historical fiction speaking about modern problems, and I thought it did that very well.
I agree with your criticism about the apparent ethnicities of the Christians vs the Pagans - that was totally unnecessary. But beyond that I find the inaccuracies and distortions tolerable when not viewed as a dramatic documentary but as a political and social commentary.
 June 1, 2010 at 8:37 AM    

 Anonymous said...
The link to the historically accurate roman soldier dudes shows them using wooden swords. Am I being "nitpicky" to point this out?
 June 1, 2010 at 10:40 AM    

Greg G said...
"I watched it as a historical fiction speaking about modern problems, and I thought it did that very well."
Even that is a highly problematic view of this film. Are modern issues regarding science and religion so conveniently reducible to the view put forward in Agora?
Amenábar's attitude to history shares a lot with his fake christian's fake book burning. Facts are to be discarded when they conflict with his philosophy.
 June 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM    

 Perplexed said...
[i]They are subsequently asked whether they know which scientist "proved" all these astonishing facts, only to be told that it was really a woman in the fourth century AD, as depicted by the forthcoming movie "Agora".[/i]
I find the promotion of this pseudo-history of science deeply disturbing, even if it's unwitting.
 June 2, 2010 at 1:11 AM    

Julia Ergane said...
In addition to many of the comments already here, there is strong evidence that Hypatia was actually in her 50s/60s at the time of her death. When the film was first talked about last year, I did think that they "tarted" her up. Well, sex sells. She still remains one of my personal heroines (since 1964, when I first heard about her in geometry class)to whom I burn incense occasionally.
 June 2, 2010 at 5:05 AM    

Baerista said...
Only to add further to the list:
Another historical blunder, which is at least implicit in the film and explicit in Amenábar's ex cathedra statements, is the claim that - before the rise of Christianity - Alexandria used to be a peaceful, enlightened and multicultural society; whereas in reality, Alexandria was notorious almost throughout antiquity for its violent street riots and different ethnic and religious (Greek, Jewish, indigenous Egyptian) groups had been at each other's throats for centuries, long before Christianity began to play a significant role.
The Alexandrians' "natural proclivity" towards violence was almost proverbial in late antiquity and even the Suda-entry for Hypatia cites it as one possible explanation for her death. ("According to some, [this was the fault of] Cyril, but according to others, [it resulted] from the inveterate insolence and rebelliousness of the Alexandrians. For they did this also to many of their own bishops – consider George and Proterios.")
 June 2, 2010 at 7:22 PM    

Jose said...
Great piece!
I think you might've been a bit too harsh on the filmmaker's need to bend history for dramatic purposes (it happens all the time after all) but I agree in the fact that he does so with a hidden agenda that condemns the very things he's supposed to be against.
I wrote another piece on the film if you're interested http://filmexperience.blogspot.com/2010/06/imperfect-circle.html
Again great work and thanks for the comment in my site!
 June 3, 2010 at 6:59 AM    

Jorgon Gorgon said...
Thanks; pretty much my thoughts. A well-made--and on, occasion, even inspiring!--pseudo-historical fantasy film, full of anachronisms and distortions. Definitely worth watching, as long as one realizes that! It is a fantasy, after all (I take the attempts to market it as history as an inside joke).
And I say that as one of those "militant" atheists.
Rachel is hot, however.:)
 June 4, 2010 at 4:01 AM    

fuinseoig said...
Anybody care to leave a message over at P.Z. Myers' blog?
He thinks this film is the bee's knees and that there is possibly some big theocratic conspiracy to prevent its wider distribution so The Truth can't get out there. The comments left to this post are - well, let's just say that nobody is saying "Hang on a mo, what's the actual history behind this?"
*sigh*
I'm too disheartened to do it myself after the debacle of the communion Host affair where I left a message but that had no effect on his gang of cheerleaders, and what with me being a self-confessed religious believer, obviously I'm part of the great theocratic conspiracy.
 June 9, 2010 at 6:15 AM    

 Sharon said... http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/06/the-perniciously-persistent-myths-of-hypatia-and-the-great-library
The Perniciously Persistent Myths of Hypatia and the Great Library
Jun 4, 2010
David B. Hart
 June 9, 2010 at 12:14 PM    

tastedthefruit said...
Ah, I knew the history of this thing was going to be all warped. Thanks for a clear and relatively concise stating of the facts.
 June 9, 2010 at 12:32 PM    

whomever1 said...
I just wanted to point out that in addition to showing the Christians, Jews and Pagans in a bad light it also showed Hypatia to be totally insensitive to the humanity of her slaves. The main point of the film might be focused on when she implied that if the Earth wasn't the center we would all just be random and meaningless bit players. I was basically pretty depressed when I left the film.
 June 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM    

 Anonymous said...
Having just seen the movie, I thought it did a fairly good job of showing biases and poor assumptions from everybody (like Hypatia's attitude towards her slaves, as noted already). And it's not too difficult to assume that they are sexing up their history (though there is dispute about Hypatia's birthday). But I don't think that saying her death was a political rather than a religious matter solves anything. First, it's not clear from the few relevant sources. Second, how separable have these ever been in our history? Religion is politics is religion, and has been from the beginning.
 June 11, 2010 at 10:27 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anoymous said:
But I don't think that saying her death was a political rather than a religious matter solves anything. First, it's not clear from the few relevant sources.
It isn't? Socrates Scholasticus TELLS us her murder was due to "political jealousies" and gives the context and background of those political jealousies in some detail. Damascius, who unlike Scholasticus was a pagan, supports what he says. And none of the sources indicate that religion played any role at all. So how is this unclear?
Second, how separable have these ever been in our history? Religion is politics is religion, and has been from the beginning.
That's a neat little truism, but how is it relevant here?
 June 13, 2010 at 3:04 AM    

 Anonymous said...
I have now seen this movie, and even with my rather limited knowledge noticed the inaccuracies contained within; I have not, however, felt that the movie either depicts Hypatia as especially atheistic, which I concur is very subjective, nor the reason for her death as that of being a woman, a philosopher, a pagan or all three. I had the strong impression that the dialogue throughout the movie and especially leading up to Hypatia's refusal to convert and subsequently to Davus' decision to warn Hypatia of the impending murder clearly illustrated that the underlying reason was a power struggle. Maybe the difference in perception lies within the fact that I am well aware that history is represented poorly in many if not most films concerned with it. I can understand your problem with the film, but for me the central points and most moving scenes were those showing the progress of thinking and discovery, and the joy connected to it (nothing to do with Hypatia especially).
 June 14, 2010 at 8:32 AM    

Anebo said...
"Cyril implicitly condemns Orestes, not for supporting the Jews, but for being influcenced by Hypatia: something not mentioned in the sources. "
Now her is a quot from the Coptic life of Cyril"
"And thereafter a multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the magistrate -- now this Peter was a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ -- and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the prefect through her enchantments. "
Surely you must agree that this is a historical source that talks about Cyril's concern of Hypatia's influence on Orestes?
But, more fundamentally, I though you were signed on to the the hypothesis that Hypatia was killed for political reasons? Isn't the political motive exactly Jealousy of Cyril over Hypatia's influence on Orestes?
Here is a quote from Socrates:
"Yet even she fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop."
Damascius says that Cyril determined to kill her when he became jealousy that her influence was such that Orestes actually went to her morning levy, rather than the other way around.
So, Please, amend your original post to indicate that the reason all the sources agree Hypatia was killed was because of Cyrill's jealously of her influence with Orestes. You're even contradicting yourself there.
 June 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anebo wrote:
Surely you must agree that this is a historical source that talks about Cyril's concern of Hypatia's influence on Orestes?
That's taken word for word from John of Nikiu's very late account that also includes other things that aren't found in the earlier sources, including the idea Hypatia was a "witch". I'll stick to the contemporary sources.
But, more fundamentally, I though you were signed on to the the hypothesis that Hypatia was killed for political reasons? Isn't the political motive exactly Jealousy of Cyril over Hypatia's influence on Orestes?
Of course her influence over Orestes was the reason she was targeted - I never claimed otherwise. The quote from my article that you've chosen to take out of context was talking about how this idea is inserted in this particular incident and makes out that the confrontation between Cyril and Orestes where the bishop presents the prefect with the gospels was somehow to do with Hypatia, rather than over Orestes' defence of the Jews. It's another example of the movie changing events to skew the focus of the story.
 June 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM    

Anebo said...
So far from taking it out of context, I am pretty sure that The Socrates passage I quote there is what stands behind that part of the film (I also finally down-loaded it).
Yes the earlier quote is a quotation from John as I clearly indicated. It does not say she was a witch (what is Coptic for witch anyway?), but that she practiced magic--a perfectly normal charge in ancient political rhetoric. While it is is a little later than other sources, it gives a popular perspective that I do no think is inauthentic to the period and could well go back to contemporary records of the Alexandrian See kept in Coptic. It would be silly to throw it out. Just consider it for what it is.
 June 14, 2010 at 10:52 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anebo said:
So far from taking it out of context, I am pretty sure that The Socrates passage I quote there is what stands behind that part of the film.
No, it doesn't. Socrates is the only account we have of the story of Orestes rejecting Cyril's offering the gospels to him and makes it perfectly clear this was in the context of their dispute over Orestes' protection of the Jews. Hypatia is not mentioned or even hinted at in this episode. Yet the movie inserted her into its depiction of this scene.
It does not say she was a witch (what is Coptic for witch anyway?), but that she practiced magic--a perfectly normal charge in ancient political rhetoric.
Here's what it actually says:
"And in those days there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through Satanic wiles."
"Magic" AND "Satanic wiles". Now show me where this is found in any of the earlier sources.
While it is is a little later than other sources ...
Two centuries later, actually.
 ... it gives a popular perspective that I do no think is inauthentic to the period
Despite the fact nothing like it is found in either Socrates or Damascius? You really are reaching now.
and could well go back to contemporary records of the Alexandrian See kept in Coptic.
If that's the case, why did Nikiu use Socrates as his primary source?
Just consider it for what it is.
It's a late source with some later anti-pagan prejudice added to what we already know from the earlier sources.
 June 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM    

Anebo said...
We seem to be arguing at cross purposes. We seem agreed that the passage is taken out of context by the film, not by me.
The Coptic life represents traditions about Hypatia within the Coptic Monophysite community. There is no reason to think that John is making things up out whole cloth. he is more likely relying on written records and oral tradition. We don't have so many sources of antiquity that we can pick and choose what we use. We have to understand how to use what is available. The accusation that one's opponent is a magician is found everywhere in political discord in antiquity, int he treason trials under Tiberius and (more to the point the ones described by Ammianus), in the New testament, in the Talmud. There seems little reason to doubt that it was made against Hypatia. That doesn't mean it was true, naturally.
On the other hand, before the stunt with the sanitary napkin, she tried to realign her student's soul by Neopythagorean number mysticism. That certainly falls under one definition of magic (and that comes from Damascius).
 June 14, 2010 at 1:35 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anebo wrote:
We seem agreed that the passage is taken out of context by the film, not by me.

Actually, what I said you had taken out of context was one of your quotes of me. I wasn't saying the resentment of Hypatia's influence on Orestes was invented, just that the insertion of this into the scene with the gospels was an invention.
The Coptic life represents traditions about Hypatia within the Coptic Monophysite community. There is no reason to think that John is making things up out whole cloth. he is more likely relying on written records and oral tradition
Sorry, but unless we have some indication that he was, we can't simply assume this. That's not historical analysis, that's just wishful thinking. The idea that she used "magic" and "Satanic wiles" are not found in the earlier sources. But they are what we'd expect someone like Nikiu to say about a pagan woman - a rather weird and remote concept in his time. So the most likely conclusion, in the absence of any actual evidence to the contrary, is that this a later tradition or simply his later spin in the story.
We don't have so many sources of antiquity that we can pick and choose what we use.
But we have to be aware of how to use those few sources we have. Later sources with additional elements that reflect the prejudices of their own time are clearly suspect when it comes to those additional elements.
The accusation that one's opponent is a magician is found everywhere in political discord in antiquity
I'm well aware of that, thanks. BUt the early sources make no mention of any such accusations. If they had been made, why wouldn't one of them mention it? Since it's not found in those early sources, is only found in Nikiu and reflects the preijudices against pagans in his later time, this element remains highly suspect.
There seems little reason to doubt that it was made against Hypatia.
There is one big whopping reason to doubt this actually - the fact it's not mentioned in the contemporary sources. Their silence on this point indicates that it wasn't one of the origional accusations at all, just some anti-pagan trimming added by a much later source.
 June 14, 2010 at 2:03 PM    

Anebo said...
Are you aware of some source that I am not that is better informed than John about Cyril's viewpoint?
John had access to sources about Cyril we don't; its perfectly clear that its summarizing older documents and what he he says has great historical plausibility as reflecting a likely attitude of the Coptic Christian community. That doesn't mean its true (whatever that means), it means it has a likelihood of representing Cyril's viewpoint, and the viewpoint of the men who killed Hypatia.
 June 14, 2010 at 3:32 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anebo continued:
Are you aware of some source that I am not that is better informed than John about Cyril's viewpoint?

I'm aware that we have absolutely no idea of how well informed or otherwise Nikiu was about Cyril's viewpoint on this matter. Your imagining that the difference between his account of Hypatia and the earlier one is because of some other, lost sources is just that - imagining. You have no evidence for it.
Sorry, but I stick to the evidence and leave imagination and wishful thinking to fiction writers and people with axes to grind.
 June 14, 2010 at 5:20 PM    

Baerista said...
I think most historians (those who are schooled in good old-fashioned art of "Quellenkritik") would react to John's text with the same instinctive assumption: that we are faced with a late attempt to remove the stain in Cyril's reputation caused by his controversial involvement in the "Hypatia-affair" both by re-inventing her as a pagan evildoer and by re-inventing him as a defender of Christianity against paganism. Accordingly, any attempt to draw conclusions about what might have actually happened from John's late source text seem to be futile.
 June 14, 2010 at 7:54 PM    

Baerista said...
Only to add further to my point that "Agora" will have detrimental effects on the public understanding of the history of science:
Those capable of reading German may be interested in reading this longish article from an online science mag, which endorses all of Agora's spurious claims as historical truth. Most distressingly, the astronomer Antonio Mampaso, who served as Amenábar's scientific "consultant", seems to be publically endorsing the preposterous idea that Hypatia anticipated the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler by 1200 years. He is cited to this effect both in this article and in other promotional material I have found on the web.
What is wrong with this guy?
Most distressingly, too, the online mag in question is run by "Springer", one of the most renowned science (and history of science) publishers out there.
What are they thinking?
http://www.scinexx.de/dossier-detail-486-5.html
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Mampaso
 June 18, 2010 at 2:31 AM    

 Wildrow12 said...
Baerista,
Behold the terrible power of education via Hollywood.
 June 18, 2010 at 11:14 PM    

 David said...
I have just seen the film and discovered your site. I already have enormous respect for your writings and gratitude for all you have shared with us. So rather than dwell on the majority of details on which you are persuasive, permit me to focus on what appears to me to be a failing -- your comfort in accepting the statement by the Christian chronicler Socrates that the cause for Hypatia's murder is only "political." A few points: (1) It seems obvious that a moderate scholarly Christian would seek to deny that his Christian religion had any role in inspiring such an horrific murder. Just look at how religious moderates today seek to say Islam has no role in the acts of "political" violence perpetrated by followers of Muhammed. (You may agree with this argument that let's Islam off the hook, which would explain why you are so comfortable accepting Socrates' assessment.) But there is nothing historically irresponsible about recognizing the likelihood of a bias that should make you less comfortable relying on Socrates omission of any mention of any "religious" cause for her murder. (2) You do not recognize or comment upon the following distinctions: (a) the reason why Cyril wanted to attack and undermine Orestes - which I accept can be largely explained as a political power struggle, and (b) the reason why Cyril & Co. chose Hypatia as the vehicle for his power play, and (c) the reasons why Cyril's followers murder her so brutally. It seems that your historical evidence addresses (a), above, but it seems woefully inadequate to even begin to address (b) or (c). I do not think you can responsibly just say "no contemporary writer said why she was chosen as the target among the countless other allies and counsels of Orestes, or why she was butchered with such malevolence, so it must have been just politics, as one Christian writer said." It may not be strict documented history, but it seems a compelling and plausible interpretation of history to suggest that the anti-female and anti-pagan vehemence that sprang from the fanactics encounter with Biblical literature are likely related to this credulous sect's choice of a learned pagan women as their target, and the carnal blood lust with which the attack is manifest. Those cannot be adequately explained as merely political acts.
 June 22, 2010 at 10:06 AM    

Baerista said...
The problem is that Socrates is not just some random "Christian" chronicler. Christianity was never a homogenous entity (neither is Islam, BTW). Socrates had strong sympathies for the Novatian sect, whereas he was highly critical of Cyril and the "orthodox" community represented by him. One of the most discernible biases in Socrates's account is his dislike for Cyril's way of interfering with secular politics.
More importantly, if Socrates chose to suppress the "true" background of Hypatia's murder ("anti-female", "anti-pagan"), one would expect that some hints in this direction would appear in Damascius' account, as it is (partly) preserved in the Suda. Since he's writing from a pagan perspective, it is quite baffling how little he does to bolster Amenábar's version.
Also, if you think the idea of an "anti-female" and "anti-pagan" background is "compelling and plausible", you should ask yourself why you find it so plausible. Because of all the historical evidence or because it complements our contemporary stereotypes of late antique Christianity, which are derived not from a close reading of the sources, but rather from Victorian novels and movies such as "Agora"?
Historians try to avoid this kind of speculation as to what is "plausible" precisely because they don't want their personal preconceptions to get in the way.
Don't get me wrong: of course it is possible that Hypatia's death was a product of "anti-female", "anti-pagan" violence. But then again, if it wasn't, most people today would still believe so, which shows how futile such speculations are. And why stop there? We could go on re-interpreting all sorts of historical events based on what we find "plausible" (i.e. what we would like to be true). But in the end, that's not what most of us mean when we talk about "history".
 June 22, 2010 at 9:18 PM    

epi-lj said...
Thanks for this article. It was a really interesting read.
I agree with you that some things that you're saying here were historically inaccurate were displayed as factual in the film -- that Hypatia was an outspoken atheist, that she was killed for being a woman of learning. And I think that the movie definitely left me with a, "Wow, atheists of that time were screwed," feeling.
That said, I don't think that the messages that you took from the way they told the story are really there. For example, I don't think the movie presents Hypatia as being killed because she was an atheist or because she was a thinking woman. It seemed to me fairly clear that what it was saying these were the loopholes that were used to execute her execution, but that the underlying reason was that the Christians wanted to strike at the Prefect, but were unable to get to him directly because of his military support. So at least to me it still felt like she was killed as part of the political machinations, although as you say the historical accuracy of the details of how that happened are misrepresented.
On the heliocentric model and the elliptical orbit aspects, though, I thought that the movie was *very* clear that there is no evidence that she actually discovered that. They depicted her making those discoveries, but the text that they overlay right after the end of the film pretty much spells out the message: "There's no actual record of her making those discoveries. She was known to be an intelligent woman who had access to the knowledge required to make them, and we the creators of this movie feel that it's possible and plausible that she may have made them, but if she did, there's no remaining record and it was lost to the sands of time." Now, that may just be my perception, but that was the take-away message. If that's still going too far (for example, even if they admit that those specific discoveries are conjecture, they still present her as having been reknowned as the then-equivalent of a scientist, which I gather you think is misleading at best), then that's certainly a different matter, but I don't think the film presents her as actually having discovered the elliptical orbits at least, and while it more widely depicts her as a proponent of heliocentrism, the disclaimer again to me cast that as the filmmakers positing what she may have done instead of documenting what she did.
 June 23, 2010 at 3:44 AM    

Moth Woman said...
Excellent review. I will have to read more of your writings. You are very informed and your writing style is excellent. I disturbs me that some people think that distorting our own human past and presenting it as fact is a non-issue so long as the film is entertaining. It also disturbs me that a filmmaker would use a real, historical woman as a puppet for his own contemporary ideas.
I don't think you're nitpicking the film. Why do historical fiction without the desire to be, well, a tad historical?
 June 23, 2010 at 10:34 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
David wrote:
It seems obvious that a moderate scholarly Christian would seek to deny that his Christian religion had any role in inspiring such an horrific murder. Just look at how religious moderates today seek to say Islam has no role in the acts of "political" violence perpetrated by followers of Muhammed.
That analogy would work if we had Socrates actually denying that Christianity was part of the reason for her murder. If he had done that, as the Muslims in your analogy do with Islam and terrorism, that would be a loud warning bell that Socrates was protesting too much. But he doesn’t do this at all. What he actually does is tell us that her murder was due to “political jealousies” and detail what the political conflict in question was.
Of course, Socrates could have simply made all that detailed political background up (rather unlikely) or simply highlighted it while failing to mention some other, underlying religious motivation (more likely). But to simply assume either of these things without evidence is not valid. Socrates was no fan of Cyril’s religious views or policies, so he could have blamed Cyril for any religious motivations for the murder without attacking his own faith. But he doesn’t do so. And as Baerista has already pointed out, why don’t we find any religious motivation in Damascius’ account either, considering he was a pagan?
The fact remains that neither of the contemporary accounts give any indication of a religious motive. We can’t simply conjure one up out of nothing because we think it makes for a better story. We have to stick to the evidence and can only dismiss or doubt it if we have good reason to do so. We have no such reason to do so here.
(2) You do not recognize or comment upon the following distinctions: (a) the reason why Cyril wanted to attack and undermine Orestes - which I accept can be largely explained as a political power struggle
I thought I did do so actually. Cyril represented a new class of bishops who now had imperial backing as well as the popular support of a vastly increased diocesan congregation. This meant that bishops across the Empire went from being the harried and often persecuted popular leaders of an illegal faith to being imperially-backed demogogues. Alexandria was not the only place where these new types of politically potent bishops began throwing their political weight around and began annoying the older political establishment.
and (b) the reason why Cyril & Co. chose Hypatia as the vehicle for his power play
I make that quite clear – because she was a prominent and known political ally of Orestes and because it was thought she was preventing a reconciliation with Cyril.
and (c) the reasons why Cyril's followers murder her so brutally.
I made that clear as well – because Orestes had tortured Cyril’s follower Ammonius to death so they did the same to one of Orestes’ followers in revenge.
It seems that your historical evidence addresses (a), above, but it seems woefully inadequate to even begin to address (b) or (c).
See above. I actually address (b) and (c) far more overtly than (a).
(Continued)
 June 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
(Continued)
I do not think you can responsibly just say "no contemporary writer said why she was chosen as the target among the countless other allies and counsels of Orestes, or why she was butchered with such malevolence, so it must have been just politics, as one Christian writer said."
I say nothing remotely like that. I made the reasons for the conflict, the reason she was targeted and the reason she was murdered in that way all perfectly clear. And none of them have anything to do with religion.
It may not be strict documented history, but it seems a compelling and plausible interpretation of history to suggest that the anti-female and anti-pagan vehemence that sprang from the fanactics encounter with Biblical literature are likely related to this credulous sect's choice of a learned pagan women as their target, and the carnal blood lust with which the attack is manifest.
Sorry, but if it’s not supported by the evidence, then simple “plausibility” isn’t enough. Nor is the fact that it makes a more poignant or appealing story. All kinds of things are “plausible”. Lots of things are poignant and appealing. But history is about evidence.
 June 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM    

Fatpie42 said...
It doesn't sound like the movie portrays her as non-religious at all. It portrays her as a pagan Neo-Platonist.
Like Socrates, she is accused of godlessness because she aspires to an ideal of "the good" rather than the typical pagan gods (or Christ, if her accusers are Christians).
The condemnation for being godless here seems exactly the same as the condemnation received by Socrates. It doesn't make either of them non-religious.
 June 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM    

Baerista said...
Here we go again: Bettany Hughes jumping Amenábar's band-wagon, "popularizing" historical "knowledge", selling speculation as fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paztsjhqwgk&feature=related
 July 6, 2010 at 12:51 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
I knew vaguely about the takeover [sic] of the Roman world by Christians, but didn't know any details.
The Christians =were= the Romans. When abandoned temples were being renovated for Christian use, they sometimes discovered cult objects in caverns underneath – things like giant phalluses, skulls of eviscerated babies, etc. – which they paraded through town in the daylight where folks could see them for what they were. Lots of pagans converted. Other pagans rioted. One riot ended with the pagans occupying the fortress-like Serapeum. The emperor preferred amnesty to a costly assault, but ordered the Serapeum turned over to the Christians as expiation; thus removing a refuge for rioters.
Two pagan leaders of the Serapeum occupation later went to Constantinople, where one of them bragged of killing nine Christians during the riots. These two guys were the tutors of… Socrates Scholasticus. So when ol' SS tells us about the Serapeum affair or about the character of Hypatia, he was getting it from the horse’s mouth.
+ + +
epi-lj
the Christians wanted to strike at the Prefect but were unable [evidence?] to get to him directly because of his military support
When a couple hundred Nitrian monks came to town to rally round Cyril, they accosted Orestes in a traffic jam and his bodyguard fled. That's when Ammonius threw a rock and beaned Orestes on the head. They were quite able to “get” to Orestes himself. The other Christians intervened and rescued him and seized Ammonius, whom Orestes then tortured to death.
You see, there were two parties, dating from the death of Patriarch Theophilus. One party supported Theo's deacon, Timothy; the other party supported Theo's nephew, Cyril. They settled things the good old Alexandrian way: with three days of street riots. Cyril won; but the "other party" still had strong adherents among the patricians in the Upper City. Cyril's strength came from the poor in the Lower City. The Timothy party became Orestes' party and Hypatia aligned herself with them.
Cyril was terrified of her because not only was she connected with the rich and powerful, but her former students (who idolized her) included several bishops, a wealthy Syrian landowner, and men who were friends with the military governor of Egypt and the praetorian prefect of the East. She was not a two-bit philosophy prof. at a jerkwater college.
+ + +
"There's no actual record of her making those discoveries. She was known to be an intelligent woman who had access to the knowledge [sic] required to make them, and we the creators of this movie feel [sic!!!] that it's possible [sic] and plausible [sic!!] that she may have made them, but if she did, there's no remaining record and it was lost to the sands of time."
Intellectually dishonesty bordering on deliberate deception. But folks today "feel" things, and feeling require no proof. Ptolemy had been an Alexandrian and Hypatia’s known commentaries are on Alexandrian mathematicians. But Neoplatonists pursued mathematics not as we do, but as an extraction of Pure Forms from the yucky material world as a way of getting closer to God and learning his will. By the same token, astronomy was not a study of the yucky material world but a specialized branch of mathematics whose only purpose was to accurately cast horoscopes and so learn of God’s plans. No Ptolemaic ever supposed that epicycles and descants were physically real. Astronomy was simply not a branch of physics. Even in the Physics, more an Aristotelian playground than a Platonist one, the planets were not imagined as balls of dirt and gas whirling in orbits empty space, but as embedded in thick hollow nested spheres made of quintessence (aether) that turned around their common centers. An “elliptical” orbit was quite literally unimaginable.
 July 9, 2010 at 2:29 PM    

TheOFloinn said...
why she was chosen as the target among the countless other allies and counsels of Orestes
The sources tell us it was because the blue collar folks in the Lower City believed she was the barrier keeping Orestes from reconciling with Cyril and thus prolonging the crisis. So a lynch mob took matters in their own hands. The mob was made up of Christians. Overlooked is that Cyril’s opponents – Orestes and those who had supported Timothy for bishop – were also Christians. That is, Hypatia was aligned with and supported by one of two factions composed of Christians; so it makes no sense to say “the” Christians killed her when they also supported her.
+ + +
(c) the reasons why Cyril's followers murder her so brutally.
Dude. Because it was freaking Alexandria, that's why. What makes you think that such cruelty was unusual?
St. Mark was killed by the pagans, who dragged him by his heels through the street to the Serapeum, where he was torn limb from limb. A pagan mob killed the Arian bishop George after Julian became emperor: dragged through the streets, torn limb from limb. Ammianus tells us that because the Christians built churches over the relics of martyrs, the pagans then burned the corpse and scattered the ashes. Hypatia was killed by Peter’s mob, torn limb from limb, her body dragged through the streets, and the corpse burned. (Did they fear a church built on her relics?) When a Monophysite mob killed the orthodox Patriarch Proterius, one of Cyril's successors, dragged through the streets, etc., Evagrius tells us they did not refrain from "tasting" his intestines. It was like they had a freaking ISO procedure.
The populace in general are an inflammable material, and allow very trivial pretexts to foment the flame of commotion, and not in the least degree that of Alexandria, which ... vaunts forth its impulses with excessive audacity. Accordingly, it is said that everyone who is so disposed may, by employing any casual circumstance as a means of excitement, inspire the city with a frenzy of sedition, and hurry the populace in whatever direction and against whomsoever he chooses. (Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2 ch. VIII)
+ + +
it seems a compelling and plausible interpretation of history to suggest that the anti-female and anti-pagan vehemence that sprang from the fanactics [sic] encounter with Biblical literature are likely related to this credulous [sic] sect's choice of a learned pagan women as their target, and the carnal blood lust with which the attack is manifest. Those cannot be adequately explained as merely political acts.
Sure they can. Alexandrians did it all the time. It seems a compelling and plausible interpretation of history only to the credulous.
If female public philosophers were a problem, why was nothing done to Aedesia, who taught publicly in Alexandria the generation after Hypatia? Why were most of Hypatia's known students themselves Christians? – Synesius, Heraclian, Cyrus, Euoptis, Olympius, "the deacon," "the holy father Theotecnus." At least three later became bishops. Anti-female? The Blessed Virgin Mary? Do we need a list of Egyptian females honored as saints? St. Theodora, St. Eugenia, St. Piama, St. Mary of Egypt? St. Catherine of Alexandria, patron saint of philosophers, who it was said confounded all who debated her?
Hypatia followed Plotinus, who taught that the One God had three hypostases: the One, the Intellect, & the Soul – similar to the Christian Trinity. Augustine, a contemporary of Hypatia, was using Neoplatonism to expound Christian doctrine. Moderns and postmoderns suppose that Neoplatonism and Christianity would be at odds because that moderns and postmoderns know nothing about either one.
 July 9, 2010 at 2:32 PM    

Doctor Mirabilis said...
"Here we go again: Bettany Hughes jumping Amenábar's band-wagon, "popularizing" historical "knowledge", selling speculation as fact."
Bettany Hughes is cute, sexy and charismatic, no doubt about it. But she is also a very lousy historian! Just look at this piece of politically correct garbage to know what I mean: When the Moors Ruled in Spain.
Oh dear, I don't want to sound like a mysoginist, but I think that Aristotle may have been right after all when he said that the proper place for women is at home. History teaching is clearly beyond their grasp. ;)
 July 10, 2010 at 1:16 PM    

Greg G said...
"I don't want to sound like a mysoginist"
I think that's exactly what you want to sound like.
Presumably spelled correctly.
 July 10, 2010 at 2:57 PM    

Doctor Mirabilis said...
"I think that's exactly what you want to sound like.
Presumably spelled correctly."
Hehehehe. That was a deliberate spelling mistake, since my previous comment was not to be taken entirely seriously. ;) But the fact remains that Bettany Hughes is not a great historian by any standard.
 July 11, 2010 at 7:11 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I haven't read any of Hughes' work, so I can't comment on her writing. I couldn't see anything wrong or "politically correct" about that documentary on Moorish Spain though. Seemed pretty straightforward to me.
We are getting off topic though. Let's keep to Hypatia and Agora. And leave out the brainless sexism, however much of a "joke" it's supposed to be. It's still dumb.
 July 11, 2010 at 9:58 AM    

Doctor Mirabilis said...
"I couldn't see anything wrong or "politically correct" about that documentary on Moorish Spain though. Seemed pretty straightforward to me."
Come on, Tim! Right at the beginning Bettany Hughes says that, after the fall of Granada, the Spanish authorities burned "as many as a million Arabic books". I don't know where this number comes from. Do you? Then she also states that while Greek science was studied and expanded in Al-Andalus, in northern Europe it was "supressed" by the Church because of its pagan origins. There's also a conspicuous omission of all those bloody battles and massacres that followed the Arab-led Berber invasion of 711. In fact, at one point, Hughes asserts that the vast majority of the Iberian population happily embraced the new invaders as liberators from their "barbaric" Visigothic Christian kings. This is far removed from the historical facts, as you should know. For instance, the Christians of Toledo and Seville, which had first submitted in 711, revolted in 713. In response, the towns were pillaged, the nobles beheaded and the population sold as slaves. The infamous Jizya tax is also never mentioned in this documentary and the ruthless fanaticism of the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties is extremely downplayed, while the Spanish Inquisition receives once again the "big bad wolf" treatment.
That Al-Andalus was a great civilization is not in question, but this documentary on the whole seems to me as selective and biased as the Wikipedia article on Islamic science. Hughes' documentary about Alexandria is also poorly researched, especially the part about Hypatia and the Library.
"We are getting off topic though. Let's keep to Hypatia and Agora. And leave out the brainless sexism, however much of a "joke" it's supposed to be. It's still dumb."
Fair enough. But remember that Aristotle was not Belgian! ;)
I'm sorry about my previous sexist comment but I rewatched A Fish Called Wanda the other day and so I still was under Otto's influence.
Cheers, mate.
 July 11, 2010 at 3:22 PM    

Greg G said...
Here's Bettany Hughes and Edith Hall talking about Hypatia before having seen the film (sorry it's in Real Player).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2009_20_thu.shtml
 July 11, 2010 at 9:52 PM    

Doctor Mirabilis said...
Mike Flynn has driven the final nail into the coffin of the myth of Hypatia. It's a treat!
Here: The Mean Streets of Old Alexandria.
Richard Carrier, Charles Freeman and all the other anti-Christian/pro-pagan asinine ideologues should read this superb piece of writing and learn from it. This is History with a capital H!
 July 13, 2010 at 9:03 AM    

Ignorance said...
Great review! Though it will sadly not be the death of any myths, it is a very informative review.
In the meantime, I took the liberty to put your quote into an image:http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/8694/amloandbelong.png
 July 26, 2010 at 10:54 PM    

Ignorance said... This comment has been removed by the author.  July 26, 2010 at 10:59 PM    

 Anonymous said...
Excellent review. I'm glad I took the time and read it.
 August 1, 2010 at 10:21 PM    

Johan said...
Some great nitpicking there. I applaud your efforts to educate people "wie es eigentlich gewesen".
I am not so sure about judging the movie negatively for its liberties with the truth however, it being after all a work of fiction.
Authors taking liberties with the historical truth is nothing new. Just look at Shakesperare's history plays. Is Richard III a worse play just because it deviates heavily from what actually happened?
 August 3, 2010 at 6:10 AM    

 Anonymous said...
In last year's post you showed that (1) it was the Christian faction in the city that had escalated the power struggle and that (2) there was a stoning by that faction (not on the Jewish faction per se, but not too far from it either). You stated the opposite in this post??? Here is the relevant section from last year's post:
The tensions spilled over when a group of monks from the remote monasteries of the desert - men known for their fanatical zeal and not renowned for their political sophistication - came into the city in force to support Cyril and began a riot that resulted in Orestes' entourage being pelted with rocks, with one stone hitting the Prefect in the head. Not one to stand for such insults, Orestes had the monk in question arrested and tortured to death.
 August 3, 2010 at 6:11 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
Good old Alexandria.
 August 3, 2010 at 8:26 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Joahn said:
I am not so sure about judging the movie negatively for its liberties with the truth however, it being after all a work of fiction.
I ahve no problems with works of fiction based loosely on history. I rather liked Gladiator, for example, even though what little history was in it was mangled gibberish. But that didn't matter, as the director made it clear he was invoking a certain romanticised image of ancient Rome, not trying for a historical depiction.
But Amenabar can't use the "it's just fiction" excuse because he was publically and repeatedly stated that what he has depicted is accurate and insisted we should draw historical lessons from it. He claims that the destruction of the "Great Library" by Christians set back learning so far that if it hadn't happened we'd now have colonies on Mars. That claim is nonsense if - as it seems - the destruction he depicts never actually happened.
He is also promoting this movie in Germany by telling people that Hypatia discovered heliocentrism and elliptical orbits. Which is total fantasy. So I'm afraid the "it's fiction" excuse fails because Amenabar himself has claimed it is something more than "fiction". Which immediately exposes him to my kind of "nitpicking".
 August 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Some anonymous person said:
 In last year's post you showed that (1) it was the Christian faction in the city that had escalated the power struggle and that (2) there was a stoning by that faction (not on the Jewish faction per se, but not too far from it either). You stated the opposite in this post???
No, not at all. In last years’s post I was focusing on how the conflict between Orestes and Cyril came to focus on Hypatia – one of Cyril’s men got tortured to death for throwing a stone at the prefect so his friends did the same to Hypatia. In this post I go back to how that conflict between Orestes and Cyril began in the first place – which involved an attack by the Jews on the Christians and Orestes championing the Jews.
The movie, however, invents an initial attack on the Jews by Cyril’s Christians, which is not in the sources. It’s one of a number of additions that Amenabar makes to the story which skews the story and makes the Christians into more of the bad guys.
 August 3, 2010 at 10:57 AM    

bill benzon said...
Here's a review that references this post:
http://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2010/08/agora-impurity-they-name-is-knowledge.html
 August 4, 2010 at 4:47 AM    

Pressed Rat and Wart Hog said...
Valid criticism of the historical inaccuracies within this film. However I wonder how many Christian myths and martyrs would stand up to the same level of detailed analysis and debunking? Few indeed I'd bet. And the fact is despite however one casts the details of the process the rise of Christianity coincided with the advent of the Dark Ages.
Finally, something which this analysis misses completely is the irrefutable historical fact that Hypatia, a great scholar of her time was brutally murdered by a mob of Christians for political purpose. That PER SE is enough to carry the thesis that fundamentalism and rejection of humanism is a path none of us can afford. It is no different from the actions of the Taliban or the Cultural Revolution and must be abhorred no matter what justification is offered, and attempts to let it slide by by cloaking it claiming that there was "political" ferment behind it need to be rejected absolutely. This is the exact same reasoning that Papal apologists offer for treatment of scientists during the inquisition. It is as morally bankrupt now as in the past.
 August 5, 2010 at 12:21 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
PR&WH
I wonder how many Christian myths and martyrs would stand up to the same level of detailed analysis and debunking?
Mr. O'Neil was comparing the movie to the known sources. He was not commenting on whether the original source materials were true. What if Socrates Scholasticus were simply repeating an urban legend which his disaffected teachers, Ammonius and Helladius, had told him?
A Christian parallel would be a movie on the life of Habib the Martyr that showed him as trying to sneak out of town and let his friends and family die, only to be talked into returning by a wise pagan philosopher. That would not be true to the source material.
the rise of Christianity coincided with the advent of the Dark Ages.
Actually, the Dark Age coincided with the collapse of Roman civil administration in the Western provinces and the consequent sacking and looting of the Western cities by Goths, Franks, Saracens, Vikings, and Magyars. It might be hard to keep the light bright when civilization itself is on the brink. Byzantium did not sink into a Dark Age; and intellectual ferment in Alexandria did not cease until after the muslim invasion. By AD 1000, the darkness in the West was lifting, after the final defeat of the Magyars at Lechfeld; and the ancient learning, carefully preserved in those monasteries that had not been sacked and burned by Saracens and Vikings, Europeans once more had the leisure to contemplate.
Then, too, the period from AD 500-AD800 is called the Dark Age not because the Western Romans and the Gauls and Britons and Spaniards who had also been Roman citizens suddenly forgot their own history and heritage, but rather because the aforesaid barbarian razzias managed to burn up a lot of the documentation that moderns find so essential. IOW, it's dark because we are ignorant, not because they were.
the irrefutable historical fact that Hypatia, a great scholar of her time was brutally murdered by a mob of Christians for political purpose.
Yeah, and bishop George was brutally murdered by a mob of pagans; and Mark the Evangelist was brutally murdered by a mob of pagans; and the Christians of St. Alexansers were brutally murdered by a mob of Jews; and the bishop Proterius was brutally murdered by a mob of Christians; and the prefect Callistus was murdered by an Alexandrian mob, make-up uncertain. The virgins of Heliopolis were murdered by a mob of pagans.
Even back in Roman days, before there ever were any Christians, mobs of Greeks, Egyptians, and Jews would have at one another in jolly old Alexandria. The city had a reputation for going off at the least provocation or pretext.
The great scholar Archimedes was murdered by the Romans. The great scholar Cicero was murdered by his fellow Romans. The great scientist Lavoisier was murdered by the rational secularists of the Revolution. Countless black men in the old South were murdered by mobs of Democrats.
What would any of this prove?
This is the exact same reasoning that Papal apologists offer for treatment of scientists during the inquisition.
Name three such scientists.
 August 5, 2010 at 9:30 AM    

Baerista said...
"And the fact is despite however one casts the details of the process the rise of Christianity coincided with the advent of the Dark Ages."
Seeing how the "rise of Christianity" belongs mostly to the fourth century, whereas the Dark Ages are typically dated 500-800 CE, I wonder how many centuries events have to lie apart so that they no longer qualify as "coinciding".
"It is as morally bankrupt now as in the past."
To insist on the truth and the obligation to provide warrant for one's assertions cannot be "morally bankrupt" and never will be. If we have to distort history in order to support our sweeing claims about the nature of religion, humanity etc., our points are not really worth making. That's obviously why Tom O'Neill, as a self-described atheist, goes out of his way to set the historical record straight, even if it should seem to benefit the "religious" side of debate.
 August 5, 2010 at 8:07 PM    

Brian Shapiro said...
I'm new to your blog, but I think we're of like minds on many subjects. I'm not a theist or observant religiously, and I was also raised in Judaism, so have no inherent interest in defending Christianity.
It bothers me that the film shows Hypatia on the verge of discovering the elliptical orbit of planets, because it seems to want to affirm a certain narrative of history in which the period between Rome and the Renaissance were just an 'interruption'. The ancient pagans had a love of learning and science, then Christians came in and stopped it, then, come the Renaissance, people became interested in challenging the Church and returning to learning.
Its not only a very bad understanding of history, but also a very bad understanding of human nature. Whenever things change, and some political power is able to rise and take over, it happens for a reason.
In the political sphere, what the fall of Rome meant was the rejection of the Romulus & Remos mythos -- the idea that society, through the state, had the role of creating order in the world, the political leaders the standard bearers. As Rome fell, European society returned to the bare necessities of political arrangements -- lords in contractual arrangements with peasants for mutual survival. Lords appealed to the religiosity of peasants, and so the Church was a check on their power, because it became legitimate to overthrow a ruler that was unjust. This set the foundation for the 'natural law' view, which itself required rejecting some Christian doctrine, but nonetheless couldn't have existed without the rise of Christianity.
In the scientific sphere, the predominant interest after the Renaissance became reconciling ancient views with Christian ones. In philosophy and art, this meant reconciling humanism with piety. Everything was readjusted and renanalysed to make sense with the view that there was a natural order in the world and a single first cause (God). In general, this led to a search for 'first principles' like had never existed in the ancient world. How many ancient thinkers spoke of first principles? Plato, for one, which is why he was so admired in certain Christian traditions.
There's also a good discussion to be had here on how Christianity influenced art and literature, but I think that's more obvious.
Its not a coincidence that the fall of Rome roughly coincided with the rise of Christianity, no. But like a lot of anti-theists are so fond of saying these days, correlation is not causation. What Christianity represented to people was the spiritual authority that "Rome" as a concept and entity lost. The Emperor, the head of state, was no longer the only God, everyone was now considered a child of God who was in the Church of believers. And the Christian world view agreed with the Roman intellectual class, who had blamed the fall of Rome on moral decline.
Roman society fell because it was destined to fall -- it was built upon a shaky mythos and not on natural contractual relations between peoples. Roman art and philosophy also too often just fell back on imitating the Greeks, and their largest innovations were in applying Greek learning to practical fields like engineering and politics. The most interesting Roman philosophers were the Neo-Platonists, who were inspired by Christianity. Christianity revitalized philosophy in the West.
What the fall of Rome and the rise of the Christian world represent is a "reset" for European civilization. What we call the "dark ages" represent the start of that reset. But the fall of empires are as important to progress as the rise of them. People learn from disasters and mistakes. People change their perspective when their life falls apart, and readjust their perspective when they fall prone to depression.
Disasters happen for a reason. History isn't a series of accidents!
 August 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM    

Brian Shapiro said...
It is no different from the actions of the Taliban or the Cultural Revolution and must be abhorred no matter what justification is offered, and attempts to let it slide by by cloaking it claiming that there was "political" ferment behind it need to be rejected absolutely. This is the exact same reasoning that Papal apologists offer for treatment of scientists during the inquisition. It is as morally bankrupt now as in the past.
I haven't seen anyone justify the treatment of scientists during the Inquisition. The importance of pointing out the complexities is to draw a picture of how the Church had a mixed relationship with science, and not an antithetical one. They were both patron and prosecutor.
The Church's views often represented the "orthodox" position in scientific fields (i.e., they supported Aristotelianism), and brought them in conflict with non-orthodox views. This not only happened during the scientific revolution, but with alchemists, and even followers of Alexandrian Christian philosophers. They -actively- supported the progress of science, they just wanted dominion over what would be regarded as the 'correct' view of science.
And alas, in some sense, the more things change the more they stay the same.
The metaphor of "orthodoxy" -- a word which comes from the Christian church -- imo, still can apply to academia even with the Church involved. Academics just now use the comforts of their tenured positions to stand against critics rather than the comforts of the Church's patronage.
I think everyone is happy, atheist and theist alike, though, that the Church doesn't have the power to prosecute people anymore.
 August 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM    

 Disco Stu said...
"I think everyone is happy, atheist and theist alike, though, that the Church doesn't have the power to prosecute people anymore."
I think we can all be glad that NO ONE has the power to prosecute people for their scientific ideas (Lysenko trials come to mind as well).
 August 30, 2010 at 10:13 AM    

 Anonymous said...
if there is little evidencence of her who is to say that what happened where you there ? All I know is history is like the game telephone something is said over and over agin till eventually it changes. Hapitia was refrenced in may letters and that is all we know of her
 September 3, 2010 at 4:38 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Ah the old "you weren't there, history is a game of telephone, therefore I can believe whatever the hell I want" nonsense.
Sorry pal, but history is actually based on something called "evidence" and we have several sources by people who were there. We base our analysis of what probably happened on that. Some nice people called "historians" at your local university can explain how this is done.
 September 3, 2010 at 5:42 AM    

Brian Shapiro said...
if there is little evidence of her who is to say that what happened where you there ?

I hadn't studied the events depicted in the film, but just having a good understanding of history in the broader sense made me skeptical of Amenábar's version. Christians around that time were more interested in martyrdom than killing and destroying, and there were a number of important Christian scholars and theologians working in Alexandria around 200-300 AD. So it seemed strange to me that Christians would want to "Burn the scrolls!" as shown in the film.
But a lot of people just have bad stereotypes of who Christians were.
 September 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM    

Brian Shapiro said...
Tim,
This is something I haven't seen you discuss on your blog, but I've come to the impression from things I've read that religiosity among the general population increased -- not decreased -- with the end of the Middle Ages.
During the Middle Ages, you see a lot of priests complain about peasants immoral behavior, drinking, and observance of pagan rituals. Then, the Crusades seems to inspire a popular calling to the faith. With the Renaissance, religion almost becomes positioned as a part of civic duty, with the Church involved in the life of cities and lot of with public sculptures done on Christian themes. The Reformation, of course, was a reaction to the material excesses of the Renaissance and served as a hotbed for religious fanaticism.
This is almost contrary to the idea most people have that the Middle Ages was the most religious time in European history, and that the Renaissance and Reformation marked a decline in religious thinking.
Is that a fair understanding of what was happening?
 September 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Is that a fair understanding of what was happening?
I think you'll find that clergy complained as much about people doing immoral things and cavorting around in ancient semi-pagan festivals etc after the Reformation as before it. And that public communal and even civic religious expression was as common before it as after.
I also think we're wandering off topic.
 September 4, 2010 at 5:08 AM    

r1257 said...
Hey Thiudareiks,
It's Louis XI from TWC here. Where have you been?
Anyway, I made a post at another fora regarding this very issue. It was pointing to your blog as a way to demonstrate, amidst a discussion of the film in question with the usual posh, that her depiction in it was completely mythological.
The only reply that interested me was an attempt at rebuttal. It has been quite a long time since this has been made, and I had been planning to forward this to you back then but got embroilered in other subjects. It's basically like this:
" Originally Posted by Abdul Goatherd
Um...he's wrong.
There is reason to presume there was a library at the Serapeum in operation. Epiphanius of Salamis (4th C.) mentions it and Aphthonius of Antioch (a late visitor) does mention not only the bookshelves, but that the books were available. Maybe not good enough by modern standards of evidence, but good enough for the 4th C.
He quotes Ammianus Marcellinus completely erroneously. He never asserts 'two libraries', he asserts only one library, which he identifies as the 'Serapeum' and goes on to refer in the past-tense to the destruction of its 700,000 books by Julius Caesar! Ammianus is completely confusing the Serapeum with the Brucheion!
(And apparently the writer of the review failed to see that - even though he goes on to pompously admonish the director for not pointing it out.)
That said, we know there was certainly a library at the Serapeum at some point and we have zero evidence that it was ever shut down or moved or dispersed. And really no good reason to presume it would be. The Serapeum was a freakin' teaching college - we know, Hypatia was there. If there were any books at all in Alexandria, that's where they'd be.
If the writer thinks the evidence for the existence of the library is weak, the evidence for its non-existence is weaker.
He is asserting something with far more confidence than the evidence allows.
(And, P.S. - we also have testimonials from contemporary Christians themselves that trashing libraries in pagan temples was pretty routine, e.g. Paulus Orosius "Today there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, theese, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement" (Historiae adversum paganos)
The rest of his review is pretty worthless - trying to accuse the director of fabricating impressions which at least I, as one audience member, did not have. The reviewer seems to assume the audience is largely stupid (except for himself, of course).
The rest of his points at largely ignorable ('they destroyed the temple, not just knocked a few statues!', etc. )
Anyway, this review is bullshit, writer is a slimeball. He's got a couple of minor good points (I also cringed at the scripture scene ), but they are kinda obscured by the overrall sleaziness of the review."
I would be quite interested in knowing your answer to such a claim.
Louis
 September 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Hello Louis.
I haven’t been around on TWC for a while mainly so I can concentrate on more productive pursuits than having the same conversations over and over. You can only debunk Siggy’s hysterical anti-Medieval screeds two or three dozen times before you start to think “Perhaps I could be spending this time doing something more useful …”
Re your friend on the other forum:
There is reason to presume there was a library at the Serapeum in operation.
That the Serapeum had a library in the early Fourth Century at least is not in dispute, and Epiphanius of Salamis and Aphthonius are testament to this. But that doesn’t mean that it was still in existence when the Serapeum was destroyed. Ancient libraries were expensive to maintain and the Fourth Century was the one in which the rich patronage and generous civic donations that kept temples and their attendant functions going began to seriously dry up as it diverted to the emperors’ new faith.
He quotes Ammianus Marcellinus completely erroneously. He never asserts 'two libraries', he asserts only one library, which he identifies as the 'Serapeum' and goes on to refer in the past-tense to the destruction of its 700,000 books by Julius Caesar! Ammianus is completely confusing the Serapeum with the Brucheion!
Translations of “in quo bybliothecae fuerunt inaestimabiles” vary, with a couple of prominent ones (including the Loeb edition, IIRC) translating it as “in (the Serapeum) have been two priceless libraries”. But it is also often translated as “in it have been libraries of inestimable value”. But he speaks in the present tense about the Serapeum and in the past tense about the its libraries. Then he clearly does confuse things with the Brucheion when he turns to why these “priceless libraries” are no longer there. Your friend seems to think this means he’s also therefore confused about the absence of the Serapeum’s libraries, which doesn’t follow at all. And if, as it seems he did, Ammianus visited Egypt himself in the 360s this makes it even less likely that he would have been confused about the fact that the building he describes in such glowing terms no longer contained any libraries.
Which also fits with the fact that not one, not two, not even three or four but FIVE accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum make no mention of these “priceless libraries”. Why? Well, if they were no longer there, this makes sense. If they were there, however, that’s five very strange silences.
The Serapeum was a freakin' teaching college - we know, Hypatia was there.
We do? This must be some newly uncovered evidence that your friend has discovered in recent months, because there is no evidence that connects Hypatia to the Serapeum in any way. It’s remarkable how the defenders of this film have a talent for making proclaimations like this one – ones based on … fantasy. Though it’s topped by this powerful academic argument:
Anyway, this review is bullshit, writer is a slimeball.
Sounds like someone doesn’t like having their pseudo-historical parade rained on. Nice to hear from you Louis.
 September 29, 2010 at 3:05 PM    

 Anonymous said...
'The Reformation, of course, was a reaction to the material excesses of the Renaissance'. Tim O'Neill.
I was browsing through this discussion and caught this earlier comment that really surprised me. Surely, the Reformation took place in the areas furthest from the Renaissance and did not take place in Italy where the Renaissance (if you are talking of the Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth century)took place. Again one does not equate the Renaissance primarily with 'material excess'. The Catholic church was remarkable successful in the fifteenth century in integrating Renaissance ideas into its theology which is one reason why educated Italians stayed with the church. In the SIXTEENTH century, with the placing of all the works of the Catholic humanist Erasmus on the Papal Index, etc., things were different , but that was part of the Counter-Reformation and saw a steady closing down of intellectual creativity in Italy.
 September 30, 2010 at 10:08 PM    

 Anonymous said...
I am sorry, the comment about 'material excess of the Reniassance' was from Brian Schapiro, not Tim.
 September 30, 2010 at 10:20 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anony-mouse realised:
I am sorry, the comment about 'material excess of the Reniassance' was from Brian Schapiro, not Tim.
Er, quite.
 September 30, 2010 at 11:04 PM    

r1257 said...
Hi Thiudareiks,
Thank you for your reply!
As for Siggy, I recommended him one of my favourite documentaries on the subject, "Weapons that Made Britain". I didn't know if he watched it or not, but despite everything I think he has opened his mind a bit to the subject. Who knows where that will lead :P?
Louis
 October 1, 2010 at 8:05 PM    

 Jason said...
Thank you again for a very thoughtful post.
 October 13, 2010 at 10:05 AM    

Len Bullard said...
Since the DVD has only become available recently and the film had such as stunted run in the US, for anyone seeing it here in the US, it was excusable to watch parts on YouTube even though that is not koscher per se. Now, get the DVD because a) it is spectacular cinematography which Flash can't reproduce and b) it has a features section which refutes some of the claims made by the author of this blog and some of the commenters and affirms others. It is a work of fiction and that is made clear.
That said, I appreciate the time taken by some to delve into the fictional aspects of the film. Given the fictionalization of much of what we accept as gospel about many religious figures of antiquity including Jesus of Nazareth, one should be better informed.
What cannot be disputed is the impact of the film in the time for which it was made: now. I do not see it as a hit piece on Christianity and I am reasonably informed about the sources having first become interested in the main character in the 1960s. I see it as a parable on the politicization of religion for purely political purposes in a time of rage, when rage machines can be used to activate mobs who will thoughtlessly even if earnestly do the bidding of the rage masters.
As such, this is possibly the most important film of this decade. It should be viewed widely and with as much commentary as can be mustered on the messages it very ably sends. Even if the parable is fictional, the messages are not.
 October 23, 2010 at 5:17 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
Nah, it was a hit piece on history. Moderns always have a tendency to reduce the complexities of the past to fables of Good and Bad. One day, there will be a movies that challenges the received myths with facts; but that day is not this day.
 October 23, 2010 at 6:56 AM    

Greg G said...
Parable? Please.
The filmaker watched "Cosmos" while on holiday after his last film. He wanted to make a version of Sagan's version of the story of Hypatia.
It's obvious that he then did research into the sources but, when confronted with the discovery that Sagan knew not of what he spoke, decided to bend them to fit the Sagan story.
No-one really knows where Sagan came up with all his bullshit about Hypatia, but it really only continues as a myth because of people's regard for the man's other work. But it was, and remains, bullshit.
 October 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Thanks for you insightful analysis.
 November 3, 2010 at 5:54 AM    

Talal said...
Thanks for these very interesting comments and discussion. It is rare to see a debate so historically well-informed. Hoping to benefit from this pool of expertise, I venture a different question. On debates about why Hypatia was killed -- religion seems not to have been the problem, but rather politics, yet her gender may have mattered as well, although not learning per se -- is there any insight to be taken from *how* she was killed? Flaying someone alive (as one account implies) is a particularly gruesome method of death. Possibly it echoed the torture of the monk, whose nature does not seem to have been specified by historians at the time. But generally, was this method of killing someone fairly common or was it unusual or unique? I would think so savage a physical maiming would be an expression of particular hatred for the body of the person and therefore might suggest that misogyny (possibly plus learning) had a greater role than has been explored in this discussion.
 November 25, 2010 at 11:59 PM    

TheOFloinn said...
was this method of killing someone fairly common or was it unusual or unique?
In the account of the murder of the Patriarch Proterius by Monophysites, it is written that they did not refrain from tasting his flesh. The usual procedure was to drag the person through the streets until his limbs separated -- like that poor guy in Texas a few years ago. Then to burn his remains (so there would be no relics for a church to be built) then scattering the ashes into the sea. Not every account of a riot gives every detail of the lynching.
Nor was it unusual to dig up the dead and burn them. "Dig up his bones!" was a common enough cry in Egypt.
Keep in mind that the female Neoplatonist philosopher Aedesia taught in Alexandria the generation after Hypatia and no one said or did anything against her.
 November 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I've regularly pointed out Aedesia to those who cling to the Gibbonian myths about Hypatia and asked why one female neo-Platonic pagan was murdered and the other not touched. After all, if philosophy and/or paganism and/or female scholars were the issue, surely both would have been torn apart by swarthy, Taliban-like Christians with dodgy accents.
The difference, of course, is that Hypatia dabbled in Alexandria's notoriously violent city politics and Aedesia ... didn't.
But that doesn't fit the myths.
 November 26, 2010 at 10:47 AM    

Rick Reeder said...
Tim - great job, thanks.
I watched the film AGORA last night - due to a misunderstanding since it was thought to be about Alexandria by someone who spent a lot of time there some years ago. My impression was it was Hollywood historical crap but big and impressive. But I knew nothing of Hypatia and decided to check. That led me to your older blog on the subject and film and other info. I now know a lot more and can conclude:
- the film is not that bad and about as accurate as Hollywood gets with ancient history (even though the Hollywood connection here is via Spain).
- Hypatia was quite amazing in real life.
- there is a lot more known about that ancient history, and from original sources, than we/I generally think
- plain facts will never stop a true believer in something else
- your comments and analyses are usually very good, you are on the right track, stick with it, and thank you.
 December 4, 2010 at 5:18 AM    

Historyscientist said...
I haven't had the energy to read all 93 comments so apologies if I am repeating anything.
I first heard about Hypatia in the seventies at a science meeting which talked about the possibility that she had hit on the elliptical orbits idea. Although I watched some of Cosmos which was airing at the time, I hadn't realised it was covered in that and I thought that it was the idea of the speaker. I am obviously remembering back over 30 years but it was pretty convincing at the time. Thanks to the posters who have allowed me to join some dots in my mind.
On the point of the destruction of the library - arguing over the details in a film like this one does seem to me to be nit-picking. That the early Church systematically destroyed learning it didn't like seems to me to be obvious. Even a relatively civilised Christian like St Clement is contemptuous of Greek philosophy.
The Christians did destroy ancient pagan monuments. We know that from accounts at the time and that the monuments aren't there any more. Surely they would have destroyed books as well? It may be that they didn't happen to destroy any in the particular year and the particular place this particular film is set. But the fact is we still have Bibles, lives of saints, theological works aplenty from this time. We don't have much in the way of science.
 December 6, 2010 at 7:18 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
On the point of the destruction of the library - arguing over the details in a film like this one does seem to me to be nit-picking.
Given that (i) the movie presents this as historical, (ii) reviewers and others are clearly accepting it as such and (iii) it bolsters a persistent myth, noting that it isn't historical is not "nitpicking". Noting that they get the soldiers' armour wrong is nitpicking. Noting that they wilfully distort history for polemical purposes isn't. Surely you can see the difference.
That the early Church systematically destroyed learning it didn't like seems to me to be obvious.
Yes, it seems "obvious" to many people, despite a complete lack of evidence. If the Church "systematically destroyed learning" then it's amazing that it did so without leaving the faintest trace of this destruction in the historical record. Given that we have hostile pagan commentators like Ammianus and Eunapius of Antioch criticising the Church for other things but failing to mention this "systematic destruction" this total absence of evidence is very odd. How do you account for it?
Even a relatively civilised Christian like St Clement is contemptuous of Greek philosophy.
Which Clement would that be? Not Clement of Alexandria I assume, since he wrote:
"We shall not err in allegeing all this necessary and profitable for life came to us from God, and that philosophy more especially was given to the Greeks as a covenant peculiar to them"
Clement was one of the first in a long line of early Christian writers who encouraged the idea that Greek learning was a gift from God and to be used along with the revelation which was a gift to the Jews. Even though there were others who argued that there was no value in pagan thought, they lost the debate and Clement's perception predominated. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the relevant material.
The Christians did destroy ancient pagan monuments. .... Surely they would have destroyed books as well?
Nice non sequitur. They actually converted far more pagan temples etc in to churches than they ever destroyed. But they did destroy or ignore what they considered valueless (eg pagan works of divination and magic) but preserved what they considered valuable (eg works of philosophy and science).
But the fact is we still have Bibles, lives of saints, theological works aplenty from this time. We don't have much in the way of science.
We have the Bibles etc "aplenty" because there was a large audience for them. We have far fewer works of science because there was a smaller audience for them. But there always had been. By the Second to Third Centuries science had become an eccentric hobby for a few noblemen. It was always a minority study. So of course we have fewer books of science. In pre-Christian times there were vastly more copies of books on magic and divination and oracles from pagan sybils than there were ever copies of Archimedes. Nothing changed.
And if you can read a work of ancient science at all, you have a Christian monk to thank. Without them preserving that work (while ignoring all the pagan junk on magic and incantations) you wouldn't be able to read them at all.
So, what were you saying again?
 December 6, 2010 at 8:44 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
@historyscientist [sic]
That the early Church systematically destroyed learning it didn't like seems to me to be obvious.
It may seem obvious to you only because it is compatible with preconceived beliefs. Some of us prefer empirical evidence.
But the fact is we still have Bibles, lives of saints, theological works aplenty from this time. We don't have much in the way of science.
Except Aristotle, Ptolemy, Galen, Strabo, Heiron, Archimedes, etc. Don't forget, there wasn't that much in the way of "science" back then; at least not in the modern meaning of the term. But so far as writings about the natural world, it was the single largest category copied by the medievals.
Granted: The process of copying scrolls by hand was laborious enough that choices always had to be made. The media decayed faster than they could be re-copied. So we have Strabo's Geography, but not Eratosthrenes Geography. Why? Because Strabo had made the latter obsolete, not because there was some weird animus against his Geography.
Why are folks so reluctant to suppose entirely natural, material causes?
 December 6, 2010 at 8:52 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
On the point of the destruction of the library - arguing over the details in a film like this one does seem to me to be nit-picking.
Given that (i) the movie presents this as historical, (ii) reviewers and others are clearly accepting it as such and (iii) it bolsters a persistent myth, noting that it isn't historical is not "nitpicking". Noting that they get the soldiers' armour wrong is nitpicking. Noting that they wilfully distort history for polemical purposes isn't. Surely you can see the difference.
That the early Church systematically destroyed learning it didn't like seems to me to be obvious.
Yes, it seems "obvious" to many people, despite a complete lack of evidence. If the Church "systematically destroyed learning" then it's amazing that it did so without leaving the faintest trace of this destruction in the historical record. Given that we have hostile pagan commentators like Ammianus and Eunapius of Antioch criticising the Church for other things but failing to mention this "systematic destruction" this total absence of evidence is very odd. How do you account for it?
Even a relatively civilised Christian like St Clement is contemptuous of Greek philosophy.
Which Clement would that be? Not Clement of Alexandria I assume, since he wrote:
"We shall not err in allegeing all this necessary and profitable for life came to us from God, and that philosophy more especially was given to the Greeks as a covenant peculiar to them"
Clement was one of the first in a long line of early Christian writers who encouraged the idea that Greek learning was a gift from God and to be used along with the revelation which was a gift to the Jews. Even though there were others who argued that there was no value in pagan thought, they lost the debate and Clement's perception predominated. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the relevant material.
The Christians did destroy ancient pagan monuments. .... Surely they would have destroyed books as well?
Nice non sequitur. They actually converted far more pagan temples etc in to churches than they ever destroyed. But they did destroy or ignore what they considered valueless (eg pagan works of divination and magic) but preserved what they considered valuable (eg works of philosophy and science).
But the fact is we still have Bibles, lives of saints, theological works aplenty from this time. We don't have much in the way of science.
We have the Bibles etc "aplenty" because there was a large audience for them. We have far fewer works of science because there was a smaller audience for them. But there always had been. By the Second to Third Centuries science had become an eccentric hobby for a few noblemen. It was always a minority study. So of course we have fewer books of science. In pre-Christian times there were vastly more copies of books on magic and divination and oracles from pagan sybils than there were ever copies of Archimedes. Nothing changed.
And if you can read a work of ancient science at all, you have a Christian monk to thank. Without them preserving that work (while ignoring all the pagan junk on magic and incantations) you wouldn't be able to read them at all.
So, what were you saying again?
 December 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM    

Baerista said...
"The Christians did destroy ancient pagan monuments. We know that from accounts at the time and that the monuments aren't there any more."
There's no denying that the monuments are gone, but I think it's probably safe to say that most of them fell prey to earthquakes, warfare and other calamities, which have nothing to do with your stereotypical Christian mobs. Only last week, I visited the excavation-site of ancient Scythopolis and it was quite an instructive example of the role big earthquakes (and a subsequent lack of re-building) played in the "downfall" of antiquity. In any case, let's insist on evidence instead of repeating tired old myths without sufficient fact-checking.
 December 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM    

Historyscientist said...
This was the passage I was thinking of from St Clement.
"And if any one ruler whatever prohibit the Greek philosophy, it vanishes forthwith. But our doctrine on its very first proclamation was prohibited by kings and tyrants together, as well as particular rulers and governors, with all their mercenaries, and in addition by innumerable men, warring against us, and endeavouring as far as they could to exterminate it. But it flourishes the more. For it dies not, as human doctrine dies, nor fades as a fragile gift. For no gift of God is fragile. But it remains unchecked, though prophesied as destined to be persecuted to the end. (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 6.18)"
As you say St Clement is on the pro-philosophy wing of the Church, but even he is well, philosophical about the total destruction of Greek philosophy. He can obviously conceive it as a project, and one that has a reasonable chance of success.
With regards to the monuments, the temple of Diana at Ephesus - one of the wonders of the ancient world - was destroyed in 401 at the instigation of St John Chrystotum who I think it is fair to say was certainly a Christian and not an earthquake.
And I have sufficient facts to back up my belief that the Church is anti-learning by instinct. To give just one that is beyond dispute, I am old enough to remember Galileo's Starry Messenger finally came off the Church's banned list. I think it was 1976. So if that was what they were capable of in the twentieth century I think we can be reasonably well justified in not giving them the benefit of the doubt in the fourth.
 December 7, 2010 at 12:17 AM    

Andrew Brew said...
Historyscientist,
You represent the quote from Clement as demonstrating that he is hostile to, or at least careless of, Greek philosophy:
"He can obviously conceive it [prohibition of philosophy] as a project, and one that has a reasonable chance of success."
Well, yes, he can. Can't you? It was a project that was undertaken from time to time (not necessarily by Christians) with great success. Consider the execution of Socrates in 399 BC or the destruction of the Academy and Lyceum by Sulla in 88 BC, for a couple of obvious examples of suppression of philosophy by pagans.
Clement was clearly remarking on the observable fact that in the ancient world, where schools of philosophy were shut down, they died, being as Tim noted essentially a pastime for a tiny minority (and typically one with no political power). Persecuting Christians, on the other hand, did not have the desired effect of wiping them out. On the contrary they thrived.
His point is not that philosophy can and should be exterminated, but that the message of God is far more robust than human pastimes. You may disagree with him (although the historical facts remain, I think, on his side). But do read what he wrote first, rather than substituting what you assume that sort of person would have written.
 December 7, 2010 at 9:17 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
This was the passage I was thinking of from St Clement.
"And if any one ruler whatever prohibit the Greek philosophy, it vanishes forthwith. etc.
He was making a simple statement of fact: that the will of an emperor would have been quite sufficient to eliminate Stoicism or Epicurianism but despite the efforts of multiple emperors and governors over many generations, no such thing happened to the suppression of Christianity and Christian philosophy.
And ask yourself why Galileo is the only name anyone ever comes up with in two thousand years.
The temple of Artemis was destroyed by the Goths in AD 260. Not clear that it would have been rebuilt at all, since Ephesus was by then a couple miles from the sea, due to silting of its once-famous harbor and the whole area was turning into swamp. If you have a source for the allegation that it was rebuilt and redestroyed in AD 401, we would appreciate a cite.
 December 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
 If you have a source for the allegation that it was rebuilt and redestroyed in AD 401, we would appreciate a cite.
James Hannam discussed the myth that the Temple of Artemis was "destroyed by a mob led by John Chrysostom. Surprise, surprise - it's something else that gets passed on (by the usual suspects such as Charlie Freeman, of course) but which has no basis in fact:
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2010/06/destruction-of-temple-of-artemis.html
It also features prominently in the Wikipedia entries on the Temple and the Seven Wonders, but the footnote is to some generalist secondary history book which, according to the "Talk" page gives no primary source. Hannam's blogpost shows why.
Freeman also tried this tactic of shifting the goalposts from "they destroyed learning" to "they burned down (some) temples" when he failed to deal with my crtitique of his work. I think we're seeing a pattern here.
 December 7, 2010 at 11:14 AM    

Historyscientist said...
Okay fair enough, I got the St John Chyrstotum thing from Wikipedia. The temple of Diana was the first thing I thought of and lo and behold there was a confirmation of what I was expecting. I cannot find a more authoritative reference so I will conceed that the most famous temple of the ancient world was never rebuilt after 260 and therefore there was no need for Christians to destroy it.
To the point that people only talk about Galileo - well he was one of the greatest scientists of all time so when you have the Church torturing him and stopping him working it does stick in the mind. I am not sure it can be so easily dismissed as a one off aberation. In any case just off the top of my head I can think of Giordano Bruno and Francis Bacon. There is also the indisputable fact that no new ideas in science occured in the part of the world under the control of the Christian church between the time of Hypatia and Copernicus- some 1200 years.
Having conceded the point on the temple, I claim one on the statement that we only have literature from the ancient world via monkish scribes. That is my issue. The Church controlled learning and what it didn't like didn't get through.
Its good to challenge preconceived ideas, but you are going to need a lot stronger arguments to displace the notion that the Church controlled and held back learning in the Middle Ages.
 December 7, 2010 at 8:48 PM    

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Was Galileo really that bright as a scientist now?
Do the moons of Jupiter prove heliocentrism to you? To me they prove only Ptolemy (or whoever) was wrong about an argumlent against heliocentrism.
He was not tortured, since he was too old (past 60), only threatened with torture. But if he was right - I do not think so anyway - it seems a bit of a fluke.
 December 7, 2010 at 9:15 PM    

Greg G said...
Francis Bacon a victim of Christianity? In what way?
 December 7, 2010 at 9:33 PM    

Baerista said...
PS: I too am highly curious to know more about Francis Bacon's alleged persecution by the Church.
I would also like to inquire what scientific discovery (or argument) Giordano Bruno can lay claim to. From all I know about him, he was not the kind of guy proponents of scientific empiricism would want to hang around with.
 December 7, 2010 at 11:44 PM    

Baerista said...
An unrelated point:
Vol. 51,2 (2010) of "Astronomy & Geophysics", a well-known scientific journal, published on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society, contains a (non-peer reviewed) article on Hypatia, which basically claims that she was murdered because she tried to change the date of Easter.
Needless to say, the theory is complete nonsense and the article is replete with errors, but since this post has become a kind of repository for facts about Hypatia, I thought I might share it with you. So, if you have access to A&G, I suggest you check it out.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2010.51209.x/pdf
Regards to everyone,
Baerista.
 December 8, 2010 at 1:14 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
HIstoryscientist seems to be a walking advertisement for the "Conflict Thesis".
Galileo - well he was one of the greatest scientists of all time so when you have the Church torturing him
The Church tortured Galileo? Do you have an erroneous Wiki source for that as well?
I can think of Giordano Bruno ...
Bruno was a Heremetic mystic, not a scientist. He was about as much a scientist as a modern New Age kook who tries to refer vaguely to quantum mechanics is a physicist. And his execution was purely because of his religious ideas - eg denying the incarnation of Christ and the virginity of Mary. So what has Bruno got to do with science?
 ... and Francis Bacon.
Was he "tortured" too? I'll add my voice to those amazed at the revelation that Bacon, himself a Christian, was somehow persecuted by the Church. I'm assuming this was some Protestant church, since Bacon lived far from the reach of Rome.
The Church controlled learning and what it didn't like didn't get through.
Wrong again. The Church adopted the "gold of the Egyptians" argument from your pal Clement. Just as the Israelites carried off and used the gold of the Pharoahs, so it was appropriate for Christians to use the learning of the Greeks. That meant they studied, copied and discussed some things that didn't conform to Christian doctrine. They didn't censor it, they just wrote long books about how it was wrong. You don't seem to have any detailed knowledge of what was going on in Medieval universities from the 12th Century. They *devoured* this stuff, they didn't censor it.
Unless you have evidence of something they "didn't like" not "making it through"?
no new ideas in science occured in the part of the world under the control of the Christian church between the time of Hypatia and Copernicus- some 1200 years.
Really? You mean apart from the revolution in anatomy when Medieval scholars finally overturned the irrational Greco-Roman taboo against human dissection and discovered Galen's many mistakes? Or Jean Buridan's rejection of Aristotle's physics of motion and development of the concept of impetus, laying the foundations of the later idea of inertia? Or Thomas Bradwardine and the Oxford Calculators development of the Mean Speed Theorem? Or the various developments in the science of optics which, amongst other things, gave us the Medieval invention of eye glasses? Nothing, eh?
Have you considered actually doing some reading on Medieval science instead of repeating these high school level myths?
 December 8, 2010 at 6:32 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
...people only talk about Galileo - well he was one of the greatest scientists of all time
Some comments by an historian of science: http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/extracting-the-stopper/
"The inflation of his image was a result of Galileo being declared the main scientific martyr in the greatest myth of the history of science, the totally fictitious ‘War Against Science’. Galileo’s inflated image is largely a product of the 19th century and the perception that he had been sacrificed on the altar of religion."
* * *
so when you have the Church torturing him
He was never tortured, nor any possibility of torture. It was against the rules.
and stopping him working
He spent the six months after the trial in the palace of his friend, Cardinal Piccolomini of Siena, working on his next book, with the cardinal's enthusiastic help. He himself wrote to Peiresc about the "true motives" in the trial that lay behind the "mask of religion."
If only he had not written his dishonest Dialogo! It pretended that the Ptolemaic system and the incorrect Copernican system were the only contenders and totally ignored the Tychonic/Ursine system and the Keplerian system. And in it he needlessly offended his old friend, the Pope.
In another letter: Had he stayed friends with the Jesuits, he would have had no problems. They had been enthusiastic supporters, but he had wantonly alienated them with his attacks on Fr. Grassi over the Comets of 1618. Grassi (who had meticulously observed them) said the comets came from beyond the moon; Galileo (who had been ill and had not observed them) claimed comets were emanations of the Earth's atmosphere - and ridiculed Fr. Grassi.
History is always particular and local. The use of broad, mythic theories will seriously distort your understanding.
+ + +
just off the top of my head I can think of Giordano Bruno and Francis Bacon.
Neither one was a scientist; neither was put on trial for scientific conclusions. Bruno was a woo-woo mystic prosecuted for heresy. Read his Ash Wednesday Supper, for example.
F. Bacon was put on trial for political corruption and was accused of sodomy and pederasty, but not by the Church (which had by then been broken) and not for his philosophical writings. He did set the tone for Modern Science by re-imagining it not as knowledge for its own sake, but as knowledge subordinated to engineering and industry as a source of useful products. Oh, and it was also a masculine endeavor to subordinate female nature and chain her in slavery to man's domination of the universe.
* * *
 December 8, 2010 at 6:36 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
Part II
no new ideas in science occured in the part of the world under the control of the Christian church between the time of Hypatia and Copernicus...
No such new ideas occurred anywhere else in the world, or even during the whole Roman period. Certainly, Hypatia herself had none. By Late Antiquity, "science" was a moribund pursuit by a few wealthy hobbyists.
In the Middle Ages, Theordoric of Fribourg explained the rainbow; Jean Buridan explicated Newton's first law; Albert of Saxony reasoned that bodies of unequal weight would fall at the same rate; Nicole d'Oresme proved the mean speed theorem. There was also a lot of groundwork laid in institutionalizing natural philosophy through the University system, in Grosseteste's inductive method, in the application of mathematics to the physics, in the idea that temperature, wetness, color, and other attributes were in principle measurable (even if no one had yet invented the devices).
See Toby Huff's book on The Rise of Early Modern Science or Grant's Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages for helpful references.
+ + +
we only have literature from the ancient world via monkish scribes. That is my issue. The Church controlled learning and what it didn't like didn't get through.
It apparently liked material on logic, reason, natural philosophy, medicine, and law, since those comprised the bulk of what was translated. The more secular Renaissance focused on plays, poems, and histories.
* * *
Its good to challenge preconceived ideas
Yes. Try it sometime. I once believed as you do.
* * *
But we digress from the topic of the post into the more general topic of Early Modern myths about the Middle Ages.
 December 8, 2010 at 6:37 AM    

Baerista said...
The Latin middle ages also saw the invention of technical chronology, as will be argued in a book of mine that I'm currently working on.
 December 8, 2010 at 6:48 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Thanks for the link that that blog (who is that guy by the way). I think I'll be adding it to my blogroll.
Incidently, this post from it is a nice riposte to the lumbering, Nineteenth Century myths about "the Church killing science":
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/science-and-religion-in-the-early-middle-ages/
Nice to see another historian who happens to be an atheist talking sense on this issue. But it seems most non-believers just want to cling like fundamentalists to their cosy myths. Yet the call themselves "rationalists"? Depressing really.
 December 8, 2010 at 7:02 AM    

Historyscientist said...
I posted a bit earlier saying I meant Roger rather than Francis Bacon. It might still be in the moderation list so it might appear.
@Tim
I will admit that I haven't read up on European Medieval Science that much, though I may do now you have suggested it. It won't take very long after all. Compared to the Classical period between 500BC and 400AD and the Renaissance and later period it is pretty slim pickings as is proved by your tawdry list. These Oxford calculator people sound interesting but they are hardly household names are they?
As for Bruno being a heretic, does that justify burning him at the stake? The Church has obfuscated the issue as much as it can, but he did suggest that the stars are other suns in direct contradiction of Genesis and that was on the charge sheet. If that wasn't an act of terror to frighten people off challenging the Church's monopoly of knowledge I don't know what would be.
I am actually a chemist. You'll no doubt be aware that the very name chemistry comes from Arabic. And you will no doubt know why. A lot of the texts that we have from the Classical period only survived because the Arabs looked after them, and that was the source of the stuff that was being devoured in the universities of the LATE Medieval period.
I'd probably agree that the Dark Ages may not have been quite as dark as they have sometimes been portrayed. But get a sense of perspective.
 December 8, 2010 at 7:28 AM    

Historyscientist said...
@The O'Floin
That blogpost about Galileo was entertaining and well written. But there is a lot of stuff about Galileo. You can find any opinion you like if you look for long enough. What you couldn't do was read his book until 350 years after he wrote it if you were a Catholic who followed the Church's instructions.
 December 8, 2010 at 7:50 AM    

Andrew Brew said...
That the Oxford Calculators (along with Buridan, Oresme, and a host of others) are not household names is nothing to do with the stature of their achievement, and everything to do with modern propaganda. The first wave of such propaganda started in the sixteenth century, with Italian humanism, and the second wave in the late eighteenth, with the so-called enlightenment. That wave continues to rise, carrying many uninformed people with it.
Fortunately, the wave crashed and broke a century ago in respectable circles.
As for the preservation of Greek texts... Yes, the Arabs preserved them. So did the Greeks and the Syriacs. That the Latin west did not is not because they were using their copies of Aristotle to light cigars and stuff footballs, but because they didn't have such copies. They saved what they could in the early sixth century by translating whole works or summaries of the important bits into Latin, since knowledge of Green in the west had been declining steadily since the second century (look up Isadore, Cassiodorus, and Boethius in particular. In fact, just look up Boethius). The moment the Latins could get their hands on Greek texts again (11th century, before the crusades per se started) they couldn't get enough of them.
Meantime, in the Greek world, John Philoponus in Alexandria was criticising Aristotle in the seventh century, demonstrating things usually attributed to your mate Galileo a thousand years later. Why are they attributed to Galileo, you ask? Because he stole Philoponus' work without attribution is why.
The fall of Alexandria to the Arabs in 642 put a stop to such activity under Muslim auspices until the 9th century, when Haroun Al-Rashid set up his House of Wisdom in Baghdad. He was able to do so because the Greek texts of interest had been preserved (and translated, commented upon etc.) by his Syriac-speaking Christian subjects, from whom were drawn the seed faculty staff for the new institution.
Speaking of Galileo, I daresay you are right that you can find all sorts of opinions about him. You can pick the one you like... or you can pick the one that demonstrates sound knowledge of the subject. Which is more intellectually honest?
 December 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I will admit that I haven't read up on European Medieval Science that much, though I may do now you have suggested it. It won't take very long after all.
It sounds like you haven’t read up on it at all. You could start with an easy introduction to the subject with James Hannam’s excellent God’s Philosophers, which was shortlisted for the Royal Society Award for Science Writing. That will not only add substantially to my “tawdry list” and open your eyes to how the later Middle Ages saw the greatest flowering of western science since the Greeks but will also give you an excellent overview of how the myths of the Middle Ages as a “dark age” arose in the first place. Then you could move on to Edward Grant’s God and Reason in the Middle Ages, which will explain to you how the Greek influence on Medieval thought enshrined reason and logic at the heart of all scholarly thinking in the period and how they were integral to that other Medieval contribution to the west: the university. Then you’d be ready for Grant’s The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (the title should give you some hints as to what that one’s about) and David C. Lindberg’s superb The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450. Then you might be beginning to know what you’re talking about.
If you think all that “won’t take very long” then you must be a remarkably quick speed reader.
Compared to the Classical period between 500BC and 400AD and the Renaissance and later period it is pretty slim pickings as is proved by your tawdry list.
Notice how you keep shifting ground? In the space of one post you’ve scrambled from “no new ideas in science occurred” to declaring some highly significant developments in science to be not much. And you’re also skipping over the fact that while the Greek and Hellenistic period saw a remarkable amount of innovative science, it faltered to mere compilation and encyclopaedia entries by the Roman period. This was long before the wicked old Church came along, so what was “suppressing” science then? My “tawdry list” comes from a mere two centuries – the Thirteenth and Fourteenth. Can you give us a similar “tawdry list” from, say, the Second and Third Centuries?
(cont.)
 December 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM    

Tim O'Neill said... This comment has been removed by the author.  December 8, 2010 at 9:15 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
(cont.)
These Oxford calculator people sound interesting but they are hardly household names are they?
No. And they should be. The Nineteenth Century clichés about the Middle Ages being a scientific wasteland are so entrenched in the popular mind that the idea that there were any scientists of note in this period strikes people as odd, so it’s hardly surprising that these remarkable men are unknown. That says nothing about whether they should be known. Not only did they marry mathematics to the study of physics in a way that had NEVER been done before but they also recognised that this was the key to far greater knowledge of the world. As Bardwardine wrote:
(Mathematics) is the revealer of every genuine truth ... whoever then has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start that he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom.
That should be one of the best known quotes from early science. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you’d never heard of these remarkable innovators before I mentioned them to you.
Beginning to get the picture yet?
As for Bruno being a heretic, does that justify burning him at the stake?
No, it just disqualifies him as a martyr for science.
You'll no doubt be aware that the very name chemistry comes from Arabic. And you will no doubt know why. A lot of the texts that we have from the Classical period only survived because the Arabs looked after them, and that was the source of the stuff that was being devoured in the universities of the LATE Medieval period.
Of course they got most of their Greek science via the Arabs. Now, ask yourself this: where did the Arabs get it from? Did it descend from heaven? Did they find a cache of scrolls from Aristotle’s time? Or did they get it from the diligent work of Byzantine and Nestorian monks?
I'd probably agree that the Dark Ages may not have been quite as dark as they have sometimes been portrayed. But get a sense of perspective.
I have a sense of perspective thanks – one informed by 25+ years of studying ancient and medieval science. I also know bias and ideologically driven nonsense when I see it. I cane Christian apologists when they distort history to suit their ends but I have no problem with doing the same to my fellow atheists when they do the same. This Nineteenth Century idea of the Church suppressing science is garbage. It is simply WRONG. It has also been totally rejected by modern historians of science. If you still don’t believe me, do the reading I suggest above. Or contemplate why you have been shown to be mistaken, working from biased material or plain old wrong at every turn in this discussion. Surely this is telling you something.
PS Roger Bacon wasn’t persecuted for his science either – something else you’ve got wrong. You have a lot of work to do. IF, that is, you actually have an open mind like a true rationalist and don’t want to simply cling to comforting myths like a fundamentalist.
 December 8, 2010 at 9:23 AM    

Baerista said...
@historyscientist
I already suspected you meant Roger Bacon. The problem is that he hardly qualifies as a martyr for science. His most famous work, the "Opus majus", was written at the instigation of Pope Clement IV. There is a fourteenth-century source claiming that he was condemned and placed under house arrest towards the end of his life, but historical research ever since Lynn Thorndike (who debunked all the nineteenth-century hyperbole about Bacon) has come up with three explanations for this:
a) the account is unreliable and the condemnation never happened
b) it had to do with his astrological views (unlikely imho because his views on the subject do not seem to differ wildly from that of other contemporary authors)
c) Bacon belonged to a radical wing of the Franciscans which brought him into conflict with the authorities within his own order
None of the three scenarios does anything to bolster the claim that he was persecuted for his science (astrology not being science by our standards).
 December 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM    

Baerista said...
It seems that you're also not quite correct about the censorship of Galileo's books. If I'm not mistaken, "Starry Messenger" wasn't on the index, it was the "Dialogo" and it was taken off early in the nineteenth-century (certainly not in your lifetime). Also, if you read John Heilbron's "The Sun in the Church", you will learn that the early modern Church was supportive of astronomy and that Catholic scholars had returned to discussing heliocentrism long before that ban was officially lifted.
 December 8, 2010 at 10:04 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
I meant Roger rather than Francis Bacon.
When was Friar Roger put on trial for scientific ideas? The Franciscans had a problem with theological tracts circulating without peer review, and Roger got caught up in it, but it was about science.
* * *
I will admit that I haven't read up on European Medieval Science that much
That much, or at all? In addition to the Huff and Grant books mentioned earlier, try Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science and Science in the Middle Ages. Also Crombie's Medieval and Early Modern Science. There are also books on medieval technology by White, Gimpel, and the Gieses. Many confuse tech with science.
There was far more continuity between the ancient, medieval, and modern than "Enlightenment" polemicists wanted people to think.
Compared to the Classical period between 500BC and 400AD
What great scientific advances were these? Don't suppose that Pythagorean mystics who placed fire in the center because fire was "nobler" than earth were doing science. Or that "atoms" were anything but an a priori assumption. Both were rejected by the ancients.
Not much happened for long periods and after Galen, Ptolemy, etc. A lot of it was math, not science, anyway. Hypatia wrote commentaries on older works-not original discoveries.
The Renaissance was a sleepy time, too. Little happened scientifically because everyone was going ape over classical sculpture and architecture. (Didn't stop, though, any more than it stopped in the middle ages.)
 December 8, 2010 at 10:11 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
does [Bruno being a heretic] justify burning him at the stake?
Depends on your attitude toward the death penalty and the rule of law. Folks today balk at executing serial killers. (Bruno was accused on only one murder.) He was kicked out by Lutherans and Calvinists, and expelled by Oxford. Even so, the Venetian, then the Roman Inquisition held him for seven years trying to talk him down before they gave up.
he did suggest that the stars are other suns in direct contradiction of Genesis and that was on the charge sheet.
Do you also credit Jonathan Swift with discovering the moons of Mars? How does a hermitical suggestion unsupported by facts qualify as science?
In 1277, the Bishop of Paris condemned the (ancient Greek/Aristotelian) proposition that there could not be other worlds. So you will have to study the charges more carefully.
* * *
to frighten people off challenging the Church's monopoly of knowledge
What monopoly? The universities were independently chartered, self-governing corporate persons with full control over their curricula (save only the graduate school of theology). Political independence was guaranteed by papal bull Parens scientiarum.
A lot of the texts that we have from the Classical period only survived because the Arabs looked after them
Not quite. They were first copied and recopied by the Byzantine Greeks for hundreds of years and by the Syriac Christians. The House of Wisdom in Baghdad was run by Christians (Hunayn ibn Ishaq and his nephews). [The bulk of the population continued Christian down to the Crusades, when Egypt was still about 50% Christian.] Muslims called it "Greek studies" or "foreign studies" and it while it was not outright forbidden, it was not taught publicly. Natural philosophers-the faylasuf-oft ran afoul of the authorities. Al-Kindi was publicly flogged and his library confiscated. Ibn Rushd was stripped of all offices and forced to flee al-Andalus.
Al-Ghazali's influential Incoherence of Philosophy denied the whole idea of secondary causation; and after his time, science in the House of Submission faded.
Translations from Greek to Syriac to Arabic accumulated errors; but when the jihad ebbed, Europeans gained access to original Greek copies in Sicily and elsewhere. Even before that, Jacques of Venice had brought Byzantine copies of Aristotle into France and translated them independently of Arabic sources.
You need a sense of perspective: History is not composed of Good Guys and Bad Guys wearing white and black hats. It is not something deduced from an all-explaining Theory of Everything.
 December 8, 2010 at 10:20 AM    

Historyscientist said...
@Baerista
I am obviously talking about a long time ago so I may have got some details amiss, but it was front page news on the Guardian. I had a paper round at the time (i.e., I used to deliver newspapers before I went to school). It must have been between 1975 and 1977. The story was picked up on at school by my physics teacher who explained the background to it. I think that was where I got the idea that Galileo had actually been tortured from. I have certainly believed it for a long time. It was a reasonably big news story at the time and I think was covered on the main news and there was at least one programme on television. I don't think I could have imagined all that.
While we are on the subject of everything I believe being wrong, I am under the impression that the hydrometer was invented by Hypatia and the Bain Marie by her near contemporary Maria the Jewess. I always mention these facts when I am showing women around the lab to show that science has plenty of female input. I would really like to think that these are true.
I thank everyone for contributing to a reading list for me. I had better stop posting on here as we have drifted way off the original subject and probably only the 4 of us are still reading. All the best.
 December 8, 2010 at 11:03 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I am under the impression that the hydrometer was invented by Hypatia
It's often attributed to her on the basis of a letter from her student the Bishop Synesius, who asks her to make one for him. But given that he has to explain to her what a hydrometer is, how it works and how to make it, I really can't see how the idea she invented it makes sense.
"The instrument in question is a cylindrical tube, which has the shape of a flute and is about the same size. It has notches in a perpendicular line, by means of which we are able to test the weight of the waters. A cone forms a lid at one of the extremities, closely fitted to the tube. The cone and the tube have one base only. This is called the baryllium. Whenever you place the tube in water, it remains erect. You can then count the notches at your ease, and in this way ascertain the weight of the water."
That doesn't sound like the description someone who send to the inventor of the instrument.
I thank everyone for contributing to a reading list for me.
If you are interested in the history of science, I heartily suggest you read some of them. Keep in mind that we all accepted the standard myths about science in the Medieval once as well, until we did some research. And thanks for responding so graciously - it makes a nice change from people who, at about this point in the discussion, scream at us that we are all dupes of the Pope and/or Christian apologists. That always makes this atheist secular humanist chuckle.
 December 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM    

TheOFloinn said...
I am under the impression that the hydrometer was invented by Hypatia
Synesius writes to Hypatia (Letter 15),
To the Philosopher [Hypatia]
I am in such evil fortune that I need a hydroscope. See that one is cast in brass for me and put together.
The instrument in question is a cylindrical tube, which has the shape of a flute and is about the same size. It has notches in a perpendicular line, by means of which we are able to test the weight of the waters. A cone forms a lid at one of the extremities, closely fitted to the tube. The cone and the tube have one base only. This is called the baryllium. Whenever you place the tube in water, it remains erect. You can then count the notches at your ease, and in this way ascertain the weight of the water.
+ + +
This is the only surviving document linking Hypatia to hydroscopes. It does not say she invented it. That is reading too much into the text.
Hydroscopes were used for water divination (hydromancy), as described by Hephaestion of Thebes. That should be clear from Synesius' stated reason for needing it: not to study buoyancy or something, but because he is in evil fortune. It is not clear what the 'evil fortune' is. Perhaps illness. We know that his wife and all three sons will die soon.
Notice that Synesius is not going to Hypatia as a technical expert in building instruments – he has to tell her how to build it – he just needs her oomph to get the job done.
Sorry.
 December 8, 2010 at 12:11 PM    

Andrew Brew said...
Galileo's Dialogue... was taken off the index in 1835, according to all the sources I have seen. This was entirely in accord with Robert Bellarmine's statement to Galileo in 1616 that there would be no problem with teaching heliocentric theory as established truth, once its truth had been established. There were various empirical and theoretical objections to heliocentrism dating back to Aristotle in the 4th C. BC. Most of these had been dealt with in the fourteenth century, but the biggie - stellar parallax - remained.
Bessel's observation of stellar parallax in 1838 provided the necessary evidence - interestingly a few years after Galileo's removal from the index. Actually not all that interesting, since others had made successful, but not properly peer-reviewed parallax observations a little earlier.
Dunno what happened in 1975. Perhaps that's just when the Guardian noticed? Mind you, if you rely on the Guardian for your history of Science and Religion you'll never want for moonshine.
I echo what Tim said about your dignified response to all this. You've been given a right hammering, and have taken it like a man ('though for all I know you are a woman... you know what I mean, yes?)
 December 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM    

Baerista said...
@historyscientist
I appreciate your reply, but your chronology is simply impossible. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum had already been abolished in the wake of the Second Vaticanum (1965/66).
 December 8, 2010 at 7:29 PM    

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Tim, much as I sympathise with your general trend, do not overdo it.
Unless you have evidence of something they "didn't like" not "making it through"?
Most of Attic Tragedy is lost. My theory was: because it celebrated pagan gods and a sense of "fate". Or maybe even because it was sometimes crude like tragedies by Seneca the elder (Agora would have gone by that criterion). What was kept (seven tragedies by Aischylos and few by others, including Oresteia 1 2 3 - Agamemnon - Grave Offering Carriers - Orestes) was maybe kept to illustrate the point that pagan gods were demons. Oresteia and the two plays on Oidipous (by Sophocles) do it for Apollo, like the passage about the Sibyl in Aeneid VI, while Hippolytos does it for Poseidon and Aphrodite.
Another possibility would be that many tragedies celebrated same themes mainly, and that the tragedies kept were thought of as the best ones.
Much poetry was lost too. Pervigilium Veneris survived by a chance to such an age when a bishop who was curious deemed it unlikely to do harm. As did Catullus. Of Sappho much is lost, maybe the kept piece (Phainetai moi kenos isos theoisin) was kept to explain why.
You mean apart from the revolution in anatomy when Medieval scholars finally overturned the irrational Greco-Roman taboo against human dissection and discovered Galen's many mistakes?
Emperor Frederick the Stauffer's scholars even went on to vivisection. The Church stayed against. Against both vivisection and dissection post mortem. Since body was going to rise again on the last day.
Or Jean Buridan's rejection of Aristotle's physics of motion and development of the concept of impetus, laying the foundations of the later idea of inertia? Or Thomas Bradwardine and the Oxford Calculators development of the Mean Speed Theorem?
Hear, hear! But here a Catholic would be in a kind of "gold of Egypt" situation: Buridan (unless I misremember) and Bradwardine prefigured Calvinist heresies as well as being scientists.
Or the various developments in the science of optics which, amongst other things, gave us the Medieval invention of eye glasses?
Hear, hear (no reserve)!
 December 9, 2010 at 12:48 AM    

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Jean Buridan explicated Newton's first law
Except that Newton generalised it in a way making it suitable for "uniform motion" as of itself no proof of causation, just the same as inertia. Anyway Philoponos was bot including "uniform motion" as equally un-caused with inertia. I have here discussed a quote from Buridan as not fully explicitly agreeing on that with Newton.
the early modern Church was supportive of astronomy
So much indeed that Gregory XIII went through with a reform of the Calendar (the one we still have is his work) and was banned by the Sigillikon of the Orthodox Patriarchs for that.
and that Catholic scholars had returned to discussing heliocentrism long before that ban was officially lifted.
Due to especially the discovery of parallax 1838, which corroborates the kind of heliocentric universe Giordano Bruno and Isaac Newton believed in, which had become the commonplace version of heliocentrism - and which Galileo never discussed. It equally corroborates a view of Hebrew astronomy, i e that there are angels conducting not only each planet but each star. Pick or chose your explanation. As an atheist you will not find the angelic one convincing. But agree that it accounts as neatly as the heliocentric one of "stellar parallax".
In 1277, the Bishop of Paris condemned the (ancient Greek/Aristotelian) proposition that there could not be other worlds.
Tempier?
You need a sense of perspective: History is not composed of Good Guys and Bad Guys wearing white and black hats. It is not something deduced from an all-explaining Theory of Everything.
I couldn't agree more on that one! Except by disbelieving in the masonic conspiration. Unfortunately I do believe there are such, like the Knights Kadosh in Scottish rite, who believe the bad guys are the ones who burned Jacques Molay with their heritage - and act accordingly. I have personal as well as common place reasons for this. The common place ones include what you say about The Guardian and a little earlier on what you say about High School curricula and text books.
 December 9, 2010 at 1:23 AM    

Baerista said...
"Emperor Frederick the Stauffer's scholars even went on to vivisection. The Church stayed against. Against both vivisection and dissection post mortem. Since body was going to rise again on the last day."
you might want to check out the article on "Anatomy" in "Medieval science, technology, and medicine: an encyclopedia" (ed. Glick, Livesey & Wallis) or Katharine Park's article "That the Church Prohibited Human Dissection" in the collection "Galileo Goes to Jail (and other myths about science and religion)" by Ronald Numbers, which clearly show that this is itself a part of the whole warfare-mythology.
 December 9, 2010 at 7:40 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
Due to especially the discovery of parallax 1838, which corroborates the kind of heliocentric universe Giordano Bruno and Isaac Newton believed in, which had become the commonplace version of heliocentrism - and which Galileo never discussed.
It was the very absence of such parallax that convinced Aristotle, Archimedes, the Arabs, and the medievals that the Pythagorean mystics were wrong. Heliocentrism was "falsified" in pure Popperian fashion.
Callandrelli noted parallax in 1806. A rotating earth predicted a Coriolis effect. Guglielmini's 1790's experiments with falling weights found the eastward deflection.
These satisfied Bellarmine's demand by that the hypothesis not be taught as fact until there was empirical evidence that it was... a fact. Settele took the evidence to the Holy Office, and they agreed, and lifted the ban in 1830. Ironically, Callandrelli's observation may have been in error! But Bessel came along soon after.
Bruno was a mystic, not an astronomer and wanted a heliocentric world for mystical reasons. His writings show that he was utterly out of touch with the astronomical community. He did not do any observations or mathematical calculations. One translator puckishly remarked that, had they bothered to read him, the Copernicans themselves would have burned Bruno.
The Church stayed against. Against both vivisection and dissection post mortem. Since body was going to rise again on the last day.
They knew perfectly well that the body decayed. There was no reason to keep the corpse intact. Where is the evidence that they were against the sort of dissections that became common in the universities of the West? Heck, Guy de Chuliac, the Pope's personal doctor, wrote a manual on dissections.
 December 9, 2010 at 7:44 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Tim, much as I sympathise with your general trend, do not overdo it.
I’m not “overdoing” anything thanks.
Most of Attic Tragedy is lost. My theory was: because it celebrated pagan gods and a sense of "fate".
That “theory” doesn’t fit with the evidence we have of plenty of other Classical material that celebrated pagan gods and a sense of fate that was copied, prized, celebrated and imitated in the Medieval period.
Or maybe even because it was sometimes crude like tragedies by Seneca the elder
Seneca’s tragedies were also preserved in the period, so how does that fit with your “theory”?
What was kept (seven tragedies by Aischylos and few by others, including Oresteia 1 2 3 - Agamemnon - Grave Offering Carriers - Orestes) was maybe kept to illustrate the point that pagan gods were demons.
I’m seeing a lot of “maybes” in your “theory”, based, it seems, on some biased assumptions.
Much poetry was lost too.
And much was preserved. Your “theory” doesn’t explain why some was supposedly censored by the wicked old Church while other similar material was preserved and celebrated. That doesn’t make much sense. The idea that some survived and some didn’t because of the vagaries of manuscript survival in a period where there were few copies of anything fits the evidence far better.
Of Sappho much is lost, maybe the kept piece (Phainetai moi kenos isos theoisin) was kept to explain why.
Since Sappho was written in Aeolic Greek, it was declining in popularity long before the Church came on the scene.
Others have already corrected you about the myth that the Church was against dissection. Buridan and Bradwardine had no heretical ideas that I have ever heard of, so I have no idea what you are talking about there. The Church didn’t interfere in their natural philosophical work at all, so it would be irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
You seem to be the one “overdoing it” by basing your speculations on false assumptions and getting a few other things flatly wrong.
 December 9, 2010 at 8:53 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
Most of Attic Tragedy is lost. My theory was: because it celebrated pagan gods and a sense of "fate".
Tim
That "theory" doesn’t fit with the evidence we have of plenty of other Classical material that celebrated pagan gods and a sense of fate that was copied, prized, celebrated and imitated in the Medieval period.
It's the intelligent design theory of history. When things that Moderns consider bad happened, it must be the nefarious actions or neglect by Bad People. Normal material causes are never brought up.
If the effort required to recopy, say, music were expensive and labor intensive, how much effort would Moderns expend on copying disco?
No mystery that in the West knowledge of Greek withered, so little of Greek literature was recopied. Moderns don't seem to realize the labors of hand-made texts. There wasn't enough manpower or material to keep up with the ravages of time.
OTOH, we know that even in the "Dark Age" when sarcens, vikings, and magyars were running about burning everything down, the Latins were copying pagan Roman writers. Hroswitha could hardly have written poetry "in the style of Terence" without access to the poetry of Terence. They had Ovid and Cicero, Boethius, Pliny, et al.
An interesting question: how much of ancient Greek literature was still preserved in Byzantium, prior to its sack by the Fourth Crusade? And what residue perished when the Turks sacked the city later? IOW, that the 18th century couldn't find the stuff, doesn't mean the 13th century could not.
 December 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM    

Andrew Brew said...
@Hans-Georg
Just a minor point: The notion that the Olympian gods are demons of the air is not a Christian invention. That's from Plato
 December 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM    

HGL said...
I had said: Due to especially the discovery of parallax 1838, which corroborates the kind of heliocentric universe Giordano Bruno and Isaac Newton believed in, which had become the commonplace version of heliocentrism - and which Galileo never discussed.
It was the very absence of such parallax that convinced Aristotle, Archimedes, the Arabs, and the medievals that the Pythagorean mystics were wrong. Heliocentrism was "falsified" in pure Popperian fashion.
Callandrelli noted parallax in 1806. A rotating earth predicted a Coriolis effect. Guglielmini's 1790's experiments with falling weights found the eastward deflection.
Key word: such. The parallax envisaged by St Robert Bellarmine and the parallax discovered - are they at one? Same question other formula: the heliocentric view on "solar system" or "world" along with a view of "many solar systems" (Newton) or "many worlds" (Bruno) - is that the heliocentric theory Galileo was discussing?
Hint: Bruno had been burned on the stake. I have not read Galileo's works, so I do not know if he defended any multiplicity of "worlds" or "solar systems". But I rather think not, and if he did, it was not very much noticed by his judges.
I am not sure when Seneca the Elder's tragedies were lost. But lost they are. And were before Renaissance interest for ancient learning revived interest.
As for tragedies celebrating gods and a sense of fate, as said I think the ones preserved are those that serve an object lesson. Euripides has the famous line "ei theoi ti drosin aischron, ouch eisin theoi".
 December 9, 2010 at 9:22 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I am not sure when Seneca the Elder's tragedies were lost. But lost they are.
Deeply lost it seems, since I can find no reference to them at all. I also can't work out why these wicked Medieval churchmen would copy and read Seneca the Younger's tragedies but censor or neglect those of his father (the ones I can find no trace of at all).
 December 9, 2010 at 9:37 PM    

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
I said nothing about wicked. I do not consider it wicked to not preserve bad plays (or movies). Especially not if choices have to be made.
But Seneca the Elder is the tragedian, Seneca the Younger the philosopher (the unhappy councillor of Nero, the author of a lot of letters that are preserved). Unless my memory got a total black-out which I think not the case.
If you have a reference of Mediæval Church men commenting on plays by Seneca the Elder (whole plays, not just extract lines like "en servasse, ut essent qui me perderent") give me that please.
 December 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM    

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Sorry!
I even read Phaedra. My bad.
 December 9, 2010 at 10:08 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Now that we've worked out which Seneca we're actually talking about ...
"[Seneca's] dramatic interests are represented by nine tragedies treating Greek mythological subjects: Hercules Furens, Troades, Phoenissae, Medea, Phaedra, Oedipus, Agamemnon, Thyestes, and Hercules Oetaeus. In addition, Seneca is the author of Apocolocyntosis (also known as Ludus de morte Claudii), a Menippean satire on the deification of the emperor Claudius. .... Copies of the Naturales quaestiones, like Seneca’s tragedies, were not widely known or disseminated; but in the early fourteenth century his dramatic works gained favor, especially in Padua among the protohumanists and at the papal court at Avignon, and they soon contributed to Seneca’s reputation in the late medieval period.
Dante’s knowledge of Seneca was slight and was probably confined to the philosophical works. In Limbo, Seneca is identified as Seneca morale (“Seneca the moralist,” Inferno, 4.141). Albertino Mussato, however, focused on Seneca’s dramatic works; Albertino’s successful play Ecerinis is clearly modeled on Senecan tragedy. Petrarch was influenced by all of Seneca’s known corpus.
("Seneca" in Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2, L to Z)
Obviously for the Fourteenth Century writers to get copies of Seneca's tragedies, earlier scribes must have preserved them, even if they weren't widely known prior to the Fourteenth Century. But they were hardly suppressed, particularly if they were popular at the Papal Court.
So another claim of church suppression bites the dust. Seeing a pattern here?
 December 10, 2010 at 5:46 AM    

Baerista said...
These Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages are the shit, aren't they? ;)
 December 10, 2010 at 8:42 AM    

HGL said...
"another claim of church suppression"
I misremembered a part of Jerôme Carcopino or maybe some music historian, who said something that the tragedies of Seneca (the tunes of which were - I think - chromatic or even enharmonic) explain why the ancient theatre was suppressed. But then, the texts themselves were not suppressed.
Mediaeval Italy - is that the "Routledge" series? Who is Routledge?
Either way I recommend R. R. Bolgar: The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries.
According to it periods and schools benevolent to classical learning and those hostile to it would altercate both East and West Roman spheres (it does not deal at all with Arabic or Syriac reception, or only incidentally). For instance we learn that scholasticism was a neo-platonic thing before being a Christian one, and that Photius was a scholastic before St Thomas Aquinas was.
 December 11, 2010 at 1:02 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Just came across your review. Very nice on all counts.
However, something bothers me about the focus on the filmmaker's misstatement of why Hypatia was murdered; it is not entirely convincing to say that she just "got it the middle" of a local power struggle (not your claim, but others'). Why was SHE the target? What was in the mind of the mob? There's no evidence that she was held responsible for the specific wrongs Peter the Reader's monks were avenging, right? What was the basis of their focus on her?
I have been in the middle of such mobs in the third world, and I know they don't need a rational reason; however, there would seem to be more than random rage at play here...?
 December 13, 2010 at 11:07 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
there would seem to be more than random rage at play here
I'm not sure who has said randomness had anything to do with it. The evidence indicates quite clearly that she was deliberately targeted for revenge because she was a prominent political supporter of Orestes.
 December 13, 2010 at 11:24 AM    

Fortigurn said...
It was the Greeks (particularly Aristotle and Ptolemy), who first claimed there could be no other life in the universe, because there could be no other worlds but our own. Cutting edge science there guys!
There's a lengthy list of Christians who posited life on other planets in the universe, without once being persecuted for the idea.
* 1277: Étienne Tempier (bishop of Paris), says Aristotle was wrong, that there could be more than one planet with life
* 15th century: Nicholas of Cusa (German cardinal), says that there could be life on the moon and even in the sun (De docta ignorantia, 1439-40)
* 1584: Giordano Bruno (Roman Catholic), proposed that given the size of the universe and the vast number of stars and planets, it was inevitable that life existed elsewhere (De l'Infinito, Universo e Mondi, 1584); even though this was the speculation of a Hermetic mystic, it wasn't what got him into trouble with the Church (he had issues with the trinity, a far more important heresy)
* 17th century: Tommaso Campanella (Dominican priest), proposed that there was alien life on the sun (Civitas Solis, 1602)
* 17th century: Anton Maria Schyrleus of Rheita (Catholic astronomer), suggested that Jupiter had intelligent life analogous to human life on earth (Novem stellae circa Jovem visae, circa Saturnum sex, circa Martem nonnullae, 1643)
* 17th century: Henry More (Christian philosopher), proposes extraterrestrial life (Democritus Platonissans, or an Essay Upon the Infinity of Worlds, 1647)
* 17th century: Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle (French Catholic), proposes extraterrestrial life (Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes, 1686)
* 17th century: Christiaan Huygens (Dutch Christian and astronomer), proposes extraterrestrial life (Kosmotheoros, sive de terris coelestibus earumque ornatu conjecturae, 1698)
* 18th century: Richard Blackmore (English physician), proposes extraterrestrial life (The Creation: a Philosophical Poem in Seven Books, 1712)
* 18th-19th centuries: German astronomer William Herschel, English astronomer Richard Proctor (Other Worlds Than Ours: The Plurality of Worlds Studied under the Light of Recent Scientific Researches, 1871), French astronomer Camille Flammarion (La pluralité des mondes habités, 1862), Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, all propose extraterrestrial life
Ironically, it was shortly after Darwin's work on evolution (and partly because of it), that secular science started becoming skeptical of the idea of extraterrestrial life. Alfred Wallace (a supporter of Darwin), claimed that there couldn't be any life on other planets other than the human life on earth.
He revived the Aristotilean claim that humans occupied a unique position in the universe, and that there were no other inhabited worlds (Man’s Place in the Universe: A Study of the Results of Scientific Research in Relation to the Unity or Plurality of Worlds, 1903). Ooops.
In contrast, here's are a couple of quotes from a 19th century Christian journal which demonstrate a far more sensible attitude, theologically motivated though they are.
The Christadelphian, (35:i-195), 1898:
'ARE THE STARS INHABITED.—“As to whether the stars and planets are the abodes of life, we can, of course, say positively on the one hand that they may be. Plainly the omnipotent Deity can, if He sees fit, organise forms of life suited to any possible conditions, creatures that might flourish in the solar fire, or in nebular fog. On the other hand, there is not the slightest valid evidence that such creatures exist.'
The Christadelphian, (35:i-195), 1898:
'But there may be, and very likely there are, circulating around some of the distant suns, planets not very unlike the earth, and well enough suited for even human life.'
 December 15, 2010 at 5:19 PM    

 Anonymous said...
I have no scholarship credentials to offer, no MA, MSc, or PhD to boast of, and thus lend my arguments credibility.
But I did see the film a few days ago, at the Centro in Brisbane where one is allowed to take into the theatre the glass of wine one has just bought for the same price as the cinema ticket.
That's very civilised, I thought.
I'm naturally very skeptical of the historical accuracy of any 'dramatic' interpretation of any event, which claims to be based on historical fact.
Drama, fiction, novels, movies etc are entertainment. No critical and intelligent person expects them to be historically accurate.
However, if the director of a film claims such historical accuracy, then he's open to criticism. I therefore find Tim O'Neill's review of this film from his own erudite perspective very illuminating indeed.
Tjis is the most extensive and in-depth review of any film that I've come across. Thanks Tim.
Of course, after seeing the film, I came away with the impression that the film had the hall marks of the hollywood blockbuster.
I checked the internet for comments on its historical accuracy and came across Tim O'Neill's blog, and what a revelation it has been.
I too assumed that the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages. I too was very disturbed at reports when I was at school about 50 years ago, that Galileo was threatened with torture unless he repudiated his ideas on astronomy.
The history of the Spanish Inquisition, and numerous stories of burnings at the stake for heresy, the drowning of witches to demonstrate if they miraculously resisted the drowning and survived, they were confirmed as witches, but confirmed as innocent if they did drown, has tended to give me the impression thaty religion is a form of lunacy.
This film, Agora, confirmed that view. In fact, on the way home in the car, I found myself arguing with my partner, that the current state of Islam is equivalent to the state of Christianity about 400 or more years ago. Intolerant and fundamentalist.
I argued further, that the Christians in our current society are now meek and mild because their political influence has bee smashed. In the Islamic world, this is not the case. Religion and politics seem to be one. There seems to be no separation.
I tend to think this may have been the case in 4th century Alexandria. Therefore, any distinction between politics and religion is a moot point.
The arguments as to whether or not Hypatia was a victim of political intrigue or religious bias, might seem irrelevant in this context.
However, the bottom line for me is an overwhelming sadness, that anyone, Bishop or Christian working man, could possibly justify or reconcile the horrors of violence in this film, which are repeated in modern times because we are so absolutely dumb in learninhg from history, with the gentle words of Jesus to love one's enemies.
The hypocrisy is so mind-boggling, one would have to be an idiot not to see it.
 December 21, 2010 at 3:28 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I therefore find Tim O'Neill's review of this film from his own erudite perspective very illuminating indeed.
You're welcome. But ...
The history of the Spanish Inquisition, and numerous stories of burnings at the stake for heresy, the drowning of witches to demonstrate if they miraculously resisted the drowning and survived, they were confirmed as witches, but confirmed as innocent if they did drown, has tended to give me the impression thaty religion is a form of lunacy.
Or it gives the impression that if you give humans ANY kind of absolutist ideology - religious or otherwise - some of them will use it to do horrible things to others.
I've also tried many times over the years to find any evidence of the stuff about throwing suspected witches into water etc and come up with zero. There were other equally weird ways of (supposedly) determining if someone was a witch, but you might want to be careful about referring to that one - as far as I can tell it's a myth.

This film, Agora, confirmed that view.
Yes, it was meant to. The fact that (i) that "view" is a vast oversimplification and (ii) the movie warps history to make that point should give you pause.
Religion and politics seem to be one. There seems to be no separation.
I tend to think this may have been the case in 4th century Alexandria. Therefore, any distinction between politics and religion is a moot point.
Sorry, but there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that religion played any part in her murder. Some vague handwaving about how they were often linked in this period won't cut it. If there was a religious aspect to her murder, where is it to be found in the evidence? History is done by interpreting the sources, not by making up neat stories.
 December 21, 2010 at 3:52 PM    

Greg G said...
In fact, on the way home in the car, I found myself arguing with my partner, that the current state of Islam is equivalent to the state of Christianity about 400 or more years ago. Intolerant and fundamentalist.
Which type of Islam and in what part of the world?
What type of Christianity and in which country? 400 years ago was 1610 - you've got a few choices. London in 1610 wasn't too bad as long as you had clean water and the high ground.
Seeing history as a progression is a trap. The rise of Wahabism has changed world Islam, creating the fundamentalist states orbiting Saudi Arabia that we see today. Things were vastly different in the Middle East as recently as 100 years ago.
Christianity lost political power due, in part, to there being more than one successful branch (which is why heresy was always treated much more severely that science ever was. cf Catharism). Islam has been gaining political power for the reverse reason. There's nothing inevitable about either.
 December 21, 2010 at 4:10 PM    

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Rome in 1610 was not too bad either. Nor was Vienna.
Edinburgh and Geneva, now that is another story. And Paris, I think, was just emerging from a war between the twain.
 December 21, 2010 at 7:34 PM    

Fortigurn said...
HGL, is that you from CARM?
 December 21, 2010 at 7:45 PM    

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
CARM meaning what?
 December 21, 2010 at 8:42 PM    

Fortigurn said...
Ok, maybe not. There was an erudite European atheist I used to debate on the infamous 'Christian Apologetics Research Ministry' forum who went by the initials HGL. I thought you may be him.
 December 21, 2010 at 8:57 PM    

 Anonymous said...
At least this film has generated discussion. Which is more than you can say for the drivel pumped out by Hollywood. It's had a very limited release, so you Christian apologists needn't worry too much.
If the director had wanted to show Christian brutality, and suppression of reason, he would have been better off dealing with the Crusades (as Ridley Scott did in Kingdom of Heaven) or what happened to Galileo.
 December 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM    

 Anonymous said...
The part of England I'm from, used to have a thriving Jewish community, up until a few hundred years ago when they were all murdered by their 'Christian' neighbours, under the ridiculous pretext that the Jews were practising child sacrifice. Similar thing happened in ancient Alexandria, and so many other places and times. At least the persecution of the Jews in the film was correct.
If Cyril was just tit-for-tatting with the Jews, why did the Jewish community of Alexandria utterly vanish? Why did other Christians at the time call him a "Monster born to destroy the Church"? Good on Amenabar for exposing this neglected corner of history, even if not all of it is accurate. Christians have demonised Jews and Muslims for so long - good to see someone demonising or Talibanising them for a change.
 December 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM    

Fortigurn said...
'I argued further, that the Christians in our current society are now meek and mild because their political influence has bee smashed.'
Yeah, well as a member of one of the peace churches I find that difficult to believe. Churches in the historic peace tradition have consisted of Christians who had access to the same political and violent franchise as others, and chose not to use it. In return we've been trampled by Christian, deist, and atheist like. It took our protests to drag secular governments kicking and screaming to the point that they would recognize conscientious objection against military service. Before that, secular governments imprisoned or killed us just like their fanatical religious counterparts. Thanks for nothing.
Like many in the peace churches, I have always chosen not to exercise my political franchise; I don't vote at local, state, or federal level, and I don't lobby the government. I choose not to inflict my personal ideology on others through the political system, but I understand that the vast majority of Christians, and certainly all atheists, are bent on inflicting theirs on me.
 December 21, 2010 at 9:37 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Our latest Anony-mouse said:
If the director had wanted to show Christian brutality, and suppression of reason, he would have been better off dealing with the Crusades
I have no idea what the Crusades had to do with "the suppression of reason", but they certainly entailed some "Christian brutality". And equal measures of "Muslim brutality". No-one had a monopoly on brutality in that period.
or what happened to Galileo
It would be good if someone made an accurate account of the detailed and complex matter that was the Galileo affair. Then some people whose grasp of it comes from cartoons and children's books might get an idea that it wasn't as simple as it is usually portrayed. Galileo's opponents were largely scientists and the Church actually had the science of the time on their side.
But, again, that doesn't make for a nice neat little story with goodies and baddies. Some people like to reduce history to those kinds of neat little stories. Smarter people deal with complexity and ambiguity.
 December 21, 2010 at 9:50 PM    

Greg G said...
"The part of England I'm from, used to have a thriving Jewish community, up until a few hundred years ago when they were all murdered by their 'Christian' neighbours, under the ridiculous pretext that the Jews were practising child sacrifice."
What does that have to do with the point at hand? No-one has been arguing that the Christian religion had clean hands - especially when it came to other religions. We've been discussing the myth that started in the 20th century that religion and science have been at odds for all time.
In fact you're proving a point I alluded to earlier - the primary foe of religion has always been other religions.
Tim, is this the first time you've been called a Christian apologist?
 December 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
If Cyril was just tit-for-tatting with the Jews, why did the Jewish community of Alexandria utterly vanish?
Really? That's very strange. Because when the Persian general Shahin took the city in AD 617 it was with the help of Alexandria's Jewish community. And the Arab conquest of the city in AD 641 was also with Alexandrine Jewish assistance of the tens of thousands of Jews who lived there, as acknowledged by the Arab general of the time in his letter to the Caliph.
For a community that had "utterly vanished" they were pretty numerous and active. I wonder why the defenders of this silly movie manage to get their facts totally wrong so consistently? It's almost as though they are simply making shit up as they go and don't care about evidence or reality ...
"Rational"?
 December 21, 2010 at 9:58 PM    

jeronimus said...
Historical accounts state that the entire Jewish population was expelled from Alexandria. So what if they came back after Cyril died, it doesn't make him a saint. It doesn't excuse the mobs. Why do you try to cover up persecution? The jews have returned to the UK because the Enlightenment brought tolerance, little thanks to Christians.
 December 21, 2010 at 10:57 PM    

 Anonymous said...
That's nonsense Tim. Cyril led a mob which drove all Jews away from Alexandria in 415, according to both Christian and non-christian sources. They gradually returned after Cyril's death but you seem to be denying that any persecution took place.
 December 21, 2010 at 11:11 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
So what if they came back after Cyril died
So what? It means the Jews of Alexandria didn't "utterly vanish". Which was what you claimed.
 ... it doesn't make him a saint.
What do I care about Cyril being a "saint" or not? I'm an atheist. In my opinion the guy was an A-grade arsehole. But all I'm interested in is the accurate depiction of history. You can't claim the Jewish community of Alexandria "utterly vanished" if what you actually mean is "some or perhaps most of them were expelled for a while". That's called "bullshit". We have a a low bullshit threshold on this blog.
Alexandria was a city where riots, street violence, mob politics and the odd pogrom and expulsion had been happening for centuries - long before any Christian factions got involved. Check out Mike Flynn's multi-part series on "The Mean Streets of Alexandria" for some context and please get a clue:
http://m-francis.livejournal.com/159500.html
 December 22, 2010 at 6:46 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Tim, is this the first time you've been called a Christian apologist?
No, but it always makes me laugh. It also usually means they have run out of any other response. These myths about early science are very dear to some people and they find it hard to let them go.
 December 22, 2010 at 6:52 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
Christianity never had political power, as such, other than as another Italian State. We read of Popes roughed up by French troops at Anagni; but there is no example of Papal troops invading France and giving the king a beat-down.
The Roman Church did not achieve independence from the Western Emperors until the Hildebrandine reforms. (By thus stripping the kings of ecclesiastical powers, the Western Church created the Secular State.) The Byzantine Church otoh remained a department of the imperial government: though sometimes uppity, the Ecumenical Patriarch was an imperial appointment. The Antiochene and Alexandrine Churches were dhimmi in the House of Submission.
The Western Church lost its separation from the state in the Early Modern Ages, when kings were becoming monarchs and arrogating all powers to the throne. This started with the French Concordat, by which the French Crown asserted the power to name bishops within the kingdom, forbid the reading of papal encyclicals, etc. The Spanish Concordat followed.
Then the German Princes, lacking the throw-weight of metal that France and Spain had, took up Sponsor-a-Heretic as a way of bringing the church within their realms to heel. The English monarch took a third way: they simply nationalized the Church within the realm. Hence, the divine right monarchs and established churches of the Age of Reason.
Christianity had this notion of a separate City of God and City of Man; but Islam is a way of like and there is no "church" per se.
 December 22, 2010 at 11:21 AM    

TheOFloinn said...
The part of England I'm from, used to have a thriving Jewish community, up until a few hundred years ago when they were all murdered by their 'Christian' neighbours
IIRC, King John ordered them expelled because he owed them too much money.
If Cyril was just tit-for-tatting with the Jews, why did the Jewish community of Alexandria utterly vanish?
a) Many of them had become Christians long before Cyril's time. (This was one reason why the Jews hated the Christians. They were viewed as renegades.)
b) The same sources tell us why. Socrates Scholasticus tells us that after the Jews had massacred the Christians at St. Alexander's Church, Kyril led a mob that drove them all from the city. Socrates tells us he got the information from one of the Jews thus driven out, who had gone to Constantinople and converted there.
 December 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Sorry, but there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that religion played any part in her murder. Some vague handwaving about how they were often linked in this period won't cut it. If there was a religious aspect to her murder, where is it to be found in the evidence? History is done by interpreting the sources, not by making up neat stories.
I see your point, Tim, but I also see that you admit that interpretation of the sources is required.
In a sociey in which there is little distinction between political power and religious power, a society in which political power and religious power go hand in hand, one may not expect current commentators on events, such as Socrates Scholasticus, to even try to make a distinction.
On the other hand, if we have frequent accounts of turbulent events from a similar period where such a distinction between political and religious motives is clearly made by the commentators, then the absence of any such distinctiion in the comments of Socrates on this issue, could then have the interpretive meaning you ascribe to them.
 December 22, 2010 at 4:52 PM    

Baerista said...
@Anonymous:
One of the hallmarks of Socrates's account is that he was critical of Cyril (and other churchmen) for interfering too much with secular politics. So he was obviously capable of making the distinction.
 December 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM    

 Anonymous said...
I thought the film was flawed as history but enjoyable enough as cinematic art. You say the director claims it's historically accurate. I haven't been able to find any statements from him on the net where he claims that he has made an historical document. How could he when scenes like the experiment on the ship are obviously speculative? I think you are conflating art and history. You need to watch some american films for a while to get a sense of reality.
 December 24, 2010 at 8:07 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
You say the director claims it's historically accurate. I haven't been able to find any statements from him on the net where he claims that he has made an historical document.
In his speech at Cannes last year before its screening he claimed that if Hypatia had not been murdered we might now have colonies on Mars. Do you have a way to interpret that whereby the fantasy this silly movie presents isn't meant to be historical?
 You need to watch some american films for a while to get a sense of reality.
What precisely is that meant to mean? That the bullshit in this silly movie isn't as much bullshit as in American silly movies? Bullshit is bullshit.
And why do these anonymous anony-mice keep trying to defend this bullshit movie with such crappy arguments?
 December 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM    

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...
Beware of anonymous anonymice, Tim!
Merry Christmas!
 December 26, 2010 at 3:23 AM    

r1257 said...
It must be the sentimentalism.
Anyway when are you going to post anything new? Life's got the better off from you?
 December 26, 2010 at 7:58 AM    

 Ariel Swartz said...
What a crass, shallow interpretation of a truly beautiful, moving and very human story. The phrase 'casting pearls before swine' comes to mind.
 December 26, 2010 at 2:33 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anyway when are you going to post anything new?
Several reviews of books I read loast year got lost in a hard-drive crash. But I have a new review almost completed and will post it as soon as I get home from my Christmas holiday.
 December 27, 2010 at 7:09 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
What a crass, shallow interpretation of a truly beautiful, moving and very human story.
The movie was pretty enough. How "moving" it was, however, depends on whether (a) you don't care that the things it claims happened actually didn't or (b) you've convinced yourself that they did happen despite the evidence. Historical movies work that way while movies like, say, Iron Man 2 or Winter's Bone (to choose two extremes) don't.
If you find it "crass" and "shallow" to analyse the (in this case, false) historical claims of a movie that pretends to teach us lessons from history, that's your problem. Exactly what else you expected from a blog devoted to HISTORY I have no idea.
 December 27, 2010 at 7:14 AM    

 Ariel Swartz said...
True, you have no idea. If your blog is devoted to history why review works of cinematic art. I think your brain must have crashed with your hard drive. Thank God we were spared those 'reviews'. Shakespeare's 'historical' plays are not historically accurate at all but people don't see them for that. Umm, like, If they want history they go to a history textbook. Amenabar may have supposedly said some hyperbolic comment about Hypatia and Mars exploration to spruke his film after a glass of wine, I think we can be fair, and allow him that. I seriously doubt he is that clueless about the contradictory nature of the sources, he just included what he thought would be good drama.
 December 27, 2010 at 3:19 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
If your blog is devoted to history why review works of cinematic art.
Because it makes claims about history. Ones that are highly distorted.
Amenabar may have supposedly said some hyperbolic comment about Hypatia and Mars exploration to spruke his film after a glass of wine, I think we can be fair, and allow him that.
Was he also drunk we he gave an interview on Spanish TV claiming the events in the movie are all historically accurate? Perhaps he needs to go to rehab. What about when the movie's promoters hit the streets of Germany "informing" people that, in fact, Hypatia discovered heliocentrism? Were they drunk too?
And the claims of the director and promoters aside, people are taking it as factual and making solemn comments about the significance of the "history" it depicts. Perhaps they are all drunk as well.
 seriously doubt he is that clueless about the contradictory nature of the sources
Pardon? The sources are "contradictory" how, exactly? Details please.
While we wait, imagine if a Christian director made a "beautiful work of cinematic art" that depicted Antoine Lavoisier as a paragon of both scientific endeavour and Catholic faith and then showed the French Revolution's atheistic "Cult of Reason" led by Jaques Hebert plotting to murder him because of his faith. Imagine if it ended with Lavoisier making pious speeches about religion on the scaffold before being beheaded while soaring hymns played in the background.
Given that the death of Lavoiser was nothing like that and this would be as much a distortion of history as Agora, would the fact this movie was "beautiful" make this distortion okay? And if Catholics were holding this movie up as fact and using it to "prove" atheists are murderers and enemies of science would that be okay too?
 December 30, 2010 at 8:33 AM    

Greg G said...
" he just included what he thought would be good drama."
NO. We have on record in interviews why he made the film he did.
1) Feeling burnout, he wanted to make a science fiction film.
2) To prepare, he started watching "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan.
3) He fell in love with the story of Hypatia as presented by Sagan.
4) He made Agora based on this version of the story.
Sagan is the Patient Zero of this disease of history. He is beloved by a certain generation - and I certainly have some of his books - but he presented no evidence for his Just-So version of Hypatia's life. Charitably, we must assume that he misremembered the tale and (not being a historian) did not check his facts before broadcast.
Amenabar is in a worse position: it is obvious from the various "outs" he added to Agora that he did research, discovered that Sagan was wrong, then altered his script so that he could bend the facts to fit Sagan's version.
"Shakespeare's 'historical' plays are not historically accurate at all"
Shakespeare did his best - he had maybe half a dozen books of popular history to work from and more importantly he had to churn out plays as quickly as possible while 1) keeping his patron happy 2) making sure each play passed the censorious eye of the Master of the Revels (among others).
Even he - one of the least politically controversial playwrights of the day - ran into trouble from time to time. He had to hurriedly change the name of Sir John Oldcastle to Falstaff after the family started making a racket over the accuracy of his history in Henry IV...
 December 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM    

Greg G said...
PS Any comment on the quality of the movie being the director's key motive out to pay attention to metacritic:
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/agora
 December 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM    

Baerista said...
@ Tim: I don't wanna come across as a sycophant, but your Lavoisier-analogy is just beautiful.
I must admit that I hadn't seen any episode of Sagan's "Cosmos" before I stumbled upon "Agora." However, I remember talking about Amenábar's movie to a widely respected American historian of medieval science at a conference last year and when I mentioned Sagan's name, he almost lost his composure. After having watched the episode on the Library of Alexandria, I can see why. It's probably no exaggeration to claim that Sagan's fanbase doesn't consist of many historians of science.
 December 31, 2010 at 10:56 AM    

 Lydia D said...
@Tim. Two conflicting accounts for the context of the destruction of the Serapeum exist. Check your facts.
 January 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Two conflicting accounts for the context of the destruction of the Serapeum exist. Check your facts.
I've checked the facts pretty thoroughly thanks. The five accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum all differ to some degree. But what I asked the person above was to justify their implication that their differences somehow allow Amenabar some creative wriggle room and allow him to add the destruction of a library. While the accounts do differ on some points, none of them has anything about a library being destroyed. Clear now?
 January 2, 2011 at 5:34 PM    

TheOFloinn said...
An interesting post might be to lay the five accounts out side-by-side and highlight the differences among them.
 January 3, 2011 at 6:30 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Baerista: Your representation of the German interviews is unfair. First, if the itnerviews are part of an ad, then we can't expect them to be necessarily representative. Second, a number of people explained that the sun went around the earth (and/or some-thing more complicated but also wrong). THAT they did not get from the film (in fact, if this is an ad, maybe the interviews were made before the film came out). most people attributed the heliocentric model or proof thereof to Copernicus and/ or Galileo. Hypatia was hardly mentioned. And what about the historian - He was fantastic, with his explanation of Aristotelian cosmology and his final cut-off: (roughly) 'Why are you asking ME? I'm a historian.
 February 6, 2011 at 4:34 PM    

Baerista said...
@Anonymous.
I don't really see what I am guilty of.
Of course most people interviewed attribute heliocentrism to Copernicus/Galileo. The whole point of the ad is to show that the common view is a misconception. That's why they have the little boy, who's talking about Hypatia, and the insert announcing Agora towards the end - their point is that the movie will set the historical record straight. As for the "historian," he's simply trolling the interviewer by denying that the earth revolves around the sun.
So...what was your point again?
 February 13, 2011 at 7:20 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
After almost a year and 186 comments, I think this discussion has outlived its usefulness. It became clear quite a while ago that some of the Agora defenders and true believers in Gibbon's myths on this subject weren't even bothering to read what has been said before, though given the length of this thread that's not entirely surprising.
Thanks to all who contributed usefully. If the hits on this post and its discussion are anything to go by, it's proving a useful resource and a good antidote to the nonsense being peddled on these topics.
Comments closed.
 February 15, 2011 at 1:56 PM   
Post a Comment



Newer Post  Older Post  Home


Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 


Search Amazon
   
 

Blog Information Profile for Thiudareiks
        http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html










 
 




Armarium Magnum





Subscribe To













  Posts  













  Comments  


 

Welcome to Armarium Magnum

"Armarium Magnum" translates roughly as 'the big book cabinet'. This blog aims to be a repository for book reviews, mainly of books on ancient and medieval history, but also on early Christianity, the historical Jesus, atheism, scepticism and philosophy.

 

Popular Posts


 
"Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again



 
Hypatia and "Agora" Redux



 
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald


 

Follow by Email



   
 
 
Follow on Quora
Follow Tim
 

Share it
   


 

Search This Blog



 




 

Blog Archive


►    2014 (3)


►    2013 (3)


►    2012 (3)


▼   2011 (5) ►    November (1)
▼   May (1) Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never ...
►    March (1)
►    January (2)
►    2010 (3)

►    2009 (16)








 

Blogs of Worth and Merit





 Bryn Mawr Classical Review
 2015.04.55 
9 hours ago





 Exploring Our Matrix
 Does This Get Your Goat? 
12 hours ago





 The TOF Spot
 Oddities 
14 hours ago





 In the Middle

 
 Nothing Has Yet Been Said: On the Non-Existence of Academic Freedom and the Necessity of Inoperative Communities 
15 hours ago





 teleskopos
 PhD scholarship in history of science 
23 hours ago





 Quodlibeta
 Is the book trade too left wing for its own good? 
1 day ago





 Medieval News

 
 The Middle Ages are Not 'Medieval' and more medieval news 
1 day ago





 In Romaunce as We Rede . . .

 
 On Holy Terror 
2 days ago





 Viking Archaeology Blog
 Viking voyages began earlier than thought 
2 days ago





 Anglo-Saxon Archaeology Blog
 Viking voyages began earlier than thought 
2 days ago





 Bread and Circuses
 Ben Kane's Eagles at War 
2 days ago





 Roger Pearse
 Online: Free .pdf version of Lanciani’s “Forma Urbis Romae” 
4 days ago





 The Renaissance Mathematicus
 Abraham Ortelius and the 16th century information age. 
1 week ago





 The New Oxonian
 Atheist Martyrs? Gnus to me. 
1 week ago





 badarchaeology.wordpress.com/
 Amazing Discovery Number 3 That Won’t Make You Question Anything 
1 week ago





 Wormtalk and Slugspeak
 Anglo-Saxon Medicine 
4 weeks ago





 The Heroic Age
 
1 month ago





 A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe
 Death reaches us via the Internet 
1 month ago





 Geoffrey Chaucer Hath An Extreme Blog: Go England! It ys Rad!
 Maken Melodye on Whan That Aprille Day 2015 
1 month ago





 Medieval History Geek
 Kalamazoo Registration is Up! 
2 months ago





 PaleoBabble
 New PaleoBabble blog 
1 year ago





 Research News in Late Antiquity

 
 Late Antiquity Made New: A Celebration of the Career of Elizabeth A. Clark, Duke University (Durham), April 11-13, 2013 
2 years ago





 Summer of Blood: The Middle Ages in Popular Culture
 Recent work 
2 years ago





 Got Medieval
 Medieval Batman Cosplay Worth the Click-Through 
2 years ago





 The Dubious Disciple
 



 

Goodly Sites
History vs The Da Vinci Code - Facts vs Hype
Medievalist.net
University of Reading - Medieval Book Reviews
 

About Me
My Photo Tim O'Neill  Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard.View my complete profile
 

Followers


   


 













 








 










 








 





 
Saturday, May 28, 2011


   
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald





David Fitzgerald, Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, (Lulu.com, 2010) 246 pages,
Verdict?: 0/5 A tragic waste of probably rather nice trees.
 Barely a day goes by without being reminded that the internet is revolutionising publishing.  Record companies are struggling to compete with artists who can release music direct to the public, e-publishing teens are making millions selling young adult novels via Kindle and we keep hearing predictions of the death of print newspapers.  Part of this revolution is the fact that e-publishing and online "print-on-demand" self-publishing services like Lulu.com and Blurb mean that anyone can be a published author.  The upside of this is that worthy writers of novels, short stories or poetry that have a market but are unlikely to get a traditional publisher can find their audience.  Or someone writing a technical book on an obscure subject, such as how to dress and cook a swan or construct a Tudor ruffed collar, can do the same.  The downside is that now all the cranks, lunatics, crackpot theorists or ranting loons who used to clutter the net with websites preaching their fringe theses have self-published books all over Amazon.com as well.  I suppose you take the good with the bad.
 One fringe idea that  has helped keep the print-on-demand publishers ticking along is the Jesus Myth hypothesis - the idea that not only was Jesus not what Christianity claims, but that there was no historical Jesus at all and that the stories about him are purely mythical in origin.  This is a thesis that has been hovering off on the fringe of New Testament scholarship for quite some time - Charles François Dupuis and Constantin-François Chassebœuf both proposed that Jesus never existed back in the Eighteenth Century, though it was first presented in any detail by the German historian Bruno Bauer in 1841.
 Later Nineteenth Century ideas about the origin and development of religion, inspired and typified by Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough, tried to find a single, overarching framework or template for all religions and the vogue for this idea lent itself to the theory that Christianity arose purely out of earlier religious traditions, with Jesus as a mythic "dying and rising god" figure representing rebirth, fertility and the cycle of the seasons.  This formed the basis of some Jesus myth theories by several early Twentieth Century Jesus Mythers; most of whom were enthusiastic amateurs like American mathematician William Benjamin Smith (Ecce Deus: The Pre-Christian Jesus, 1894), Scottish MP J.M. Robertson ( A Short History of Christianity, 1902) and philosopher Arthur Drewes (The Christ Myth, 1909), along with a variety of Theosophists, esotericists and proto-New Age writers.  However mainstream scholarship moved away from the assumptions and methodology of Frazer's anthropology of religion and the idea of Jesus as purely mythical never gained substantial traction.  With the exception of John Allegro's eccentric hippy version of the thesis (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, 1968), the idea reached an low ebb even amongst amateur theorists by the 1970s.
 More recently, however, it has experienced something of a revival, partly on the back of the internet and cheaper and easier small publishing and online distribution.  The new Jesus Mythers tend to fall into three broad categories.  The first consists of theorists who do not quite claim there was no historical Jesus, but rather that he was not who most scholars believe he was - an early First Century preacher prophet.  These are classic pseudo historical conspiracy theories that claim Jesus was "really" some other historical figure, such as Julius Caesar (Francesco Carrota, Was Jesus Caesar?, 2005) or the Emperor Titus (Joseph Atwill, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, 2005).
 The second and far more popular category consists of New Age works reviving (and largely recycling) early Twentieth Century esoteric and Theosophist versions of the thesis, with heavy emphasis on pagan parallels with Christianity as "proof" Jesus simply evolved out of earlier pagan gods.  British mystical writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy brought out a version of this thesis in 1999 with the publication of The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?  It was marketed squarely at the kind of reader who devoured Holy Blood Holy Grail and, not surprisingly, its sequel is mentioned in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.  A more convoluted version of the same ideas has been presented in several books by a New Age writer who calls herself "Acharya S", but whose real name is Dorothy Murdock.  Beginning with The Christ Conspiracy in 1999, Murdock has proven adept at harnessing the internet to propagate her ideas.  She uses YouTube videos and an extensive website to sell her self-published books and has developed a cult-like following of almost fanatical disciples.  Her "archaeoastronomical" thesis of Jesus as a solar deity got a boost from the notorious underground conspiracy "documentary" Zeitgeist, which somehow managed to link her thesis to conspiracies about 9/11, international banking and the media.
 The final category of Myther theories are ones that tend to have been propagated by anti-theistic atheists or seized on by them as a way to attack traditional Christianity.  Most popular amongst them is that of Canadian writer Earl Doherty, whose self-published book The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? (1999) developed out of his website of the same name.  Unlike Freke, Gandy and Murdock, Doherty at least tries to use proper academic processes and approaches and his work is much more popular amongst atheists, freethinkers and humanists as a result.  Doherty does not place the same emphasis on pagan parallels as the New Age proponents of the thesis, but argues for an Jewish proto-Christianity (several of them, in fact) that considered Jesus to be a purely mythic being who was born, lived and died in the sub-lunar circle of the heavens, not on earth.  Several other amateurs and hobbyists, like Richard Carrier and R.G. Price, propose or support similar ideas, with several of them pushing this thesis at secptics' conventions, in atheist gatherings and on atheistic and humanist online fora.


Fitzgerald's False Dichotomy
 Which brings us to David Fitzgerald.  Fitzgerald is an atheist activist who is on the board of the San Francisco Atheists and the founder of an atheist film festival.  He has spent some time giving public lectures that are essentially summaries of his book, mainly to secularist organisations and conventions.  His book has certainly received high praise from prominent atheists and Mythers.  Robert M. Price, who is one of the two or three actual professional scholars who give the Myther thesis any credence, wrote a blurb which says it "summarizes a great number of key arguments with new power and original spin".  American Atheist Press editor and biologist Frank Zindler says Fitzgerald "reveals himself to be the brightest new star in the firmament of scholars who deny historical reality to 'Jesus of Nazareth'".  Atheist activist Richard Carrier gives a kind of imprimatur, declaring solemnly and authoritatively "All ten points (in the book) are succinct and correct".  And fellow self-published author and Myther guru Earl Doherty goes so far as to say it is "possibly the best 'capsule summary' of the mythicist case I've ever encountered."  But it seems such high praise from Myther luminaries does not count for much with publishers - like most Myther books, Nailed is self-published.
 So is it as powerful as its blurbs declare?  Well, actually, no.  On the whole it is confused, lopsided and, in places, laughably amateurish.  If this is the best "mythicism" can produce then it's small wonder the academy remains singularly unimpressed.
 As its title suggests, the book is divided into ten "myths" about Jesus, which the author then proceeds to attempt to debunk and show that a historical Jesus never existed. The first - "The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous" - is not really controversial.  After all, no-one except a fundamentalist apologist would pretend that the evidence about Jesus is not ambiguous and often difficult to interpret with any certainty, and that includes the evidence for his existence.  This, of course, merely means the idea he did not exist is simply valid, not that it's true. But from the start the attentive reader begins to notice something very odd about the way Fitzgerald frames the debate.  He consistently depicts the topic as some kind of starkly Manichaean conflict between Christian apologists on one hand and "critics who have disputed Christian claims" on the other and in his first pages he mentions evangelicals, conservative Christians and populist apologists like F.F. Bruce, R. Douglas Geivett and Josh McDowell in rapid succession.  He notes that the vast majority of Biblical historians reject the idea that Jesus never existed, but counters that "the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers, so what else could be expect them to say?" (p. 16)
 This is glib, but it is also too simplistic.  Many scholars working in relevant fields may well be Christians (and a tiny few may even be "preachers" as he claims, though not many), but a great many are definitely not.  Leading scholars like Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen and Gerd Ludemann are all non-Christians.  Then there are the Jewish scholars like Mark Nanos, Alan Segal, Jacob Neusner, Hyam Maccoby and Geza Vermes.  Even those scholars who describe themselves as Christians often hold ideas about Jesus that few church-goers would recognise, let alone be comfortable with and which are nothing like the positions of people like Geivett and McDowell.  Dale C. Allison, E P Sanders and John Dominic Crossan may all regard themselves as Christians, but I doubt Josh McDowell would agree, given their highly non-orthodox ideas about the historical Jesus.

So from the start Fitzgerald sets up an artificial dichotomy, with conservative apologists defending a traditional orthodox Jesus on one hand and brave "critics who (dispute) Christian claims" who don't believe in any Jesus at all on the other.  And nothing in between.  This is nonsense, because it ignores a vast middle ground of scholars - liberal Christian, Jewish, atheist and agnostic - who definitely "dispute Christian claims" but who also conclude that there was a human, Jewish, historical First Century preacher as the point of origin for the later stories of "Jesus Christ".


A Failed Argument from Silence
 The false dichotomy established in the first chapter is continued in the second, entitled "Myth No. 2: Jesus was wildly famous - but there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him ... "   Fitzgerald insists that there are elements in the story of Jesus which should have been noticed by historians of the time and insists that there is no shortage of writers then who should have recorded some mention of them:

There were plenty writers, both Roman and Jewish, who had great interest in and much to say about (Jesus') region and its happenings .... We still have many of their writings today: volumes and volumes from scores of writers detailing humdrum events and lesser exploits of much more mundane figures in Roman Palestine, including several failed Messiahs.  (Fitzgerald, p. 22)
 Now, potentially, that is a pretty solid argument.  If we did indeed have "scores of writers" from Jesus' time with such an interest in Jesus' region and who wrote about "failed Messiahs" then it would certainly be very strange that we have no contemporary mentions of Jesus.  Unfortunately, as we will see, this is one of several places where Fitzgerald lets his overblown rhetoric run well ahead of what he can then actually substantiate.
 But first, his opening words in the very next sentence are worth noting.  It begins "If the Gospels were true ..."  Here and throughout the book Fitzgerald gets himself into a constant confused tangle over which Jesus he is arguing against.  He keeps saying he is arguing against the idea of any historical Jesus at all, yet at every turn it is the Jesus of a very conservative reading of the gospels that he talks about.  He repeatedly thinks that if he can show that something is not consistent with the kind of Jesus argued for by an fundamentalist apologist preacher like Josh McDowell, he has disposed of the historical Jesus altogether.  This does not follow at all.  Most critical scholars have no time for the McDowell-style Jesus either, so the Jewish preacher they present  as the historical Jesus behind the later gospel figure is left totally unscathed by Fitzgerald's naive arguments.
 Thus Fitzgerald goes on to detail things in the gospels which he argues should have been noticed by writers of the time: the taxing of the whole Roman Empire, the massacre in Bethlehem by Herod the Great, Jesus' ministry generally, his miracles, his entry into Jerusalem, his trial and his execution. For anyone other than a fundamentalist, this argument has zero force.  Critical scholars, including many Christian ones, would simply chuckle at the idea that things like the story of an Empire-wide census or the Massacre of the Innocents are historical, so arguing they did not happen counts for nothing much when it comes to arguing against the existence of a historical Jesus.  Fitzgerald even seems to think that the fact the "Star of Bethlehem" and the darkness on Jesus' death are unattested and therefore most likely did not happen (which is true) is somehow a blow against the existence of a historical Jesus (which is not).
 And it is hard to see why the other items on his list would be noted, noticed or even known to any far off Roman or Greek historians at all.  Given that these historians make no mention of any other Jewish peasant preachers or miracle workers, it is hard to see why Fitzgerald thinks they should have done so with this one.  As for things like his entry into Jerusalem, his trial and his crucifixion, it is equally difficult to see why they would be more than a one day wonder even locally.  Why Fitzgerald thinks such minor events would be the talk of the whole Empire is a mystery.
 But in the quote above he claimed there were "scores of writers" with a burning interest in this region and, apparently, in the doings of Jewish Messianic claimants.  He even claims these writers detail the "lesser exploits" of these Messiahs, but make no mention of Jesus.  Strangely, he never tells us who these "scores of writers" with this interest in Jewish Messiahs are, which is very odd.  As it happens, we have precisely one writer who mentions any figures who might be seen as "failed Messiahs", and that is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.  But far from talking about "lesser exploits" of these figures, what this single writer says about Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants in this period makes it quite clear that Jesus was actually pretty small fry as such figures go.
 For example, a bandit-rebel who declared himself a Jewish king called Athronges not only gathered enough armed followers to tackle Roman troops but for a while he was able to inflict military defeats on them, until he was defeated circa 4 BC.  An unnamed Samaritan prophet led a "great multitude"to the holy mountain of Gerizim, promising them a mystical revelation, around 36 AD.  He and his followers were so numerous they had to be attacked by the Romans and dispersed using units of both infantry and cavalry.  About ten years later a prophet called Theudas led "a great part of the people" into the desert, promising to miraculously part the River Jordan and had to be dealt with by Roman cavalry in the same way.  And another unnamed Jewish prophet, this one from Egypt, led an estimated (though unlikely) "30,000 men" to Jerusalem, telling them its walls would miraculously fall so he could lead them into the city.  Again, Roman troops had to be called out to deal with them, leaving hundreds dead and causing the prophet to run away.
 It is very hard to see any of these fairly momentous events as "lesser exploits" compared to what even the gospels claim about Jesus.  Even if we take their accounts at face value, a chanting crowd greeting his entrance to Jerusalem, a trial that no-one witnessed and a run-of-the-mill execution are hardly big news compared to mass movements that required the mobilisation of troops and pitched battles.  Yet how many other historians so much as mention Athronges, the Samaritan, Theudas or the Egyptian?  None.  Apart from Josephus, no writer so much as gives them a sentence's worth of attention.  So somehow Fitzgerald thinks these minor events in the Jesus story should be mentioned when far bigger, more significant events are not.  He wildly misrepresents the evidence ("scores of writers") and his attempted argument from silence clearly fails dismally.
 Next Fitzgerald goes into some detail about the writers and historians of the First Century who he claims "should" have mentioned a historical Jesus but did not.  He lists eleven who are contemporaries of Jesus.  Like many Mythers, he seems to think that the lack of any contemporary reference to Jesus is somehow a particularly telling point, since the few extra-Biblical references to Jesus are in writings dating almost a century after his time.  This would come as no surprise to anyone actually familiar with the nature of ancient source material, however.  There are few more famous ancient figures than the Carthaginian general Hannibal; even today most people at least know his name.  He was one of the greatest and justifiably famous generals of ancient times.  Yet, despite his fame then and now, we have precisely zero contemporary references to Hannibal. If we have no contemporary mentions of the man who almost destroyed the Roman Republic at the height of its power, the idea that we should expect any for an obscure peasant preacher in the backblocks of Galilee is patently absurd.
 (Edit:  In the discussion in the comments on this review here and elsewhere it was brought to my attention that we do have a tiny fragment of one contemporary account of Hannibal.   P.Würzb.Inv. 1 is a papyrus fragment that seems to contain a few lines from Book IV of Sosylus' The Deeds of Hannibal.  I was not aware of this when I wrote the paragraph above, so thanks to the commenter Evan for bringing it to my attention.
 The point still stands however - if we have nothing more than a few lines from any contemporary work about Hannibal to expect to have surviving contemporary mentions of someone as unimportant and obscure as Jesus is still absurd.  And there are many other very prominent people for whom we have no contemporary mentions: we have nothing of the sort for the Icenian warrior queen Boudicca or the Germanic warlord Arminius, for example.  Arminius destroyed one tenth of the whole Roman army in one battle and led the only successful rebellion against the Empire in its history, yet we have nothing about him from the time or even from his lifetime.  Fitzgerald's emphasis on the lack of contemporary references to a peasant who did not much is plainly ridiculous.  Of course, it should also be noted that my point is still correct - the text of P.Würzb.Inv. 1  makes no mention of any "Hannibal". ) 
 Fitzgerald labours mightily to detail all the writers who he claims "should" have mentioned Jesus.  But in every case his argument suffers from the same fatal flaw: given that none of these writers mention any other Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, there is absolutely no reason to think they "should" have mentioned Jesus.  As noted above, Athronges, the Sarmatian, Theudas and the Egyptian prophet were actually far more prominent and significant locally than Jesus was even according to the most naive, face value fundamentalist's reading of the gospels.  Yet not one of them is mentioned by any of Fitzgerald's list of "should" writers either.  Nor are any other comparable Jewish figures of the time, such as Hillel, Shammai, Choni HaMa'agel, John the Baptist or Gamaliel.
 Yet Fitzgerald again claims that these writers do mention other figures similar to Jesus.  "In many cases", he claims,  "these same writers have much to say about other much less interesting messiahs - but not Jesus" (p.42)  In "many cases"?  In which cases?  Fitzgerald simply does not say.  And other messiahs are mentioned?  Which ones, where and by who?  Again, despite this being a key point that should potentially back up and substantiate his creaking argument, he never bothers to tell the reader.  The reason is simple - what Fitzgerald is saying here is absolute nonsense.  None of his writers mention any such figures for the same reason they do not mention Jesus: because these writers had no interest in any such Jewish preachers and prophets.  As a result, despite all his bold claims and loud rhetoric, Fitzgerald's argument collapses in a heap.


Josephus and his Amazing Technicolour Interpolations
 Despite Fitzgerald's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, the only writer of the period who seems to have had any interest at all in people like Jesus was Yosef ben Matityahu or Flavius Josephus.  This means that if Josephus did not mention Jesus while mentioning other such figures like Theudas and John the Baptist, people like Fitzgerald would actually be able to make a real argument from silence.   The problem is that Josephus does mention Jesus - twice.  So any Myther book or article has to spill a lot of ink trying to explain these highly inconvenient  mentions away.
 Getting rid of the first reference to Jesus, the one in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII.3.4  is made a little easier by the fact that at least some of it is not original to Josephus and was added by Christian scribes later.  The textus receptus of the passage has Josephus saying things about Jesus that no Jewish non-Christian would say, such as "He was the Messiah" and "he appeared to them alive on the third day".  So, not surprisingly, Fitzgerald takes the usual Myther tack and rejects the whole passage as a later addition and rejects the idea that Josephus mentioned Jesus here at all.
 He does acknowledge the alternative idea, that Josephus' mention of Jesus was simply added to, but yet again he attributes this to "wishful apologists".  This is a total distortion of the state of academic play on the question of this passage.  As several surveys of the academic literature have shown, the majority of scholars now accept that there was an original mention of Jesus in  Antiquities XVIII.3.4 and this includes the majority of Jewish and non-Christian scholars, not merely "wishful apologists".  This is partly because once the more obvious interpolated phrases are removed, the passage reads precisely like what Josephus would be expected to write and also uses characteristic language found elsewhere in his works.  But it is also because of the 1970 discovery of what seems to be a pre-interpolation version of Josephus' passage, uncovered by Jewish scholar Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
 Professor Pines found an Arabic paraphrase of the Tenth Century historian Agapius which quotes Josephus' passage, but not in the form we have it today.  This version, which seems to draw on a copy of Josephus' original, uninterpolated text, says that Jesus was believed by his followers to have been the Messiah and to have risen from the dead, which means in the original Josephus was simply reporting early Christian beliefs about Jesus regarding his supposed status and resurrection.  This is backed further by a Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian which also has the passage saying "he was believed to be the Messiah".  The evidence now stacks up heavily on the side of the partial authenticity of the passage, meaning there is a reference to Jesus as a historical person in precisely the writer we would expect to mention him.  So how does Fitzgerald deal with the Arabic and Syriac evidence?  Well, he doesn't.  He is either ignorant of it or he conveniently ignores it.
 Not content with ignoring inconvenient key counter-evidence, Fitzgerald is also happy to simply make things up.  He talks about how the Second Century Christian apologist Origen does not mention the Antiquities XVII.3.4 reference to Jesus (which is true, but not surprising) and then claims "Origen even quotes from Antiquities of the Jews in order to prove the historical existence of John the Baptist, then adds that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus, and criticises him for failing to mention Jesus in that book!" (p. 53)  Which might sound like a good argument to anyone who does not bother to check self-published authors' citations.  But those who do will turn to Origen's Contra Celsum I.4 and find the following:

Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Messiah, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was  "the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah",--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.
 So Origen does not say Josephus "didn't believe in Jesus", just that he did not believe Jesus was the Messiah (which supports the Arabic and Syriac evidence on the pre-interpolation version of Antiquities XVII.3.4) And far from criticising Josephus "for failing to mention Jesus in that book", Origen actually quotes Josephus directly doing exactly that - the phrase "αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου" (the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah") is word for word the phrase used by Josephus in his other mention of Jesus, found at Antiquities XX.9.1.  And he does not refer to and quote Josephus mentioning Jesus just in Contra Celsum I.4, but he also does so twice more: in Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17.  It is hard to say if this nonsense claim of Fitzgerald's is mere incompetence or simply a lie.  I will be charitable and put it down to another of this amateur's bungles.


 Jesus, James and History
 So Fitzgerald then turns to this second mention of Jesus by Josephus, the one that is actually mentioned and quoted by Origen as noted above, and attempts to make it disappear as well.  Except the mention in Antiquities XX.9.1 is much trickier prospect for Myther theorists than the clearly edited mention in Antiquities XVII.3.4.  The second mention is made in passing in a passage where Josephus is detailing an event of some significance and one which he, as a young man, would have witnessed himself.
 In 62 AD, the 26 year old Josephus was in Jerusalem, having recently returned from an embassy to Rome.  He was a young member of the aristocratic priestly elite which ruled Jerusalem and were effectively rulers of Judea, though with close Roman oversight and only with the backing of the Roman procurator in Caesarea.  But in this year the procurator Porcius Festus died while in office and his replacement, Lucceius Albinus, was still on his way to Judea from Rome.  This left the High Priest, Hanan ben Hanan (usually called Ananus), with a freer rein that usual.  Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed.
 This was a momentous event and one that the young Josephus, as a member of the same elite as the High Priest, would have remembered well.  But what is significant is what he says in passing about the executions that that triggered the deposition of the High Priest:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
 This second reference to Jesus is difficult for Mythers to deal with.  Dismissing it as another interpolation does not work, since a Christian interpolator in a later century is hardly going to invent something as significant as the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus which, unlike the interpolated elements in the Antiquities XVII.3.4 passage, makes no Christian claims about Jesus.  Then there are the three citations and quotations of this passage by Origen mentioned above.  Fitzgerald seems totally oblivious to these, but Origen was writing in the mid-Third Century AD, which shows this mention existed in Josephus then - ie while Christianity was still a small, illegal and persecuted sect and so much too early for any Christian doctoring of this text.
 But Fitzgerald falls back on one of the several gambits Mythers use to get their argument off this awkward and pointy hook.  He notes that Josephus tells us the successor of the deposed High Priest was one "Jesus, son of Damneus" and then triumphantly concludes that the "Jesus, who was called Messiah" is not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth at all, but actually a reference to this "Jesus, son of Damneus" instead.
 While he declares this ingenious solution to his problem to be "the only (explanation) that makes sense" (p. 61), it is actually highly flawed.  He claims, following fellow Myther Richard Carrier, that the words "who was called Messiah" were "tacked on" and that the Jesus mentioned as the brother of the executed James was this "Jesus, son of Damneus".  But this does not explain why Josephus would identify one son (James) by reference to his brother and the other (Jesus) by reference to their father.  Josephus does this nowhere else in his works.  It also does not explain why when he does say "Jesus, son of Damneus" was made High Priest, he does not mention that this was the unidentified "Jesus" mentioned earlier and that the executed James was his brother, since that relevant detail would be worth noting.
 More importantly, neither Carrier nor Fitzgerald explain why an interpolator would "tack on" this reference to their Jesus. The motive behind the clumsy interpolations in Antiquities XVII.3.4 is clear: the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead was disputed by non-Christians, especially by Jews, so to have the Jewish historian Josephus apparently attest to these Christian claims turned this passage that simply mentions Jesus into a powerful rhetorical tool in defence of these Christian claims.  But simply adding "who was called Messiah" to this other text supports no Christian claim at all.  If anyone prior to the Nineteenth Century was arguing Jesus did not exist, then it would make sense that such an interpolation might be needed, but that is a purely modern phenomenon.  So Fitzgerald's contrived argument is not only clumsy, it is also supposing something for which there was no motive at all.  Then, yet again, there is the fact that Origen quotes this passage three separate times with the "who was called Messiah" element in it.  This was in the mid-Third Century and long before Christians were in any position to be "tacking on" anything to copies of Josephus.
 "Jesus" or Yeshua was one of the most common names for Jewish men of the time.  Josephus was very careful to differentiate between different individuals with the same common first names, especially where he mentions two in the same passage.  So it is far more likely that he calls one Jesus "who was called Messiah" and the other "son of Damneus" for precisely this reason.  The clumsy idea that Fitzgerald proposes is highly awkward in all respects; except, of course, as an ad hoc way of making a clear reference to Jesus go away and leave his thesis intact.



Irrelevance (with howlers)
 The next four chapters in Fitzgerald's book are more examples of the author arguing against a fundamentalist version of Jesus rather than the historical Jewish preacher of critical non-Christian and liberal scholars.  In them he marshals some fairly standard arguments that would be news to absolutely no-one except the most clueless of Biblical literalists or naive traditional Christians.  He presents evidence that the gospels were not written by eye-witnesses, that they differ in their depictions of Jesus and that there are some historical and archaeological problems with taking them at face value.  Yet again, Fitzgerald cannot seem to make up his mind if he is arguing against any historical Jesus at all or merely a traditionalist/fundamentalist version of him based on a face value reading of the Bible.  These chapters are run of the mill stuff arguing against things that even many Christians do not believe and they do little or nothing to advance his argument about the existence of a historical Jesus.  The gospels can indeed have been written by non-eye witnesses, can present wildly varying pictures of Jesus and can be riddled with historical and archaeological errors and a historical Jewish preacher could still have been the origin of the later stories.  Much of this part of the book feels like mere padding.
 Though there are some howlers in it that, yet again, shows that Fitzgerald is an amateur who really needed an informed editor.  At one point he writes:

Matthew has Jesus making a pun where he tells Peter  "upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18).  Though if this had happened in reality, Peter would have scratched his head and asked,  "Say Jesus - what's a church?" since churches hadn't been invented yet, and wouldn't be developed until many decades later. (p. 70)
 The word translated as "church" in most English editions is ἐκκλησίαν and it simply means "assembly, gathering, all of a given group", so it would be very odd for Peter to have "scratched his head" at what would have been a perfectly sensible and clear statement.  Personally, I do not happen to believe Jesus said this at all and it seems this was something put in his mouth later by the writer of Matthew.  But the naivete of Fitzgerald's English-based argument is indicative of his weak grasp of the material.
 His comments elsewhere in these largely irrelevant chapters are similarly naive.  He pauses in his brief chapter on archaeology and, in a weak attempt to make this chapter vaguely relevant to his main argument, writes:
At the risk of being redundant, we should remember that there has never been a trace of physical archaeological evidence for Jesus, despite centuries of infamous hoaxes such as the Shroud of Turin (p. 108)
 Again, that the faithful have clung to pious hoaxes and that the gullible still fall for fake artefacts is not remotely relevant to Fitzgerald's thesis.  And "there has never been a trace of physical archaeological evidence" for most people who have existed in human history, particularly if they were poor and lived in a backwater.  For Fitzgerald to think that the lack of any such evidence for Jesus tells us something about whether he existed or not makes him about as clueless as the Shroud believers.

 


The Jesus of Paul
 The epistles of Paul pose another problem for Mythers like Fitzgerald.  Given that they are the earliest Christian documents we have, generally thought to have been written in the 50s AD, they are uncomfortably close to Jesus' lifetime for the Mythers and remarkably close as ancient source material goes.  So the Mythers take solace in the fact that Paul does not actually say much about Jesus' life and preaching.  They exaggerate this completely, claiming that Paul has nothing to say about any earthly Jesus:

Paul never talks about Jesus' death as though it actually happened to a real man from Galilee who lived on earth a few years before.  Nor does hie give any details about the events of Jesus' life: not the places he travelled, not the miracles he performed, not the parables he told, not even the teachings or instructions he gave .... Paul never says anything about Jesus being an earthly teacher at all. (pp. 128-29)

This is, in fact, substantially nonsense.  While Paul's main focus in his letters is answering questions on issues about his preaching of Jesus as a risen Messiah, he actually does talk about Jesus' earthly life and career at many points.  He says he was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians4:4).  He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans1:3).  Contrary to Fitzgerald's claim, he refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15).  He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4).  And he says he had a earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians1:19). 



Naturally, the Myther theorists that Fitzgerald is following with this idea that Paul believed in a purely heavenly, mystical Jesus have contrived ways to argue away these clear references to an earthly Jesus, but they require contortions, strained readings of the texts, suppositions and, inevitably, assumed interpolations for them to work.  Fitzgerald makes a great deal out of the fact that a lot of the gospels' details are not found in Paul.  This is partly because of Paul's theological focus on the risen Jesus, partly because of the incidental nature of the letters he was writing and the concerns they were addressing and partly because some of those gospel elements  (eg the infancy narratives) are almost certainly are not historical and probably had yet to develop.  But to pretend that Paul did not believe in an earthly Jesus at all requires some contorted hoop jumping of a most dubious and unconvincing nature.



The reference to Paul's meeting with "James, the brother of the Lord" is one that gives the proponents of this idea that Paul only believed in a heavenly, mystical Jesus the most grief.  In Galatians 1, Paul is clearly trying to fend off the charge that he is somehow subordinate to those who were followers of Jesus before Paul's conversion.  In his attempt to counter claims to this effect, he assures the assembly in Galatia that he did not get his "gospel" from the community in Jerusalem.  Though he cannot deny that he did go to Jerusalem after his conversion and did meet Peter, so he quickly adds "I saw none of the other apostles - only James, the brother of the Lord."



There is a consistent tradition that Jesus had a brother called James and that this James became a leader in the Jesus Sect community in Jerusalem.  As we have seen, Josephus mentions the execution of this same James, "brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah".  So we have a confluence of evidence, both Christian and non-Christian, that Jesus had a brother called James who was a leader in Jerusalem and here we have Paul mentioning, in passing, meeting this very same James.  This poses a thorny problem for the Mythers.


There are a variety of ingenious ways used by them to extract themselves from this awkward pickle, usually by claiming that "brother of the Lord" was not meant literally and that there was an (otherwise totally unattested) sub-group of Christian believers who were called "the brothers of the Lord".  Fitzgerald does not resort to this hopelessly ad hoc piece of supposition, but instead falls back on the old Myther standby: supposing a textual interpolation:




Though Christians seize on the one and only verse (Gal. 1:19) that has Paul refer to James in passing as "the Brother of the Lord" it seems more likely that this was a marginal note inserted by a later scribe, whether by accident or deliberately. (p. 145)



He supports this bold claim by noting that "just a few verses later (Paul) disdainfully dismiss(es) James as though he was a nobody (Gal. 2:6)".  What Paul does in Galatians 2:6 is talk about some people who he describes as "those who were held in high esteem" (ie the Jerusalem assembly generally) and says "they added nothing to my message".  But he goes on to note "On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised."  He then talks about how this mission to the gentiles was given to him by "James, Cephas (Peter) and John, those esteemed as pillars" and holds this up as a ringing endorsement of his authority. How Fitzgerald reads that as disdainfully dismissing James "as though he was a nobody" is a mystery.  And how he could use this to posit an interpolation simply as a way of getting rid of an inconvenient piece of evidence and prop up his thesis even more so.  



It is this kind of weak, supposition-laden argument, made up of ad hoc contrivances based on little more than wishful thinking that leaves the Myther position wide open to a savage application of Occam's Razor.  An academic editor would simply laugh at any manuscript that contained an argument this weak on such a key point.  But one of the joys of self-publishing is that you don't have to convince or impress anyone but yourself.  Fitzgerald, it seems, is very impressed with Fitzgerald's arguments.  Not surprisingly.
In Conclusion


I have gone to the effort to write a long review of this book not because it is a worthy work - it most certainly is not.  It is not even the best that the Mythers can do: there are other books which may be flawed but are nowhere near as weak, clumsy, confused or amateurish as this one (as much as I disagree with him, at least Earl Doherty's thesis is coherent and well-researched).  I have chosen to go into some detail with this one because it strikes me as encapsulating most of what is hopelessly wrong about the Myther thesis and its manifestations online and in self-published books like this one.  Like most pseudo history, these arguments for the non-existence of Jesus are flawed by the fact their writers begin with their conclusion.  That is bad enough to start with, and there is no shortage of amateur hobbyist theorists who are too enamoured of their "amazing idea" to subject it to sufficient comprehensive self-criticism.  But this is exacerbated in the Mythers' case by an ideologically-driven bias.
 A major part of the problem with most manifestations of the Myther thesis is that its proponents desperately want it to be true because they want to undermine Christianity.  And any historical analysis done with one eye on an emotionally-charged ideological agenda is usually heading for trouble from the start.  Over and over again, Fitzgerald does what most of these Mythers do - plumps for an interpretation, explanation or excuse about the evidence simply because it preserves his thesis.  Their biases against Christianity blind Mythers to the fact that they are not arriving at conclusions because they are the best or most parsimonious explanation of the evidence, but merely because they fit their agenda.
 The overwhelming majority of scholars, Christian, non-Christian, atheist, agnostic or Jewish, accept there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin for the Jesus story simply because that makes the most sense of all the evidence.  The contorted and contrived lengths that Fitzgerald and his ilk have to resort to shows exactly how hard it is to sustain the idea that no such historical preacher existed.  Personally, as an atheist amateur historian myself, I would have no problem at all embracing the idea that no historical Jesus existed if someone could come up with an argument for this that did not depend at every turn on strained readings, ad hoc explanations, imagined textual interpolations and fanciful suppositions.  While the Myther thesis is being sustained by junk pulp pseudo scholarship like Fitzgerald's worthless little book, it will remain a curiosity on the fringes of scholarship good for little more than amusement.  This book is crap.

(Note: Any Mythers who think I need to be educated on their thesis in the comments section, don't bother.  I've been debating you guys online for nearly ten years now and I'm more than familiar with all the counter arguments and alternative readings and other contrivances you people use and so don't need the comments below to be cluttered up by them.  Likewise, sneering comments or commentary by Mythers who I've bugged in online debates over the years will also be deleted.  If you don't like that, then go whine on your own blogs.  Have a lovely day.)
Edit (01.12.13):  In January last year David Fitzgerald posted a lengthy response to my review.  Since then some have asked me if I was going to reply to him.  My reply has taken some time, since it is over 12,000 words long, but it has now been posted on Armarium Magnum:
 "The Jesus Myth Theory: A Response to David Fitzgerald"

 Posted by  Tim O'Neill     at  9:07 AM       
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest


  
 


152 comments:


 Anonymous said...
I think it would be cool if you reviewed "The Pillars of the Earth" and "The Borgias" miniseries on their history
 May 28, 2011 at 10:32 AM    

James F. McGrath said...
Thanks for writing and sharing this, Tim. If you don't want mythicists taking up your time and space here, they are welcome over at Exploring Our Matrix, where I've posted a link here, and have provided a place for further discussion, should anyone wish to use it.
 May 28, 2011 at 11:01 AM    

Kristofer said...
I must say your blog is rapidly becoming one of my favorite places to visit on the internet. I love your dismantling of the Jesus Myth, I always chuckle at how people can feel they are rational and then say Jesus never existed with a straight face.
 May 28, 2011 at 12:50 PM    

Rabbi said...
"Several other amateurs and hobbyists, like Richard Carrier, R.G. Price, propose or support similar ideas, with several of them pushing this thesis at secptics' conventions, in atheist gatherings and on atheistic and humanist online fora".
Them sound like fight'n words to me.
 May 28, 2011 at 2:31 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Whatever they are, they're accurate. As far as I can tell, Carrier has no teaching or research position at any accredited institution. I actually have no idea what exactly he does for a living (the last thing that looks like a paying job on his resume is work as a library assistant). So he's a blogger and hobbyist with a postgraduate degree. Like me. Like lots of people.
He does self-publish books though, for what that's worth.
 May 28, 2011 at 3:13 PM    

Baerista said...
Thanks Tim. Well-written, competent, cogent stuff, as always. I enjoyed reading it.
 May 28, 2011 at 8:13 PM    

tolkein said...
I wonder why the Mythicists bother, and who they're trying to persuade? Unless it's just fodder for some of the anti-Christian atheist websites.
Without going into the historicity or otherwise of the Matthew Nativity story, I don't see the story of the Massacre of the Innocents as implausible. It's certainly in character with Herod; the fact that it isn't mentioned by Josephus might simply be that (a) not many infants were killed - small village, not many candidates for murder, (b)it was par for the course. I remember reading about the harrying of Worcester under Edgar in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and the description wasn't shock horror, or how unusual it was, which implies that this type of action wasn't abnormal, but I don't recollect any previous examples - though of course the requested harrying of Dover in 1051 led to the exile of Godwin
(c)Josephus, an aristocrat from Jerusalem didn't know of the massacre, and even if he had, he didn't care, whereas the later Christian community did care.
I don't see the story as historicizing prophecy. I mean, I've read the story a number of times and I can't see the original as prophecy. It seems more likely to me that, if it happened, Matthew (we'll call the author that for simplicity)rooted through the Scriptures for plausible verses that could be read as prophecy.
Anyway, I enjoyed your review. You do nice thorough ones. More, please
 May 28, 2011 at 11:17 PM    

Evan said...
Unfortunately, as we will see, this is one of several places where Fitzgerald lets his overblown rhetoric run well ahead of what he can then actually substantiate.
This is a cogent piece of criticism and the fact that you make such confident assertions subsequent to it makes it seem all the more cogent, especially when you say,
Yet, despite his fame then and now, we have precisely zero contemporary references to Hannibal.
So I was keen to check this statement out, since if it were verifiable it would be a profound argument in favor of your position.
One has to wonder whether you are ignorant or dishonest, however, after a cursory investigation of this claim.
Hannibal has multiple contemporary attestation, from both Silenus, who was a paid Greek historian who Hannibal brought with him on his journeys to write an account of what took place and by Sosylus of Lacedaemon. Sosylus was a companion of Hannibal and actually wrote a seven volume history of the Second Punic War.
So either you are just finding this fact out now, or you are simply dishonest. In either case you should edit this post to adjust for this fact.
 May 28, 2011 at 11:52 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Evan wrote:
So either you are just finding this fact out now, or you are simply dishonest. In either case you should edit this post to adjust for this fact.
No, I am quite aware of both writers and no I won't be adjusting my post. The point of my analogy is that we have no contemporary references to many ancient people and this does not tell us whether these people existed or not. Yes, of course there were contemporary references to Hannibal - it would have been bizarre for then not to be. And yes, we even know the names of a couple of their authors. But their works don't survive. So what I said stands.
The point is simply about the extremely patchy nature of ancient source material, particularly its survival to us. Drawing a conclusion based on the lack of any surviving contemporary references to a Galilean peasant preacher when we have a similar lack for someone as prominent as Hannibal is absurd.
My point stands. But good to see you checking things. It would be good for people reading Fitzgerald to do the same, especially on things like his claims about Origen or his often-referenced but never-cited multiple historians who detailed Messiahs but didn't mention Jesus.
 May 29, 2011 at 6:29 AM    

Kristofer said...
Evan
Your problem is with the English language not Tim.
Here is the passage you are complaining about.
 Yet, despite his fame then and now, WE HAVE precisely zero contemporary references to Hannibal. If WE have no contemporary mentions of the man who almost destroyed the Roman Republic at the height of its power, the idea that WE should expect any for an obscure peasant preacher in the backblocks of Galilee is patently absurd.
This sentence is in the first person plural present. That clearly refers to present time, not Roman times.
For your argument to be correct Tim's passage would have to be in the 3rd person plural past tense and then transition to the 3rd person plural present
It would read like this:
 Yet, despite his fame then and now, THEY HAD precisely zero contemporary references to Hannibal. If THEY HAD no contemporary mentions of the man who almost destroyed the Roman Republic at the height of its power, the idea that WE ( transition to the present) should expect any for an obscure peasant preacher in the backblocks of Galilee is patently absurd.
You need to read things a bit more closely in the future because Tim is factual correct in his passage in question. We do not have any surviving contemporary accounts of Hannibal unless you care to produce them.
 May 29, 2011 at 6:29 AM    

Duke of Earl said...
Thanks Tim.
Whenever I'm confronted with a Christ Myther I'll simply point him to this...
Mind you, I've done the same with some who believe in the conflict between religion and science and they just didn't get it.
I guess there's only so much you can do.
 May 29, 2011 at 7:29 AM    

Evan said...
Tim, I've addressed your comments over on Matrix and I don't think you bring up anything new here, so I will let that one stand. However, I think it's great that you have commenters like Duke of Earl here backing you up. Let me know ... do you agree that there's no conflict between religion and science?
 May 29, 2011 at 11:46 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Tim, I've addressed your comments over on Matrix and I don't think you bring up anything new here, so I will let that one stand
And I and others have replied there as well. There is nothing false or inaccurate about my analogy. End of story.
Let me know ... do you agree that there's no conflict between religion and science?
That there can be conflicts between religion and science is obvious. That religion and science fundamentally differ how the world can be apprehended is also clear. What he was referring to was the old "Conflict Thesis" of Draper and White, which supposed that religion has always done everything it could to thwart the development of science. And that is demonstrable nonsense.
 May 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
It's slightly confusing having most of the discussion on my post happening on another blog, but it seems we do have a contemporary source for Hannibal. Or a fragment of one at least. P.Würzb.Inv. 1 is a papyrus fragment that seems to contain a few lines from Book IV of Sosylus' The Deeds of Hannibal
I wasn't aware of this, so thanks to Evan for pointing it out. Of course, it doesn't actually mention Hannibal himself and the attribution of the work is an assumption, but I won't play Myther-style games along those lines - we do have what appears to be part of a contemporary woek about Hannibal. I'll edit my review with a note to that effect.
 May 29, 2011 at 4:39 PM    

 Chris M said...
As informative, entertaining and scathing as ever, Tim. I wouldn't expect or want anything less from you.
 May 30, 2011 at 1:48 AM    

Evan said...
Tim, thank you for editing the post. I think this is a much more significant difference, obviously than you do, but you are honest to have edited it properly.
 May 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM    

Carl Anderson said...
Sigh: The only thing as bad as a fundamentalist religious maniac is a fundamentalist atheist maniac. Or, to hone in on the problem more precisely, people with ideological axes to grind tend to make very poor scholars. (Unless that ideological axe is that good scholarship is more important than anything else. :))
 May 31, 2011 at 12:17 AM    

Kristofer said...
Evan
If you find this to be significant at all then you show how little you truly know about history or how to research it.
Of course there was nothing in those two paragraphs that require Sosylus to be the author and Tim accepting it at face value is basically being courtesies to you. I am not sure I would have.
 May 31, 2011 at 1:49 AM    

Evan said...
Tim, are you planning to review The Great Fire of Rome by Stephen Dando-Collins?
 May 31, 2011 at 4:26 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Evan wrote:
Tim, are you planning to review The Great Fire of Rome by Stephen Dando-Collins?
Probably not - I think Dando-Collins is a talentless hack. He started his career as a pop history writer with Caesar's Legion: The Epic Saga of Julius Caesar's Elite Tenth Legion and the Armies of Rome, a book which confused Caesar's Tenth Legion - the X Equestris - with the later,totally different Imperial unit, the X Fretensis. And he throws in some stuff about the X Gemina for good measure, even though that is another unit again.
So no, I don't think I will be bothering with anything by Mr Dando-Collins. It might encourage the bastard.
 May 31, 2011 at 5:58 AM    

Evan said...
It's odd that that didn't seem to stop you here. You obviously also think that Fitzgerald is a talentless hack or you wouldn't have rated his book a waste of trees. What's the difference?
Also, does one big blunder render someone's judgment forever worthless? If so, you should stop writing.
 May 31, 2011 at 6:12 AM    

 Anonymous said...
While we're on the topic of Christianity (and since I couldn't find an email address for you), have you ever read, and if so what do you think of, Paul Johnson's History of Christianity?
 May 31, 2011 at 9:31 AM    

Gadfly said...
Actually, I don't think it's necessarily mythical. Another possible alternative take is that "Jesus" was actually the Jesus the Pharisee leader crucified by Alexander Jannaeus about 110 years ago before the alleged NT Jesus allegedly was crucified. Given that the NT gospel teachings are often Pharisaic or similar, this is indeed possible. The book in question may be mush; the idea in general isn't as fringish as Tim claims.
 May 31, 2011 at 9:57 AM    

Gadfly said...
Tim, have to disagree with you again, as I wait for you to post my first comment.
Let's throw out the most conservative Xn scholars on the Josephus interpolation.
Them aside, I doubt a majority of Xn scholars believe there's a legitimate core to the interpolation vs. the whole thing being an add-on. I've read enough of the scholarship of the relatively recent past to say that I don't.
 May 31, 2011 at 10:26 AM    

Kristofer said...
Evan he was not really wrong, we have no surviving primary sources about Hannibal. At must we have two paragraphs that possibly came from Sosylus out of his seven books. That is hardly a surviving source.
Tell you what Evan seeing I know you cannot do it, prove that quotation came from Sosylus. Good luck
Oh speaking of mistakes are you going to defend your claim there is no evidence for a Davidic Monarchy.
 May 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM    

Gadfly said...
@Kristofer:
Let's say the evidence for a Davidic monarchy still isn't overwhelming. "House of David" doesn't imply that a human being named David was an ancestral king before that.
Rather, other options include the Canaanite god Dod being adopted as protector of the royal line.
 May 31, 2011 at 1:31 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Evan,
What's the difference?
I can hardly review every book of sloppy scholarship or amateurish research out there. I don't have time to read most of the things I want to read, let alone stuff that is a chore to go through. But occasionally one comes along that is worth a detailed critique. That's usually when (i) the author's sloppiness is not just due to lack of talent, but also due to a warping bias and ideological agenda and (ii) when people who don't know better might accept what the sloppy writer has to say. That's the case with several of the books I've reviewed here, including those by Rodney Stark, Charles Freeman and this one.
Believe me, I'd might rather spend my time reading and reviewing real scholarship rather than this biased junk.
Also, does one big blunder render someone's judgment forever worthless? If so, you should stop writing.
As Kristofer has noted, my emendation of my point about Hannibal above was largely out of courtesy, not because it made any difference to my argument. Anyone who knows me will tell you that my supplies of courtesy run out pretty quickly if someone starts being a brainless little prick with me. Some forums and blogs are relentlessly polite and civil. This isn't one of them. Act like a snivelling little turd with me one more time and you'll be treated accordingly. Clear enough for you pal?
 May 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Gadfly wrote:
Another possible alternative take is that "Jesus" was actually the Jesus the Pharisee leader crucified by Alexander Jannaeus about 110 years ago before the alleged NT Jesus allegedly was crucified.
Lots of things are merely "possible". Historians leave writing about things that are merely "possible" to novelists and stick to what is rendered "most probable" via analysis of the evidence and cogent argument.
The "possibility" that Jesus was "really" the Yeshu executed by Alexander Jannaeus faces the same problem as many of these theories that Jesus was "really" someone else - if the Jesus in the gospels was that Jesus, why did they set their stories 130 years later? That needs an explanation that accounts for the all the elements in the later stories better than the far more parsimonious idea that there was another guy called Jesus executed in the 30s AD.
It's not like Jesus was an uncommon name.
I doubt a majority of Xn scholars believe there's a legitimate core to the interpolation
Then you need to read the surveys of the literature, because that's precisely what they show. Louis H. Feldman's Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1984) surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and finds of 52 scholars on the subject, 39 considered the TF to be partially authentic.
Peter Kirby has done a survey of the literature since and found that this trend has increased in recent years. He concludes "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." That speaks volumes.
I've read enough of the scholarship of the relatively recent past to say that I don't.
Not quite enough it seems - see above.
 May 31, 2011 at 7:04 PM    

 Anonymous said...
I think Tim is being unnecessarily harsh on Hannibal. The expert on Carthage is Richard Miles, Fellow in Classics at Trinity Hall, Cambridge. In his Carthage Must be Destroyed, Allen Lane, 2010, he has a good little section Writing a History of Carthage, p 12-17, which assesses how far later Roman historians were accurate in relying on contemporary histories of Hannibal, We can back this up by seeing how the geography/archaeology works to confirm details of the campaigns as they come down to us. The battlefield of Cannae, Hannibal's great victory of 216 BC, has been explored- finds from it are in the museum at Barletta. So a reasonably coherent biography of Hannibal can be put together. Jesus left no tangible evidence of his existence, Hannibal did and the surviving later sources, which drew on earlier ones, can be tested against each other and the archaeological evidence to create a narrative, with,of course, many gaps. But why use Hannibal as an example in the first place?
 May 31, 2011 at 7:09 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I have no idea why people are having so much trouble grasping the Hannibal analogy. No, I am not saying the evidence for Hannibal and Jesus is analogous - it isn't. I'm simply saying no contemporary reference to Hannibal survives (and that is taking the Sosylus into account - it doesn't actually mention the guy).
That's all.
This really isn't that hard to grasp, yet people still keep getting themselves confused.
 May 31, 2011 at 8:44 PM    

Baerista said...
"Jesus left no tangible evidence of his existence"
This is simply not true. Jesus left the tangible evidence of his followers, for whose behaviour he is by far the most elegant explanation. To assume that there was no such person makes the entire history of early Christianity into a baffling mystery story, which has to ignore most of the valuable hints the source provide. Conversely, with Jesus on board we can actually use these sources to paint a compelling picture of what happened by comparing them with what we know about first-century Judaism and its various currents as well as pagan religions.
To deny the existence of Jesus is to violate the scientific principle of parsimony (paradoxical as it may sound), as it forces us to introduce a large pool of unproven assumptions as a substitute in order to explain the emergence of Christianity. Mind you, most mythers do not even seem interested in improving our historical understanding of the rise and fall of religions in the Roman Empire. All they want is to "disprove" Jesus to bolster their non-belief, which shows how weakly founded this non-belief of theirs really is. It's as if they superstitiously assume that if some preacher called Jesus actually existed, he may just as well have died for our sins and risen from the dead. Even believing Christians can see the non-sequitur here. Rational non-believers can accept most of what's related historically in the New Testament without having to buy into a single Christian dogma. The unwillingness in some quarters to accept this basic compability reeks of the same intellectual cowardice that lurks behind vulgar versions of the warfare theory with regard to science and religion.
 May 31, 2011 at 10:56 PM    

Kristofer said...
I am very curious to know Gadfly how you think House of David can refer to a deity? As it is more and more I have been reading on this subject I am learning the only people who object to the stele are OT Minimalist and that there arguments have completely failed to convince the archaeological community.
We have two sources that mention a House of David. That is enough to convince me there is something to the claim. If that is unreasonable, why is that unreasonable?
If specifically House of David does not seem to suggest there was a historical David in some way, well why doesn't it suggest that?
 June 1, 2011 at 1:56 AM    

Kristofer said...
Hey Tim
I think part of the problem being encountered in here is that some people simply have no clue on how to do historical research and furthermore they simply do not have any talent for history.
I always made A's in my history classes in high school and college. I simply read the text, listened to the teacher and I got it. I can tell people how to research history but I cannot tell them how to sponge it and get it naturally.
I suspect you are the same way. You just have a natural talent for it. You can explain the facts but like me you cannot pass on your aptitude.
I have taught history before as a high school teacher and there are some students of mine who tried and tried who just could not get history. It seemed odd to me but I finally admitted they simple could not get it, as odd as that seemed to me.
A lot of people do not get history, and they never will no matter how many times you explain it to them. That I suspect would explain the vast majority of Jesus Mythers.
 June 1, 2011 at 2:08 AM    

 Anonymous said...
What about Hannibal's coins? -these are surely contemporary references. Surely the difference is that we have historians such as Livy and Polybius who were using earlier sources on Hannibal, now lost, as professional historians while the gospel writers had a different agenda.We don't know whether there were any historical sources about Jesus written during his lifetime, but we do know that these existed for Hannibal and were available to later historians. No one seriously doubts that the chronological outline of Hannibal's campaigns is broadly correct and we can trace it over a number of years but for Jesus we only have references to a very small part of his life.
 June 1, 2011 at 2:29 AM    

Kristofer said...
Anonymous
Your argument just reinforces Tim's point.
At most we have two paragraphs remaining of a primary source about Hannibal. And that is only cause people are feeling charitable in accepting those two paragraphs. This is all that remains of one of the greatest generals of antiquity.
To expect a obscure Jewish Rabbi to get as much remaining from primary sources is absurd. Especially when one considers that odds are the primary sources were oral. That we have as much as we do about Jesus is pretty amazing in my book.
 June 1, 2011 at 4:01 AM    

Kristofer said...
Oh let me play a myther game with those coins.
They were simply made by people who fell for the Hannibal Myth.
However it should be noted on coins attributed to Hannibal that in fact the portrait of them tends to be Melqart.
Now some coins identified to the period of Hannibal have a portrait that seems to be of an African that has sometimes been claimed to be Hannibal.
However read this about the coins
 ETRURIA, Arretium (?), The Chiana Valley. Circa 208-207 BC. Æ
Quartuncia (5.34 gm). Head of an African right / Indian elephant
standing right, bell around neck; M below. SNG ANS 39-41; BMC Italy
pg. 15, 19; SNG Copenhagen 47; Robinson, NumChron 1964, pl. V; SNG
Morcom 45; Laffaille 1. Good VF, well centered, choice dark green
patina. Rare. Exceptionally well preserved and probably one of the
finest known of the type. ($750) This enigmatic issue has been much
discussed. It was Sestini in 1816 who first indicated their area of
circulation in and around the Chiana (Clanis) valley and lake
Trasimeno, dominated by the cities of Arezzo, Chiusi and Cortona. The
traditional attribution of the issue to 217 BC, as representing the propaganda of Hannibal’s approach to Etruria, was modified by Robinson (op. cit.), who saw it as a provocative seditious type of Arretium, which was in a state of high tension with Rome in 209/8, in the hoped for arrival of Hasdrubal from Spain with reinforcements. However, the reverse depicts an Indian rather than African elephant with a bell around its neck reminiscent of the elephant/saw aes signatum issue (Crawford 9/1) of about 250-240 BC and associated with the battle of Maleventum (soon to be called Beneventum) in 275 BC when the captured elephants of Pyrrhus were brought to Rome in triumph. A similar Indian
elephant is also depicted as a symbol on the Tarantine nomos issue
(Vlasto 710-712), indicating the presence of Pyrrhus in the city in
282-276. The Barcid coinage of New Carthage (Villaronga CNH, pg. 65,
12-15) and that of Hannibal in Sicily (SNG Cop. 382) clearly depict African elephants belonging to the elephant corps from about 220 BC. As Maria Baglione points out in "Su alcune parallele di bronzo coniato," Atti Napoli 1975, pg.153-180, the African/elephant issue shares control marks with other cast and struck Etruscan coins of the region, she quotes Panvini Rosati in ‘ Annuario dell’accademia Etrusca di Cortona XII’, 1964, pg. 167ff., who suggests the type is to be seen
as a moneyer’s badge or commemorative issue in the style of Caesar’s elephant/sacrificial implements issue of 49/48 BC (Crawford 443/1). The elephant, an attribute of Mercury/Turms, is an emblem of wisdom and is also a symbol of strength and of the overcoming of evil.
It should also be noted coins are not sources, they are artifacts.
In conclusion.
There is no known portrait of Hannibal on ancient coinage. At best we have a possibility.
At best we have two paragraphs of a primary source of seven original books remaining, and even those paragraphs do not mention Hannibal at all.
Again this does not affect Tim's argument at all.
 June 1, 2011 at 7:16 AM    

 Anonymous said...
This whole discussion is a bit ridiculous as it ignores all the archaeological evidence for Hannibal's existence/campaigns and just confuses the point of the original review. Historians work by bringing together a wide variety of sources( and I have never before heard archaeological evidence not being accepted as a source, much of ancient history would be lost without it) and testing them against each other. It has proved virtually impossible to do this for Jesus- with Hannibal, in contrast, the picture is always being built up by new research such as this below,
Coins reveal how Hannibal bankrupted the Romans
Scientific analysis of Roman coins in the British Museum has provided new evidence that Hannibal, the audacious Carthaginian general, nearly bankrupted the Roman state during the Second Punic War in the late 3rd century BC.
The study has shown that both the weight and the silver content of Roman silver coins dropped dramatically in the 10-15 years after about 225 BC. The weight of bronze coins plummeted in the same period, and a gold coinage - a rare thing in all ancient states - was minted as an emergency measure.
This evidence for a dearth of precious metals adds to existing evidence for financial crisis in Rome. The number of coin hoards buried for security across Italy and Sicily is known to have dramatically increased around 215 BC, perhaps causing a shortage of private liquidity. Later Roman historians, such as Livy, describe how public funds also dried up in the period. Rome deferred payments to the army in 215-213, while senior officers volunteered to do without pay and sailors were paid out of contributions from wealthy individuals rather than the state.
The Second Punic War (218-201 BC), marked most famously by Hannibal's march across the Alps in 218, was a war fought for money as much as for power. While Rome relied on recycled foreign coinage and plunder for its precious metal, Carthage controlled the silver mines of Spain and was able to produce plenty of money to pay for its fleets and mercenaries. Rome's finances only improved with successes in Spain and Sicily, in particular after the capture of wealthy Syracuse in 212. A new coinage, based on the denarius, was introduced in 211. However, Rome's eventual victory led to plunder and reparations on a huge scale.
The museum's research, led by Andrew Burnett, has shown that Rome's silver quadrigati coins dropped in weight from about 6.5g of silver in 225 to about half that in 215, while the purity of the silver dropped from about 98 per cent typically to 80-90 per cent but often to a much lower figure - sometimes as low as 25 per cent with a heavy mixture of copper. Meanwhile bronze asses dropped in weight from about 280g to about 60g.
Rome's gold coins, produced from about 215 to about 205, portray the sacrifice of a pig - a ritual to make an oath binding. The scene reflects Rome's relief at the fact that most of its allies in Italy remained faithful during Hannibal's invasion.
Analysis of hoards across Italy, Sicily and Spain shows that all Carthaginian coinage in these areas was swept away after Rome's victory. It was melted down for recycling and replaced by Roman coins. Two generations later, when Carthage was finally erased after the Third Punic War in 146, all coinage in Carthage's homeland (modern Tunisia) was called in and melted down - an immense undertaking, reflecting Rome's intent to destroy not only the city but also all symbols of its former power.
 June 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Anonymous wrote:
Coins reveal how Hannibal bankrupted the Romans
Ummm, no they don't. Coins may well give us evidence of the economic strain the Roman Republic was under during the period in which we are fairly certain they were fighting the Second Punic War and we can conclude using later sources that this was due to Hanninbal, but they don't give us direct attestation of the existence of Hannibal at all. Unless you've recently found one that has an inscription on it that mentions Hannibal by name, of course.
Again, no-one is doubting the existence of Hannibal, saying that we can't conclude his existence from a range of evidence (including the archaeology you mention) or that the extent and nature of the evidence for him is analogous to the extent and nature of the evidence for Jesus.
All that is being said is that there are no surviving contemporary references to him. None. So to try to make the argument that "no contemporary references to Jesus" somehow means "Jesus didn't exist" is silly. If we have no surviving contemporary references for someone as prominent as Hannibal, to expect any for someone as obscure as Jesus is clearly ridiculous.
I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to explain this. No more, I hope.
 June 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM    

Kristofer said...
Anonymous
Can coins give any kind of verbal testimony? If not then they are a artifact not a source. Why oh why is it defenders of the Christ Myth always make bone headed historical errors.
 June 2, 2011 at 5:24 AM    

Kristofer said...
Hey Tim
Have you ever thought about actually writing books on these subjects, in particular the Conflict Thesis and the Jesus Myth? A lot of people hold to these in the so called rationalist community and it would be very useful to have an atheist correcting this rubbish.
 June 3, 2011 at 7:06 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Have you ever thought about actually writing books on these subjects, in particular the Conflict Thesis and the Jesus Myth?
After his debate with Craig Evans at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary last March, Bart Ehrman was asked by an audience member about internet-based Mytherism. He responded that the Myther thesis will be the subject of his next book and he will be addressing the main Myther theorists like Doherty and Price.
Apprently his publishers didn't like the idea, since the Myther thesis is so fringe they couldn't see it selling many copies, unlike Ehrman's other works written for popular audiences. But Ehrman still thinks it's worth doing and he told the audience member in New Orleans that he will be publishing it as an e-book (fine by me - that will make it cheaper and I ordered my Kindle just last night).
So I think I'll leave dealing with the Mythers to Ehrman, since he's a renowned scholar and an atheist as well (he says "agnostic", but it seems he's a "soft atheist" like me). I just hope he does his homework properly, as a bad book on Mytherism that doesn't deal with them in sufficient detail will be worse than no book at all.
As for the "Conflict Thesis", I think Lindberg, Grant and Numbers et al have already done the job there. Apparently James Hannam's next book will be the history of the relationship between science and religion. Since Hannam is a Catholic he and I don't see entirely eye to eye on that subject, but he's more objective on the topic than many (including many atheists).
 June 3, 2011 at 4:24 PM    

 NYCer said...
Tim,
I just wanted to say that I enjoy your blog, including the spirited comments section. I'm glad to see you posting again.
 June 4, 2011 at 8:44 AM    

 Stevo Darkly said...
"Apparently James Hannam's next book will be the history of the relationship between science and religion."
If you mean the book that I think you mean, it's already out. It was published a while back in the UK as God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science.
More recently, an edition was published in the USA under the somewhat more emphatic title The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution.
I have the UK version (I live in the USA, but I couldn't wait for the US version to come out) and am in the process of reading it. I am really enjoying it and would have finished it long ago, but my journey through the book has suffered a few external interruptions.
I really appreciate this blog of yours, and I would love to read your take on Hannam's book.
 June 4, 2011 at 10:55 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I really appreciate this blog of yours, and I would love to read your take on Hannam's book.
Then you'll be happy to learn that I wrote an extensive review of God's Philosophers when it came out and it is the only book so far that I have ever given a 5/5.
But I was actually referring to his next book, which I gather is not going to be published for some time.
Glad you both enjoy the blog.
 June 4, 2011 at 11:35 AM    

Kristofer said...
Earl has descended from his realm and proclaimed I am now to be ignored too :)
I hope Ehrman gets it right. So far we have Holding's book on the subject but I think that will not really work well with mythers. For some reason they do not like him.
 June 4, 2011 at 1:00 PM    

Jonathan Jarrett said...
Can coins give any kind of verbal testimony? If not then they are a artifact not a source.
Yes of course they can, they often have words on them. Check your change, for heavens' sake. Even this type in question has issue marks, which may not be obvious to us now but neither are many other obscurities, starting at the very high end with the Voynich manuscript and working right down to individual letters on coins. And if a coin of this type is missing its issue mark, does it suddenly stop being a source and just become an artefact? I presume that you must say yes, but I think this is a ridiculous position to hold.
 June 6, 2011 at 11:04 AM    

Kristofer said...
I think I phrased my position poorly.
Yes a coin can have writing on it, but even if it does it is at best a very concise statement that will often require the reader to have a prior knowledge to understand its meaning.
Therefore it is best qualified as an artifact, not a primary or secondary source.
 June 7, 2011 at 5:42 AM    

 Anonymous said...
When are you going to address the real problem of whether there is sufficient historical evidence to support the idea that Jesus was divine? The Mythers' are just a diversion.
 June 12, 2011 at 7:24 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
This blog is for reviews of books about history. I doubt I'd bother reviewing a book that argued Jesus was (or wasn't) divine, since that would be theology. As an atheist, theology doesn't interest me very much.
Feel free to review such a book elsewhere by all means.
 June 13, 2011 at 7:06 AM    

Villanyszerelés said...
Woow, what a post!!
 June 14, 2011 at 5:21 PM    

deef said...
Powerful stuff, Tim, powerful stuff...
 June 15, 2011 at 3:23 AM    

hardindr said...
Bart Ehrman's next book RE the existence of Jesus of Nazareth:
http://www.harpercollinscatalogs.com/harper/517_1965_333138313931.htm
 June 20, 2011 at 12:30 PM    

2d91cf62-75fd-11e0-85b7-000bcdcb2996 said...
Thank you for this outstanding review!
If it wasn't for Kristofer R. Key from Amazon, I would not have found this awesome blog.
 June 23, 2011 at 2:29 PM    

 Anonymous said...
What is your next step Tim?
 July 20, 2011 at 2:05 AM    

Kristofer said...
Hello Tim
I saw this on Quora, written by you I believe.
Can I please have a source for this?
Finally, in the reign of the Emperor Domitian some men who were from Galilee around Nazareth and who were said to be related to Jesus were questioned by the Romans for fear they may be rebels against Rome. They were released once they were found to be no more than harmless farmers, but not before they made it clear they were descendants of one of Jesus' brothers. Jude, and not of Jesus himself.
Thanks in advance
 August 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Kristofer,
Eusebius quotes Hegesippus on this:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour.
And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work. Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church. When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord.
(Historia Ecclesiae, 3:20)
 August 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM    

Kristofer said...
Thanks Tim
Is this considered credible, I have never heard this one before one way or another so do scholars support this or is there some hesitation?
 August 3, 2011 at 5:13 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I've never heard it disputed and can't think of any reason it would be. It doesn't actually fit very well with later Christian theological concerns, which tend to do their best to downplay or sideline Jesus' family. The Ebionites etc claimed that their founders and leaders were descendants of Jesus and this was a bit close to the theological bone for those who placed more emphasis on Jesus' divinity and saw the Ebionites as "Judaisiers".
 August 3, 2011 at 5:27 AM    

Kristofer said...
Sounds correct, though I am sure some myther will have some odd explanation for it.
What are some good books for demolishing myther arguments.
You can use Holding's book for almost all of them but I would love something more secular minded.
 August 3, 2011 at 10:14 AM    

Baerista said...
For what it's worth, I want to suggest another historical figure that can be used more effectively than Hannibal to point out the fundamental flaws in the historical thinking of many mythers: Shimon bar Kochba.
As we all know, the revolt named after this man had profound historical consequences. Not only did it lead to a short phase of renewed Jewish independence and the mobilization of a gigantic Roman military campaign, but it actually resulted in the destruction of most Jewish settlements in Judea and the neighbouring regions and was thereby instrumental in the transformation of Judaism into its rabbinic/diaspora form.
It is clear that bar Kochba's immediate effects were much greater than that of Jesus and his followers, who stayed a relatively insignificant movement for at least the first century after their leaders' execution. At the same time, however, bar Kochba shared several traits with Jesus, as he was declared the Messiah by the influential Rabbi Akiva and regarded as such by a far larger number of contemporaries than Jesus. The followers of bar Kochba even seized upon the star prophesied in Numbers 24:17, which also crops up in the nativity story of the Gospel of Matthew.
Indeed, the name bar Kochba is a reference to this very star and not the man's original name, which was ben Kosiba. But we wouldn't even know this if we hadn't found papyrus documents near the Dead Sea which contain military despatches signed with this name.
But even these documents, which were discovered in 1952, but not widely publicized until the 1970s, are still extremely sparse in terms of tangible evidence about the personality of bar Kochba and the details of his revolt. The fact of the matter is that historians have argued about virtually every detail of the Bar Kochba Revolt, as the historical evidence they are able to base themselves on is so flimsy. We have not a single systematic historical account that would detail the story of this revolt, nor do we know of any lost work (Roman or Jewish) that contained such information. When it comes to historiographical sources, all we have is an extremely terse account written by Cassius Dio as part of his Roman history, nearly 200 years (!) after the events.
(tbc)
 August 6, 2011 at 3:55 AM    

Baerista said...
The bottom line is that virtually everybody agrees that the Bar Kochba Revolt took place, that its leader existed, and that it is one of the single most momentous events in Jewish (and indeed world) history. At the same time, the historical evidence is so minute that it is easy to see how a writer pre-1952 (before the discovery of the aforementioned papyri) could have come up with a pseudo-scholarly book explaining how the Bar Kochba Revolt was all a huge hoax and how the actual history of Late Roman Judaism was completely different (there is archaeological and numismatic evidence, but it is so wispy that it could be easily explained away or re-interpreted by anybody prepared to make such an argument). That nobody has made such claims thus far only shows that nobody cares about the Bar Kochba Revolt nearly as much as people (including atheists) do about Christianity.
Which is funny in a way, seeing how both Jesus and Bar Kochba were regarded as messianic figures by their followers. It is easy to imagine that, had history taken different turns, Bar Kochbaism might have become a Jewish sect akin to Christianity. One does not even need to imagine hypothetical scenarios here. We know of dozens of messianic figures in Jewish history who were able to gather a significant number of followers. In today's Jewish landscape, the Chabad Lubavitch movement is growing larger and larger. It has now several hundred thousand followers and dependencies in 65 countries. A significant number among these people believe that R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was/is, in one sense or another, the Messiah. Chabad messianism is so peculiar and at the same time virulent that many Jews now feel (I happen to live in Israel and hear about these things on a daily basis) it is only a matter of time until Chabad will branch off as a religious movement separate from Judaism (remember Christianity?).
I think that any non-religious person with a sound mind (some might call this a tautology, but the existence of Jesus-mythers makes me think otherwise) will see little reason in making a categorical distinction between Jesus of Nazareth, Simeon ben Kosiba, Sabbatai Zevi, R. Schneerson and the dozens (if not hundreds) of other Jews in history that were declared (by themselves or others) to be more than just regular human beings (but still human beings nevertheless).
In fact, one might even formulate a law of Jewish history which says that as long as messianic expectations play a significant role within Judaism, certain Jews who are venerated as messianic figures are bound to emerge from time to time. Given all that, it is indeed very puzzling that the Jesus-mythers feel compelled to fashion Jesus of Nazareth into what would in fact be a HUGE anomaly within Jewish history. Jesus would be the first and only Jewish Messiah claimant in recorded history who did not actually exist, but was invented by his followers, which creates a plethora of unsolved questions that no myther has ever provided a satisfactory answer for.
Which leads me to my question: is the great popularity of mytherism among modern atheists partly explicable by the fact that most of them grew up in Christian households and/or surroundings and are woefully ignorant of Jewish theology and history?
I would be interested in your opinions.
[many thanks for your offer, Tim. Fortunately. I had a back-up copy, so no need to go through all the trouble]
 August 6, 2011 at 3:59 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
But we wouldn't even know this if we hadn't found papyrus documents near the Dead Sea which contain military despatches signed with this name.
Those papyruses are the main reason I don't use bar Kochba in the way you suggest. They mean we do have evidence for him that we couldn't dream of for Jesus. And Hannibal is still a better example of what I'm talking about because he was at the very opposite end of the spectrum to Jesus when it comes to prominence in the ancient world. Yet we still have no surviving contemporary references to him.
A significant number among these people believe that R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson was/is, in one sense or another, the Messiah.
And many of them seriously believe that he is coming back from heaven or isn't really dead, despite the fact he died under the full glare of media scrutiny in 1994. This gives us an insight into how the belief that Jesus "rose from the dead"/"is returning soon" developed after his equally public execution (and makes a nonsense of many apologists' claims on that score).
is the great popularity of mytherism among modern atheists partly explicable by the fact that most of them grew up in Christian households and/or surroundings and are woefully ignorant of Jewish theology and history?
Many of the atheists who find Mytherism superficially convincing aren't very fluent in how ancient history is studied, so they find arguments like "there are no contemporary references to him so he didn't exist" convincing. Usually once you explain why those arguments don't work they start to see Mytherism as a weak idea.
There are some who don't, of course, but I've generally found they have a burning ideological need to hit Christianity with the biggest stick available and don't care too much about logic or objectivity. There is a correlation between these atheists and ones who are recovering from a fundamentalist/traditionalist upbringing which is, I'd argue, not coincidental.
 August 6, 2011 at 4:57 AM    

Baerista said...
Thank you for your comments, Tim. I agree that Bar Kochba, due to the post-1952 discoveries, can no longer be used as an example of an important historical figure without contemporary source references (that's why I mentioned the hypothetical pre-1952 pseudo-scholar).
But he still offers some good opportunities to put some of the claims the mythers make about Jesus into proper perspective. The Bar Kochba Revolt was a significant event in Roman military history, which involved participants from some ten or eleven Roman legions and caused a war of attrition that affected the entire population of Judea and surrounding regions, leading to widespread devastation. Despite the catastrophic scale of events, there are - as far as I know - no contemporary historiographic sources on this war. But for some reason, the same dearth of sources is held against the much more insignificant "uprising" of Jesus and his disciples.
That said, I think you're right that Hannibal is probably a better analogy to debunk mytherism and I hereby partly retract my previous statement that Bar Kochba is more "effective" than Hannibal.
 August 6, 2011 at 6:11 AM    

wrf3 said...
And many of them seriously believe that he is coming back from heaven or isn't really dead, despite the fact he died under the full glare of media scrutiny in 1994. This gives us an insight into how the belief that Jesus "rose from the dead"/"is returning soon" developed after his equally public execution (and makes a nonsense of many apologists' claims on that score).
Do any of them believe that Schneerson actually rose from the dead? Without that parallel, I'm not sure how useful this insight really is. In "The Resurrection Debate", Habermas and Flew, Habermas claimed that one of the hymns in one of Paul's epistles that referred to the resurrection could be dated to within 8 years of 33 AD (sorry for a lack of specifics -- I'm having trouble finding my copy in order to refresh my memory). If Schneerson were to be used as a parallel, shouldn't there be at least one group proclaiming a resurrection by now, 14 years after his death?
 August 12, 2011 at 8:33 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Very good article! Just a little history on David as I knew David growing up. I know his family very well as I attended church with them, including David. I even attended his first wedding. David was the one in the family that wasn't into sports like his Brothers and Sister and because of this he was kind of like the son that was left out, even though he was the oldest. He is my age, though I had more in common with his Brother Steve. Dave was very much into Dungeons and Dragons and tried to teach me, but to me it was just stupid.
Dave had some weird things happen to him at church when he was very young. Such as he was doing something and then all of a sudden time passed and he was somewhere else. Odd? Yep. I was not surprised at all when he dis-avowed all religion and became an "Athiest". Knowing that the rest of his family is religious and that he really didn't fit in with the rest of them doesn't surprise me at all that he would write a book that must certainly hurt them.
 August 14, 2011 at 9:38 AM    

 ChrisB said...
Do you know the work of Robin Lane Fox? He is a serious historian (Professor at Oxford, author of "The Search for Alexander" - which gets high marks from other scholars, and lots of other stuff). His book "Pagans and Christians" is a serious attempt to argue that there was no historical Jesus. I don't find his arguments ultimately persuasive, but they are expert and rational (unlike the idiot you reviewed).
 August 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Ummm, sorry, but I've read Lane Fox's book twice and I can assure he argues no such thing. His book is a history of interrelations between pagans and Christians from the Second to the Fourth Centuries and doesn't question or even discuss the historicity of Jesus.
 August 16, 2011 at 10:05 AM    

 ChrisB said...
Grovelling apologies. The book I should have referred to is "The Unauthorised Version: Truth and Fiction in The Bible." I couldn't find my copies of either that or "Pagans and Christians" in a quick, late night hunt, which is why I confused the two. And before you say it, "The Unauthorised Version" is fairly cautious, but (as I remember it) it still tends to favour the 'no Jesus' result. As I said, I am not persuaded but there are some serious arguments.
 August 18, 2011 at 9:28 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Er, okay. But I still think you may be mistaken in thinking Lane Fox doesn't believe in a historical Jesus. I'm fairly sure that if he held that position we'd have Jesus Mythers holding him up as an authority, rather than having to resort to nobodies like Richard Carrier.
I just did a search on a few relevant key words and could find no references to Lane Fox doubting the existence of Jesus. Quite the opposite in fact. And none of the reviews of his book make any mention of him holding this position. Given that it would be fairly radical for a scholar of his stature to believe this, that is very odd.
I suspect you might be misremembering what he said in The Unauthorised Version or getting him confused with someone else.
 August 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM    

 nick said...
Tim, whats ur take on 'historic Mohammed' ? is there more validated evidence for his existence as he was 6 centuries later to Jesus and i believe more active in the middle east politics of his time?
 August 19, 2011 at 12:02 AM    

tolkein said...
Not only does Lane Fox not take a Myther view, he even dates Jesus's death to AD36 - later than most. I understand the consensus view is 30AD, with 33 and 27 also having votes.
 August 19, 2011 at 7:31 AM    

Baerista said...
I'm relatively confident that 3 April 33 CE would get the majority vote among experts today. I guess it makes the most sense out of the available data. 7 April 30 CE has received many votes in the past, but it presupposes that Luke used the regnal era of Tiberius (whose 15th year in Luke 3:1 equals 28/29 CE) in some non-standard way, since otherwise there would be too little time for Jesus's public ministry. 27 CE is pretty much out of the window, while 29 CE and 36 CE have been occasionally invoked in recent years, but are far from being the consensus view. Naturally, it all depends on how reliable Luke's chronological statements in chapter three are and whether John even begins to give us a realistic depiction of the duration of his ministry. The prospects for that being the case are not overwhelming, considering all the construction and distortion inherent in the post-Marcan Gospel accounts. Even the weekday of the crucifixion, on which so much depends in terms of astronomical dating, has been put into question.
As far as save bets go, I'd say we can assert with some confidence that Jesus was executed in his 30s (and in the 30s) and that this roughly coincided with Passover. Everything else up to speculation. Some would also assert that he was born when Herod was still alive (i.e. 4 BCE or earlier), but I'm a bit sceptical: the nativity stories have very little historical substance and Herod's presence in the Matthean version can be easily explained as a typological ploy (Herod is to Jesus what the pharaoh was to Moses). Some would say that this is corroborated by the Lucan version, but the latter throws Herod (4 BCE) together with Quirinus (6 CE), creating a chronological jumble that should make one suspicious. The people who constructed these nativity stories were most probably themselves uncertain about Jesus's exact year of birth, but Herod was a famous historical person, the last powerful Judean ruler, which means that he was likely to end up as a historical backdrop to the nativity stories, even if the historical Jesus was in fact born a few years after Herod's death.
 August 19, 2011 at 10:21 PM    

Gadfly said...
Kristofer, you're apparently not very familiar with OT minimalism. Dod is a Canaanite god; the name is etymologically the same as David.
 August 21, 2011 at 3:26 AM    

Kristofer said...
I will let archaeologist make that determination Gad. So far they insist it means House of David. Get over it. Please give a single non minimalist who would support that translation.
I am very familiar with OT Minimalism and I consider it to be trash. While I do not think all of the OT is accurate to suggest the ancient Jews had no ability to tell their history seems absurd to me.
 August 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM    

Baerista said...
I fould myself with too much time on my hands today, so I spent a couple of hours skimming over the big (!!!) Jesus-thread on rationalskepticism.org and I must say I'm deeply impressed: Both with the breadth of Tim's knowledge and the mythers' impermeability to reasoned historical argument. Given the latter, Tim's patience is nothing but angelic, the many complaints concerning the acridity of his rebuttals notwithstanding.
 September 5, 2011 at 6:29 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Tim,
You asked why some are struggling with the Hannibal analogy, and implied that those of us who are struggling with it can't "grasp" it.
I assure you, many of us fully comprehend the argument that you are making. The trouble is that first, you made an unfortunate choice with Hannibal, since it seems that not only is there an existing contemporary historical reference, but that there existed at one time, other contemporary historical references. Taken together, plus the hurdle of extant archeological evidence, and problem of the difference in time period -- that of Hannibal and that of Jesus, these obstacles hobble the analogy.
Second, and more importantly, such arguments are hardly dispositive to the question of an historical Jesus. If one does some digging, he/she may find a better example of an important historical figure from Jesus' precise era for whom no contemporary historical accounts currently exist, but any honest assessment would also acknowledge that this is rare. Even more rare would be the case where no contemporary historical accounts are known to have existed for an important historical figure of that era. (Obviously, since such a person would likely not be remembered by history).
If, as you have argued elsewhere, there is no contemporary historical account of Jesus because the actual Jesus was not an IMPORTANT historical figure, then why would there be any historical account at all, contemporary or not? (Remember, if Jesus is just another run-of-the-mill messiah wannabe, and Paul just randomly chose that donkey to pin his tail (tale?, sorry) on, then the entire question of Jesus' historicity or lack thereof becomes one of irrelevant scholarly minutia, or an exercise in goal post displacement.)
For the analogy to have any heft, one would have to demonstrate that lack of contemporary historical accounts of important historical figures of Jesus' era was not only common, but was the rule. One can assume that there is inadequate/no evidence for this, because if there were, enthusiasts such as yourself would have long ago laid that card on the table.
We know that context is often the best tool historians have when assessing the veracity of claims which lack direct evidence. We know that between the possible and the probable lies a formidable empirical divide. This is why it's pivotal for you to establish that in the era in question it is common that we don't have contemporary accounts of important historical figures. Unfortunately for the historical Jesus interpretation, this simply is not the case.
 September 8, 2011 at 10:05 AM    

Baerista said...
Am I missing something? How is the investigation into the origins of the world's largest religion a case of "irrelevant scholarly minutia"?
Anyway, this whole issue of historical "importance" you raise is really just a will-o'-the-wisp. How well informed we are about people's lives in the ancient world is the contingent result of the sources that have come down to us. In the period in question, they are for the most part Roman politicians and military personnel, for the simple reason that these are the people Roman sources tend to focus on (duh).
Our grasp of foreign heads of state (not to speak of ordinary people) is already much dimmer, for much the same reasons and our dearth of knowledge becomes more pressing the farther we delve into the hinterlands of the Roman Empire.
Around the time Jesus was born, the Nabataean kingdom was at the height of its power. To this day we can witness the splendour of their holy city, Petra (worth a visit, I might add). What do we know about these people from written sources? Virtually zilch. Were they important? Most certainly.
If we were forced to rely on Roman sources, large chunks of the history of Judaea and adjacent territories in the 1st cent BCE/1st cent CE would be the same gaping black hole that the ancient history of most parts of the world still is to us. Thankfully, we have Josephus. For most of this region's history in the period in question, he is our only guide. He also happens to be the only writer who informs us about the existence of several first-century Messiah claimants. Some of these caused the Roman army to intervene, but even so, the significance of these events was such that the Roman sources we have are silent on them. We would have never heard about these people if it weren't for Josephus.
If you really want an answer to your rhetorical questions, you can find it in the works of Josephus (worth a read, I might add). He's one of the reasons "enthusiasts" like me or Tim (and, erm, the whole scholarly community, you know, people who actually study these things professionally) have no qualms accepting the historicity of J of N.
 September 9, 2011 at 8:10 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
An Anonymouse wrote:
You asked why some are struggling with the Hannibal analogy, and implied that those of us who are struggling with it can't "grasp" it.
Or are getting mighty confused about the focus of the analogy.
I assure you, many of us fully comprehend the argument that you are making.
Really? Let’s see …
The trouble is that first, you made an unfortunate choice with Hannibal, since it seems that not only is there an existing contemporary historical reference,
No, there isn’t. We have a fragment that does seem to be a few lines from one of the contemporary sources about his campaigns, but it doesn’t refer to him at all. We have NO contemporary references to Hannibal. I acknowledged the existence of the Sosylus fragment above out of politeness and to shut down any claim that I didn’t know of it (I did). But the point stands – we have no contemporary references to Hannibal and that’s even taking the Sosylus fragment into account.
but that there existed at one time, other contemporary historical references. Taken together, plus the hurdle of extant archeological evidence, and problem of the difference in time period -- that of Hannibal and that of Jesus, these obstacles hobble the analogy.
Thanks for spectacularly demonstrating that, in fact, you don’t understand the analogy at all. Hannibal and Jesus are analogous in that we have exactly the same number of contemporary references to them: zero. That’s where the analogy starts and ends. I am NOT saying that they are analogous in any other way, because they aren’t. We know there were contemporary references to Hannibal and we don’t know that for Jesus. There is much better non-contemporary evidence for Hannibal than there is for Jesus. And there is archaeological evidence that fits those sources about Hannibal where we have nothing like that for Jesus.
But I’m not saying that the evidence for Hannibal and Jesus is analogous overall – far from it. I’m noting the fact that there are no surviving contemporary for Hannibal and so to conclude the similar lack for someone as obscure as Jesus means he didn’t exist is absurd. The point of the analogy is to note how easy it is for anyone in the ancient world to exist, even very famous people, and yet leave behind no surviving contemporary references for us.
So after claiming you understood the analogy, you then demonstrated that you didn’t. Good thing you posted anonymously.
Second, and more importantly, such arguments are hardly dispositive to the question of an historical Jesus.
It’s dispositive in the sense that it’s relevant, but it isn’t in the sense that it’s conclusive. But I never claimed it to be. I’m simply noting that the non-existence of surviving contemporary evidence isn’t an indication of the non-existence of the person, as the Hannibal example and many others show.
(cont. below)
 September 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
(Cont. from above)
 If one does some digging, he/she may find a better example of an important historical figure from Jesus' precise era for whom no contemporary historical accounts currently exist, but any honest assessment would also acknowledge that this is rare.
Rare? What are you talking about? I can give you dozens of them.
Even more rare would be the case where no contemporary historical accounts are known to have existed for an important historical figure of that era. (Obviously, since such a person would likely not be remembered by history).
More nonsense. MOST figures in this period are attested by non-contemporary evidence. You don’t seem to have a clue.
If, as you have argued elsewhere, there is no contemporary historical account of Jesus because the actual Jesus was not an IMPORTANT historical figure, then why would there be any historical account at all, contemporary or not?
Because in the generation after his death his sect became prominent enough to be noted and people remembered its founder and noted his existence, that’s why.
(Remember, if Jesus is just another run-of-the-mill messiah wannabe, and Paul just randomly chose that donkey to pin his tail (tale?, sorry) on, then the entire question of Jesus' historicity or lack thereof becomes one of irrelevant scholarly minutia, or an exercise in goal post displacement.)
I happen to rather like all kinds of “irrelevant scholarly minutia”. And the existence and nature of a figure worshipped by billions as a god isn’t hardly going to be irrelevant trivia whatever conclusion you come to.
For the analogy to have any heft, one would have to demonstrate that lack of contemporary historical accounts of important historical figures of Jesus' era was not only common, but was the rule.
If you had a clue you’d realize it IS the rule for most figures in this period. Pick the name of a Jewish aristocrat, priest or leader at random from Josephus and go try to find contemporary references to them. Do this a dozen times. When you fail every time perhaps you’ll begin to grasp your blunder here.
One can assume that there is inadequate/no evidence for this, because if there were, enthusiasts such as yourself would have long ago laid that card on the table.
What I actually assumed was that people understood that most ancient figures have no contemporary references to them. News to you it seems.
. This is why it's pivotal for you to establish that in the era in question it is common that we don't have contemporary accounts of important historical figures. Unfortunately for the historical Jesus interpretation, this simply is not the case.
Bullshit. Try the experiment with Josephus above and then come back and wipe the egg from your face.
 September 11, 2011 at 10:14 AM    

Andyman409 said...
(he says "agnostic", but it seems he's a "soft atheist" like me)
I'm a soft Atheist too :)
 October 27, 2011 at 2:51 PM    

 Anonymous said...
What an unmitigated load of crap.
More Christian fanatics shoring up their cult at all costs.
Garbage in, garbage out.
 October 31, 2011 at 3:10 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
What an unmitigated load of crap.
Says the guy who then doesn't bother to dispute a single thing in this "load of crap" and who doesn't seem to have even read it.
More Christian fanatics shoring up their cult at all costs.
I'm an atheist you idiot.
Garbage in, garbage out.
You said it pal. Go away.
 October 31, 2011 at 7:37 PM    

 Anonymous said...
The convoluted methods mythicists use to avoid the obvious consequences of the "brother of the Lord" reference proves them to be as dogmatic as anything one might find in the "Bible Belt." It always struck me as quite obvious the reason Paul used the qualifier: At the time there were two men with that name in the leadership of the early Christians with the other being James son of Zebedee (and brother of John). Paul's qualifier pointed out exactly which James he had in mind and made the point that this was the one in charge at Jerusalem. Whether Paul was being honest or unloading a bunch of bs is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.
 December 16, 2011 at 2:51 AM    

Eric I. Gatera. said...
Hey Tim. You write beautifully, i wish i could be half a writer as you are. Anyway, this piece about Jesus vs the 'Mythers' end was highly educative and entertaining. So much so i even decided to quote you in my book even though you are an atheist: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/B006GOK6TY/ref=sib_dp_kd#reader-link
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2012 in Jesus' name.
 December 28, 2011 at 7:25 AM    

conkom said...
Hi Tim,
You might choose to have a look at Dave Fitzgerald's response to your review. He does quite effectively rebut your diatribe of his book. As an atheist you should at least acknowledge that doubting HJ is a valid position to take, even if you personally feel compelled to believe otherwise.
 January 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
You might choose to have a look at Dave Fitzgerald's response to your review. He does quite effectively rebut your diatribe of his book.
Where can this response be found? Oh okay, found it:
Nailed: Completely Brilliant or a Tragic Waste of Trees? YOU be the Judge... 
This will be fun ...
As an atheist you should at least acknowledge that doubting HJ is a valid position to take
From my review above:
"This, of course, merely means the idea he did not exist is simply valid, not that it's true."
*cough*
Now, off to read Fitzgerald's response ...
 January 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM    

conkom said...
All due respect Tim, but your previous response comes across as churlish and mischievous. You think you will have 'fun'? You gave the book zero stars warranting no value as a contribution to the HJ debate. If you believe for whatever reason that a historical Jesus did exist that is your right and you can base the whole blog and your life around this premise. But to dismiss Fitzgerald's thesis as unscholarly when your credentials are hardly any more impressive. If you want your opinions to be respected then perhaps you should show some respect as well.
 January 21, 2012 at 6:17 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
All due respect Tim, but your previous response comes across as churlish and mischievous.
I think that was pretty much my intention. So thanks.
You gave the book zero stars warranting no value as a contribution to the HJ debate.
Exactly. It was absolutely terrible. Easily the worst book I've ever reviewed.
If you believe for whatever reason that a historical Jesus did exist that is your right
Gosh, thanks - how nice of you.
you can base the whole blog and your life around this premise
Ummm, I think I'll just base my blog around reviewing history books thanks. And my "whole life"?! Mate - get a grip.
But to dismiss Fitzgerald's thesis as unscholarly when your credentials are hardly any more impressive.
My credentials are just fine thanks - more then enough to be able to critique a fellow amateur's self-published booklet. And when it comes to rejecting the fringe "Jesus myth" thesis I'm in some very solid good company, including virtually every scholar in any relevant field. So I'm pretty comfortable with my stance, thanks all the same.
If you want your opinions to be respected then perhaps you should show some respect as well.
I am under no obligation to "respect" crappy, error-laden and tendentious pseudo scholarship by a biased amateurish zealot. I'll be writing up a lengthy reply to Fitzgerald's hysterical (in most sense of the word) response soon. In the meantime you can put a cork in your prissy little scolding session and scuttle back to do some more arse-kissing over at Mr Amateur Hour's blog.
 January 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM    

J. J. Ramsey said...
FYI: I've been arguing with David Fitzgerald myself. I posted the following on the Freethought Blogs post, "Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up" but it hasn't appeared yet. In case it falls down the black hole of moderation, here it is:
DF:Hardly. Look again – O’Neill deliberately doctors a quote of Dr. Carrier’s just to try and make him look bad. That’s not just a lie, that’s chickenshit.
And this doctored quote can be found where? That's the bizarre thing about Carrier's allegation. He makes complaints about O'Neill quoting him and indicating supposed misspellings with "sic," yet neither of the links he provides indicate any such quotes.
DF:I’m aware of both those points and neither changes the fact that Polybius was certainly contemporary with Hannibal.
But you were talking about contemporary references, that is, material written about the subject when the subject was alive. Histories doesn't fit that criterion. Indeed, if we go with a looser standard for contemporary references, that is, material written by an author who would have been alive during the subject's lifetime (regardless of whether the material was written after the subject's death), then parts of the New Testament, in particular the genuine Pauline letters, could count as "contemporary." Of course, you don't do that.
DF:Josephus‘s idiom is quite specific and unusual, and is not at all the same as the phrase Origen repeats three times in various contexts
From the extant text of Josephus: "adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou"
From Origen, On Matthew 10.17: "adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou"
From Origen, Against Celsus 1.47: "adelphos Iesou tou legomenou Christou"
From Origen, Against Celsus 2.13: "adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou"
Those phrases are all nearly identical. The extant text of Josephus was taken from The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide by Theissen & Merz. The other three texts come from here: http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html
 January 23, 2012 at 10:47 AM    

J. J. Ramsey said...
(Continued)
Me:Offhand, it looks like James died after the time frame covered by Acts.
DF:And you would be wrong to think so. “Luke” does indeed cover this timeframe in Acts – and mentions Herod Agrippa killing Christians (12: 1-2)
Acts 12:1-2 covers the death of James, brother of John. We were talking about a different James.
DF:First of all, I find that suggestion highly dubious
It's not a suggestion, Josephus clearly describes Ananus' actions as a "breach of the laws." That's a plain reading of the text.
DF:You’re forgetting that not one single detail in this account -- a trial and death sentence of several men including this beloved Jewish figure James -- jibes with any other account of the Christian James' death, who all agree he was discovered alone in the street by a mob of Jews, who tossed him off a temple roof, stoned him and then one man from the mob beat him to death with a fuller's club
So? We have in the extant text of Josephus an ignoble death of James by stoning. We have in Christian texts a death story that is flashy enough to smack of exaggeration. Even if you believe that James "the Just" existed and was executed, wouldn't you take the account of him being thrown off the temple roof with a grain, nay, a boulder of salt?
DF:Remember, this is from a book Josephus wrote in 93 or 94.
And at this point, Domitian had been persecuting Christians, and there had been a previous persecution under Nero. Given this, it's not unreasonable for Romans to have heard of this sect that you yourself described as "a hated, if not outright illegal, sect."
DF:Even some 16-20 years later, extremely well educated government officials like Pliny have no idea who these cultists are.
Pliny wrote in his letter to Trajan, "I have never participated in trials of Christians." He clearly knew of the sect by name, even though he was not sure what to do about its members.
DF:Personally, I think that’s exactly how the original text read ("James, son of Damneus")
But then your claim that the interpolation is accidental makes far less sense, since a scribe wouldn't be just tacking an additional text from the margin, but would be removing text. Furthermore, while one can see why a Christian scribe who saw "James, brother of Jesus" would think that the text was referring to that James, brother of Jesus, it's harder to see why a Christian would think that "James, son of Damneus." would be a reference to that other James at all.
 January 23, 2012 at 10:53 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
I'm not sure if you've commented here before Mr Ramsey (apologies if you have - I get a lot of comments), but congratulations on your elevation to the status of "a shill for O'Neill". It's rather weird that these guys constantly fall into these paranoid fantasies whereby everyone who dares to disagree with their hobbyist theories must all be in cahoots with each other and collectively out to get the brave and noble Myther.
You've made a couple of points that I'm intending to make in my upcoming response to Fitzgerald's reply. I must say I find much of his reply plain weird, especially that stuff about Carrier somehow catching me out in some kind of wicked "lie". That claim by Carrier was the reason I gave up on the one post on his blog I ever commented on. Exactly what Carrier was trying to claim still eludes me and the fact that Fitzgerald thinks there's some kind of "lie" exposed there is stranger still.
I also have to chuckle at Fitzgerald's fan club getting all prissy over my alleged "vitriolic" review, where the strongest word I used about Fitzgerald was "amateur". Compare that to the smorgasbord of ad homs in his reply ("douche", "blog gadfly", "the Perez Hilton of atheism", "Bill O’Reillyesque", "a Fox News pundit", "His Shrillness", "his assholedom","chicken-shit" etc). Apparently it's okay for him to do this but not okay for me to point out that this amateur hobbyist is ... an amateur.
Their Inferiority Complex combines with a Persecution Complex. Still, many of these people are former fundies so we should cut them some slack over their neuroses.
 January 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM    

Michael Turton said...
The convoluted methods mythicists use to avoid the obvious consequences of the "brother of the Lord" reference proves them to be as dogmatic as anything one might find in the "Bible Belt."
There's nothing convoluted about them. The first, and very obvious conclusion is that "the brother of the lord" is a title for another Christian; Paul often refers to fellow Christians as "brothers."
The other argument is more powerful, advanced by Hermann Detering in The Falsified Paul: the first trip of Paul is a fantasy of what Detering calls the Catholic Editor of the epistles, an interpolation. Gal 1:18-24 was added. Detering's discussion of that begins on p104 but you should read the pages before that to get a sense of the arguments of the Dutch Radicals to whom Detering is heir.
Michael
 January 24, 2012 at 9:49 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
The first, and very obvious conclusion is that "the brother of the lord" is a title for another Christian; Paul often refers to fellow Christians as "brothers."
No, the first and very obvious conclusion is that "the brother of the Lord" means exactly that - the guy's brother. Especially since we have Christian traditions about Jesus having a brother called James and a reference to a James "the brother of Jesus who was called Messiah" in Josephus.
To pretend that evidence doesn't exist and then suppose that ἀδελφὸν
τοῦ κυρίου means something figurative when Paul never uses that phrase to mean any such thing anywhere else is whacko Myther contrivance. Here and in 1Corinthians this phrase is used, in the middle of references to other believers who are not so described, to mean a distinct class of believer. Desperate to avoid the inconvenient obvious conclusion (ie that it refers to believers who happened to be his siblings), Doherty and other resort to the baseless supposition that there was an otherwise unattested sub-group who went by this title. Oh, but they weren't his siblings. *chuckle*
Occam's Razor makes short work of creaking theses that rely on desperate suppositions.
 ... an interpolation ...
Let a Myther talk for more an 15 seconds and you'll hear them invoke convenient "interpolations" to make any bothersome evidence go away. Of course, whole books have been written on the many and various verses or passages in Paul that have been claimed to be interpolations by someone at some point. So if an anything in any epistle bothers a Myther, it's not hard to find someone or other who has claimed it's interpolated. And when the scholars agree with the Myther, then they are to be believed without quesiton. Otherwise they are to be ignored and we are to listen only to self-published hobbyists and obsessive amateur bloggers.
Go away Turton.
 January 24, 2012 at 10:32 PM    

Ignorance said...
I find it funny that while the work of mainstream scholarship, including the work of non-Christian scholars, is denounced as too much influenced by Christian bias by other proponents of the myth theory, Turton on his part cites Hermann Detering, who is a Pfarrer in der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland or in other words: a Lutheran or Reformed preacher.
 January 25, 2012 at 12:18 AM    

 Liam said...
Hi, this came up again via my facebook newsfeed, and I'm way glad it did.
I'm surprised to see the discussion comments continuing, and glad, as you might just see it Tim.
First, and briefly, I totally agree that anyone denying Jesus' existence needs to dismiss a plethora of evidence that secerely undermines that inane conclusion.
And I say dismiss, because I rarely (if ever) see mythers actually addressing the issues that the evidence raises.
Crud, going on. Tim, the main reason I wanted to post was to ask if you have done or would consider doing a critique of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, which argues that the biblical Gospels were, in fact, written by eye-witnesses (or another work that deals with the same issues from that side of the fence on the debate).
Bauckham isn't a novice or amateur enquierer, but has the scholarly background required to investigate the issue, in my oppinion. But would really enjoy seeing your take on his enquiry.
And this isn't from a theological perpective either.
Have a great day further, blessings.
 January 25, 2012 at 2:07 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
@ Ignorance: Yes, Mythers are completely dismissive of mainstream scholars unless they can cherrypick out some argument of theirs which supports part of a Myther's position - then the mainstream scholar becomes an unassailable authority whose opinion is written on the cornerstones of the universe.
Note, for example, how Fitzgerald holds up Alice Whealey's opinion on the Arabic and Syriac paraphrases of the TF as though it is unassailable fact. But somehow I doubt he'd do the same with Whealey's opinion that the idea Eusebius forged the TF is nonsense.
@ Liam: I haven't read Bauckham but am familiar with his arguments and I find them unconvincing. Maurice Casey does a good job on the same question in his recent Jesus of Nazareth and tackles Bauckham's arguments directly. He concludes that while gMark is much closer to eyewitness accounts than many current scholars accept (due to its high number of Aramaicisms) the idea that gJohn is as well is not sustainable.
 January 25, 2012 at 6:14 AM    

 Liam said...
Thanks Tim, I'll check Casey out, sometime, when I get time (haha). I like to read both sides of an argument, to, at the very least, understand the "other" perspective.
Blessings, I guess I'll be popping in from time to time.
 January 25, 2012 at 6:40 PM    

Ignorance said...
"Yes, Mythers are completely dismissive of mainstream scholars unless they can cherrypick out some argument of theirs which supports part of a Myther's position - then the mainstream scholar becomes an unassailable authority whose opinion is written on the cornerstones of the universe."
It's even more ironic than I at first thought it was. Dr. Detering has a Ph.D in theology, not NT studies, and his opinion seems to be based on a pretty radical interpretation of Bultmann. So this myther feels himself fit to resort to theological arguments against historicity, while most myther build their conspiracy theories on that all-pervasive and all-deciding "Xtian" bias.
 January 30, 2012 at 12:34 AM    

Baerista said...
Hey Tim, there's an interesting new article on the Josephan quotes in Origen that might come in handy in future disputes with the likes of Fitzgerald:
Sabrina Inowlocki: "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?", Revue des études juives 170 (2011): 21–49.
 February 27, 2012 at 1:52 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Thanks Baerista, that's an interesting paper. I started reading it pretty sceptical that Inowlocki would be able to make her case convincingly but by the end I had to admit she seems to be onto something.
 February 27, 2012 at 8:33 PM    

Station Wagon Hire said...
wow what a post thanks blog.........
 March 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM    

 Spartacus said...
Hello Tim,
If a Myther (or, more aptly put, a Jesus denier) asked you to demonstrate that Jesus existed historically, what evidence would you give?
 January 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
@Spartacus: I'd respond that I couldn't "demonstrate" this any more than I could "demonstrate" a great many things in ancient history. History isn't some kind of hard science.
What I could do is show them why I and virtually all scholars regard a historical Jesus as the "argument to the best explanation" and why the Mythicist alternatives are not considered persuasive. I'd summarise the evidence and arguments to support that as I have here:
The Historical Jesus and the 'Jesus Myth'.
 January 15, 2013 at 3:16 PM    

 Alex said...
Excellent review, Tim. Might I offer a similar analogy for the lack of contemporary evidence. In 79 AD, Mount Vesuvius erupted and caused one of the greatest natural disasters in the known world. Two cities, Pompeii and Herculaneum, were destroyed in the eruption, along with several smaller towns. Estimates of the death toll range from 16,000 to 60,000, many of them being upper class Romans. The eruption is said to have lasted for 19 hours. Yet, despite this eruption being undoubtedly a major event, we have only one contemporary who mentions the eruption: Pliny the Younger wrote a letter to the Tacitus describing how his Uncle Pliny the Elder had been killed in the eruption. Just think about that for a moment: had his uncle not been killed in the eruption, it is quite possible he would not have written about it at all, and we would have no contemporary accounts of anyone who saw the eruption happen. So if this is all we get for one the greatest disasters in the ancient world, to expect plenty of contemporary evidence for some Jewish teacher is nonsense.
 January 27, 2013 at 7:32 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
@ Alex
Good point. It should also be noted that Pliny's letters are dated to the early Second Century - ie 20-30 years after the event.
 January 27, 2013 at 7:53 AM    

 Anonymous said...
Hello Tim,
I am just curious - what do you belief (based on the historical evidence available to you) that Jesus was: a human or God's son who lived as a human on earth?
Best regards
Manfred
 March 27, 2013 at 11:22 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
@Manfred.
I make it very clear in this post and elsewhere on my blog that I am an atheist. That should answer your question.
 March 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM    

Neill said...
Hi Tim. I'm confused. Several times in your responses, you claim that Jesus was an insignificant figure in history (the basis for your argument that there would be less reason for any surviving contemporary references for Jesus than contemporary references for Hannibal), but then you state in a later reply to someone "And the existence and nature of a figure worshipped by billions as a god isn’t hardly going to be irrelevant trivia whatever conclusion you come to". So which is he, an insignificant figure, or a figure WORSHIPPED BY BILLIONS AS A GOD ...? (Sorry for the caps, just meant for emphasis)
 July 31, 2013 at 5:17 PM    

Neill said...
Tim,
A quote from your blog The Historical Jesus and the 'Jesus Myth'
When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again. The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time. So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward. So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether. In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33). THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF JESUS AT ALL IN THE gJOHN VERSION.
So in these three examples we have three different versions of the same story written at three times in the early decades of Christianity. All of them are dealing with the baptism of Jesus by John in different ways and trying to make it fit with their conceptions of Jesus and at least two of them are having some trouble doing so and are having to change the story to make it fit their ideas about Jesus. ALL THIS INDICATES THAT THE BAPTISM OF JESUS BY JOHN WAS A HISTORICAL EVENT AND KNOWN TO BE SUCH AND SO COULD NOT BE LEFT OUT OF THE STORY. This left the later gospel writers with the problem of trying to make it fit their evolving ideas about who and what Jesus was.
Now if you read the two parts I have put in caps, you will see that they contradict each other. How could John leave the baptism of Jesus out of his gospel if it was a known historical event that "could not be left out"?
 July 31, 2013 at 5:39 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
@ Neill
"I'm confused."
I'm saying that the historical Jewish preacher was insignificant in his time, though the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" has since come to be worshipped by billions. There is no contradiction there at all.
 July 31, 2013 at 7:19 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
@ Neill again
"Now if you read the two parts I have put in caps, you will see that they contradict each other."
Not really, though I can see why you've misunderstood me. When I say "the baptism of Jesus by John was a historical event and known to be such and so could not be left out of the story" I'm referring to the general story of Jesus going to the Jordan and meeting John. In three of the four gospels this involves Jesus himself being baptised.
gJohn's account has a "Jesus/Baptist/Jordan" story, but the awkward bit that has Jesus being baptised himself is removed. It was still considered important to include the "Jesus/Baptist/Jordan" story, but the bit that no longer fitted the developing Christology about who and what Jesus was gets quietly taken out.
This makes the "Jesus/Baptist/Jordan" story one of the very few stories found in all four gospels. And the way each gospel adjusts it indicates that it was historical despite being awkward.
 July 31, 2013 at 7:27 PM    

Neill said...
Thanks for clarifying both of those Tim.
Though, I have to say that I have found in my personal experience that when a story keeps chaniging over time, it is usually found to be untrue. Not saying that this is definitely the case with the story of Jesus, but it does still raise my level of skepticism as to the veracity of the "story".
“A truth is not hard to kill, and a lie well told is immortal.”
- Mark Twain
 July 31, 2013 at 10:26 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
" I have found in my personal experience that when a story keeps chaniging over time, it is usually found to be untrue."
Too simplistic. The key point in the Baptist example and several like it is that there is a core element that doesn't change, despite the fact it doesn't fit with the objectives and ideas of the gospel writers. Yet it's still there. Why? Because it's historical.
 August 1, 2013 at 6:19 AM    

Neill said...
Tim,
I find it hard to take you seriously as you (an atheist) tend to condradict yourself quite often, like religion does all too often. In one breath you will say that doubting a historical Jesus is a valid position to take, and in another you almost vehemently defend the truth of a historical Jesus, with what seems like great conviction.
IF you are an atheist (i.e. someone who has a lack of belief in a god based on the evidence provided), how can you claim to believe that Jesus, the son of the god you don't believe in (or as some christians believe, god himself come down to earth in human form), exists? This is not logical.
Looking forward to hearing the spin you put on this one :-).

 August 2, 2013 at 12:18 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
@ Neill
"I find it hard to take you seriously "
Mainly because you seem to understand very little of what I've said.
"IF you are an atheist (i.e. someone who has a lack of belief in a god based on the evidence provided), how can you claim to believe that Jesus, the son of the god you don't believe in (or as some christians believe, god himself come down to earth in human form), exists? This is not logical. "
No, it isn't. Luckily for me, I've never claimed I believe any such thing. I am talking about the historical Jesus - a Jewish preacher called Yeshua bar Yosef who preached a Jewish apocalyptic message to other Jewsa, got crucified, died and stayed dead. You are the one who keeps confusing this very human Jesus with the "Jesus Christ" figure of Christianity.
The two are distinct, though the latter evolved out of memories of the former.
Once you grasp that "the historical Jesus" refers to an ordinary man, you should find that everything I say makes perfect sense. Once again, it's you who are confused.
 August 2, 2013 at 4:03 AM    

 bruce said...
'I am talking about the historical Jesus - a Jewish preacher called Yeshua bar Yosef who preached a Jewish apocalyptic message to other Jews, got crucified, died and stayed dead. You are the one who keeps confusing this very human Jesus with the "Jesus Christ" figure of Christianity.' - and this latter...? Did not exist? Is a later myth? See Tim?
Which of the many 'myther' books you refer actually argues against Yeshua bar Yosef? Most say, however badly, that that '"Jesus Christ" figure of Christianity' is mythical and fictional in so many ways, as you have yourself just allowed. By all means continue to debunk and test their arguments. Eventually you yourself will formulate the best 'myther' case, I've no doubt.
 September 24, 2013 at 6:40 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Which of the many 'myther' books you refer actually argues against Yeshua bar Yosef?
All of them.
Most say, however badly, that that '"Jesus Christ" figure of Christianity' is mythical and fictional in so many ways, as you have yourself just allowed.
And they also say he is not based on any historical preacher at all. Whereas I (and virtually every scholar on the planet) say otherwise. Spot the difference.
 September 26, 2013 at 5:29 AM    

 bruce said...
Tim, Santa Claus is 'based on' Saint Nicholas. Yet would I be wrong in asserting that Santa Claus is a myth?
 September 26, 2013 at 9:17 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Yet would I be wrong in asserting that Santa Claus is a myth?
No, but that's not the sense of the word the Mythers are using. As I've already explained to you, they claim there was no historical Jesus at all. Please try to grasp this very simple difference.
 September 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM    

Reje Kaber said...
Good work Tim.
I want to point out that among others, Jesus wasn't and still isn't considered divine in Judaism and Islam, yet was written of in Islamic scripture and other written sources. As such, "Jesus Christ, God In Human Form" is not automatically the same as "Jesus Christ, The Mythical Figure".
I noticed what earlier commenters were going on about and then I posted this.
Still, keep up the good work.
 November 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
For those who are interested, I have just posted a detailed reply to Fitzgerald's response to my original review:
The Jesus Myth Theory: A Reponse to David Fitzgerald
 December 1, 2013 at 5:44 PM    

Johan Rönnblom said...
I'm questioning your claim that there are no contemporary writers mentioning Hannibal. Just a quick google shows that the historian Polybius was contemporary - he was born around 200 BC while Hannibal died no earlier than 183 BC. And his work The Histories deals (in extant parts) with Hannibal's war in great detail. I think you're throwing stones in glass houses here when you claim someone else's research would be so poor it is a waste of paper. A somewhat more humble approach would make this kind of mistake less devastating.
 December 20, 2013 at 8:25 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
@ Johan
Thanks, but I was well aware of Polybius. I'm also aware that his account of Hannibal's campaigns is not a contemporary mention of him - that work was begun around 167 BC but was later extended to cover events up to 146 BC and it seems he continued to work on the book until his death in 119 BC. This means his account of Hannibal dates to c. 30-60 years after Hannibal's death in 182 BC, depending on how you look at it.
Fitzgerald also jumped on Polybius in his response to my review, so I replied to him as I have to you - it's not a contemporary reference. Though I also noted that if he wants to count Polybius as a contemporary reference to Hannibal I'd be happy to grant that if he counts the gospels as contemporary references to Jesus. They were written about the same length of time after his death as Polybius was after Hannibal. Somehow I don't think he's going to agree to my offer.
So, nice try, but I know my stuff and I check my facts.
 December 20, 2013 at 10:02 AM    

Ignorance said...
Tim, discussing this old comment by ChrisB:
And before you say it, "The Unauthorised Version" is fairly cautious, but (as I remember it) it still tends to favour the 'no Jesus' result.
The poster may have confused Fox's favouring of non-authenticity of the entire testimonium with mythicism. On page 284 Fox states he thinks Josephus didn't refer to Jesus at that point: "He [Josephus] wrote between the 70s and the mid 90s, and, although he refers to John the Baptist, his books never comment on Jesus's career: the one passage which appears to do so is agreed to be a Christian addition."
That Fox tries to historically reconstruct parts of Jesus' life, notably his trial and execution (and a "secure minimum" in the pages following page 284), of course disproves that he was advocating mythicism there.
Similarly, he writes on 286: "We know about them [other 'criminals'] from the histories of Josephus, and although he never mentioned Jesus's arrest or death, we can ask what Jesus must have done to be so different from these troublemakers as to deserve the injustice of a Roman crucifixion."
 January 8, 2014 at 9:43 PM    

Bruce L Grubb said...
There is a fourth category of the Christ Myth theory that to a large extent can be traced to Remsburg's 1909 The Christ; it accepted the man existed as a person but basically threw out the story of that man. And this definition shows up in the 1982 and 1995 editions of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J and is one of ways Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in his 2004 I Believe in the Historical Jesus. implies Jesus could be unhistorial: the man Jesus existed but the story of that man is no more reliable then that of King Arthur.
In fact King Arthur and Robin Hood have historical candidates as much as 200 years away from the point when their stories traditional take place and if these are the core of those stories then why did they time shift?
More over we have a real world template that Christ Mythers can point to: John Frum.
 March 2, 2014 at 7:30 AM    

BBWPlaytime said...
Boudicca has been written about by her contemporary Tacitus (Who also wrote about Jesus, but was not his contemporary)
Arminius left several signs of his existence behind, such as the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, which has been confirmed by contemporaries.
Is there an event caused by Jesus that left such signs in history? While these appear intuitively good arguments, I'd be somewhat careful about their use when debating a mythicist.
 June 26, 2014 at 5:33 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
"Boudicca has been written about by her contemporary Tacitus
That doesn't matter. When Mythers talk about "contemporary references" they are talking about ones written when the person was alive. Why these are the only references that count is something they never bother to explain, but they are not talking about references by people who happened to be contemporaries writing years later. Otherwise they would have the problem that Paul's references to Jesus would count, given that he was a slightly younger contemporary of Jesus.
So the fact that Tacitus was about 4 years old when Boudicca died doesn't count. He wrote his account of her uprising about 50 years after her death. So that's not a "contemporary reference".
Arminius left several signs of his existence behind, such as the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, which has been confirmed by contemporaries.
None of those reference to this battle that mention him were written in his lifetime. See above.
" I'd be somewhat careful about their use when debating a mythicist. "
I'm very careful thanks. Over the last 15 years I've already had several Mythers try to claim we have "contemporary references" to Boudicca, Arminius and Hannibal. They walked away with egg all over their faces.
 June 26, 2014 at 6:34 AM    

Konsumterra said...
This clarified so many points and made me move my own goal posts so thankyou. My initial critique of Mythers (I didn't know there was a name for it) was all the bad syncretinism they displayed comparing the Jesus myth. I saw memes all the time full of bullshit untrue comparative myth. The fact alone that religious characters were born or had parents is not remarkable as they are gods for humans and have some biological experience in common. Such comparisons and stretching other "facts" to fit are very sad. We cant find the truth by lying about something we dont really want to bother o understand.
I love mythology and have a strong love of classics, epics and sagas. I also like fantasy fiction like SF or horror. I can see the similarities between fantasy fiction and mythology and the differences.
All to many people who quote or use mythology have some kind of agenda like politics, ethics or explaining the status quot. At worse this is anti-reason, racism, self harm or paranoia. Ancient Iraqi mythology is especially of interest to me but most persons I see discussing it using a mythic methodology. They are are more interested in alien invader conspiracy theories based on works of Zecharia Sitchin, David Icke and Von Danikan (some argue he even wrote like H.P. Lovecraft). Full of sinister misuse of material evidence from archeology or text from translation. Most following this take on history and mythology dont even know how so few unqualified readers came to predominate over thousands of scholars world wide. In population at least.
Syncretism is used when they want to make comparisons by focusing on similarities. Can be nice to consider but you cant just ignore things that dont fit and cherrypick out all the other possible stories. Mythic readings happily look for links then microfocus on a small detail often out of context or connection with culture.
It is a shame people want to live in a magical reality cant just play dungeons and dragons and be happy.
Cheers for this
 June 26, 2014 at 9:24 PM    

DarkMithras666 said...
I think everyone is seriously ignoring the real issue here.
All non-mythers have accomplished is proving a Jew called Jesus/Yeshua existed 2,000 years ago. Oh, and he preached god.
All Mythers have accomplished is denying a Jew called Jesus/Yeshua existed 2,000 ago...and he didn't preach god.
Yet it makes no difference whatsoever if he existed or not. Once you strip away all the pagan and supernatural elements created by the Roman Church... you're left with just one of hundreds of preachers from that time period each one as deluded as the next.
Unremarkable at best. There are stories of lesser men achieving far greater....and these guys got the press.
The chances are he was a pacifist, which appalled people when he was killed. And that is just an assumption.
In fact, the chances that the Roman's crucified a Jew called Yeshua who preached god...are the same odds of finding a man named Dave in an East End pub.
So yes, a Jew called Yoshua who preached in god and got a small following must have existed.
And that is all you will ever have really.
 June 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM    

DarkMithras666 said...
About Boudica.
I was reading a book called Defying Rome by Guy De La Bedoyere - a very established historian. At one point he highlights that there is no contemporary evidence for her existence and may have been an invention.
Dio and Tacitus give differing reasons for her death - the man who defeated her does not even mention who he defeated at Watling Street other than a large rabble of Britons.
So people could argue that the disorganized mass of angry barbarians were given a figure head in the form her Boudica. In effect, Boudica mythers.
He himself doesn't hold that theory, but gave it as food for thought.
 June 27, 2014 at 1:05 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
"So yes, a Jew called Yoshua who preached in god and got a small following must have existed.
And that is all you will ever have really. "
And this is somehow a problem because ... ?
 June 28, 2014 at 8:30 AM    

DarkMithras666 said...
"And this is somehow a problem because ... ?"
I never said it was a problem.
I merely pointed out the futility of the argument.
This whole myther.non-myther is basically a squabble over some bloke who we know nothing about, who just happened to die almost 2000 years ago.
Why?
He was not son of god, he did no miracles and 100% did not raise from the dead. He was not born of a virgin ... he was a normal run off the mill bloke.
So why are people bent on arguing for and against some random street preacher called Jesus just happened to be killed in the first century?
At best he was a random hippy who preached and taught people. Nothing out the ordinary given the huge amount of people doing the same thing.
Most probably he was a mentally ill, or deluded man who genuinely believed he could do supernatural things.
As worst he was some kind of David Koresh who convinced people he was supernatural. A con man and trickster who started a cult.
So what are 'mythers' arguing against?
The supernatural side...or the man?
Supernatural things don't exist, it is not rational and there is no logic. It is crack pot. No iff's, no butt's. there is not a shred of evidence anywhere to prove that any of this stuff exists. Given that atheists do not believe in make believe deities, it stands to reason that we find a supernatural Jesus ridiculous.
the man?
Yes, a bloke called Jesus existed in the 1st century.
wow - who'd had figured?

 June 28, 2014 at 10:17 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
'VYes, a bloke called Jesus existed in the 1st century.
wow - who'd had figured?"
I still can't see the problem for someone who is interested in history. Can you try to explain why I shouldn't be interested in this "bloke"? Because I'm missing that from what you've said.
Try again.
 June 28, 2014 at 11:39 PM    

DarkMithras666 said...
You are missing it from what I said as at no point ever did I say it. Not once.
You can be as interested in him as you want. I myself must have some interest as I would not have stumbled across this blog in the first place. I have already stated that I don't have a problem with that. Yet you keep bringing it up. Why?
I read both my comments, read yours and think "is that what you got from that?"
I have already taken your side my assuming you are right and assuming Jesus existed, as someone NOT matching his description is against all the odds.
After that revelation we have to delve deeper, and that it where arguments start. It is these arguments I find futile. They normally end up with mud slinging and denouncing of either side.
Is there something special about Jesus that actually warrants this? Boudicca doesn't get it, nor does Robin Hood. No one rages angrily over the existence of King Arthur.
Why?
Because it is a religious matter.
Most of what people 'know' Jesus is from assumption. When people question the assumption they don't do only that, but go overboard. Vice versa.
David Fitzgerald, for example, goes overboard (as we all know). They you go overboard by denouncing him with the fervor of a priest.
I wouldn't mind knowing two things.
1) Are you an atheist (agnostic, deist or whatnot) who is genuinely interested in this non-supernatural figure?
2) Or a believer?
I simply don't get your angle in all this :( It doesn't change my views on you or anything, but understanding where the argument originates helps me understand the debate a tad more.
 June 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
You are missing it from what I said as at no point ever did I say it. Not once.
I have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't say what, exactly?
Yet you keep bringing it up. Why?
Again, I have no idea what you're referring to. I keep bringing what up?
I wouldn't mind knowing two things.
1) Are you an atheist (agnostic, deist or whatnot) who is genuinely interested in this non-supernatural figure?
2) Or a believer?

The fact that my profile makes it pretty clear that I'm an atheist should answer your question here. My review makes it pretty clear that I'm an atheist as well. As does pretty much everything I've written on this blog on this subject and several others. Your question makes me wonder if you've even read the review you're commenting on.
 June 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM    

DarkMithras666 said...
"I keep bringing what up?"
Asking a) why I have a problem and b) why should people not be interested. It is not interest I argue against, rather the arguing - if that makes any sense lol
Interest is one thing, but it has just become one of those stubborn debates (not the article, that was sound. But the whole myther/non-myther argument).
Mythers don't just say "a supernatural messiah didn't exist". They go one step further and say "no one was called Jesus/Yeshua in the first century who believed and preached god".
Which is pretty lame.
And this gets countered by atheist proving that Jesus existed with the same fervour of a priest.
It is getting silly.

Don't worry, I did read your profile and know you are an atheist. Only from the posts, it was not made clear. Why?
Because when you look at it, atheists are fervently proving Jesus existed. We've all come across Christian blogs who come up with very similar arguments.
Sometimes this ends up in, as an odd twist, verifying evidence that would otherwise been completely ignored.
Like the gospels. Fitzgerald says "here's why the gospels are wrong", gets countered with "why his denouncing of the gospels is wrong." Derails the argument. It is now about a bunch of texts that both side don't believe are a truly credible source.
Then, when you look at it. There is as much evidence for Jesus as there is King Arthur. Not a bad thing, as there must be something behind the myths and legends.
I hope I've cleared my point up a bit.
I'm not saying I am right, just that it my take in it.
 June 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Asking a) why I have a problem
I didn't ask why you have a problem. I asked you why you think "only" showing that Jesus was a Jewish preacher should somehow be a problem for me. It isn't.
And this gets countered by atheist proving that Jesus existed with the same fervour of a priest.
No, I counter it with the rigor of someone who wants to analyse the question objectively - ie the way historians do. The problem with the Mythers is they don't do this.
Don't worry, I did read your profile and know you are an atheist.
So why did you ask if I was a "believer"?
Only from the posts, it was not made clear. Why?
Because I shouldn't need to make it clear on a blog that declares me to be a "Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard." And I did make it clear in this post, given that I say I'm writing "as an atheist amateur historian". I also make it clear in any other post where it's in any way relevant. It' not my fault that you didn't read the post carefully.
 June 30, 2014 at 6:36 PM    

DarkMithras666 said...
Before I reply, I will state that I am not a myther and I did like the article. I have nothing against you and think we got off on the wrong for a little.
Anyway.
"And this is somehow a problem because ... ?"
That is what you wrote. I took from it what I could. But now that it's all been cleared up, it's cool. Wires cross there on my part. Sorry about that.
"No, I counter it with the rigor of someone who wants to analyse the question objectively"
I didn't mean you personally, rather the whole 'non-myther' thing in general. Your article was sound, I enjoyed it.
But debating mythers makes you go round and round in circles...they like that. It the conspiracy theory mentality. As long as they get attention and keep dragging people back to argue with them... we spend less time on the actual subject.
You can take all the logic and reason you want to the argument... but you may as well debate with a hard line Christian. Both are firmly set in their ideas.
"So why did you ask if I was a "believer"? "
So you could look at the argument from a 3rd person perspective. You are arguing that Jesus exists and using many arguments that Christians use. David Fitz has managed to stress you out to the extent that even an atheist now sounds like a preacher.
In published works all it takes it a misquote and you can be misrepresented.
when atheists (or anyone really) has to resort to the gospels to prove a point... the mythers win. Because they can now rip the argument to bits and make you look like your fresh out of the bible belt.
Its the only reason they chose to pick it. They pick the arena, so to speak. Now the argument is derailed on who quotes the gospels.
At the end of this article, only a small amount mind you, uses the gospels as evidence. Yet we both know they have been so heavily edited, that the true story cannot be picked from fiction. They are not a credible source.
For instance there is no evidence for the Census of Quirinius. Even worse, all the Roman evidence points to such a census being absurd. It is clearly an invention.
The same gospels used to prove historicy also tell of water walking and resurrection. It's like using Geoffrey of Monmouth to prove Arthur.
Hence it comes across as pretty Christian sounding.
As you said, you've been debating this for ten years. It means they've caught you in a trap and they know it.
Mythers will never listen. Like the 9-11 'truthers'. They are totally absent of reason.
Then, David Fitz trolls you with a lengthy reply (which I may read for a laugh) and you respond.
Hence I said the argument was futile. Not your article, but the backward and forwards argument.
All to prove and disprove the existence of an unremarkable man in the first century.
It was n't a get at you personally, rather the 'myther-non myther' whack-a-mole.
 June 30, 2014 at 10:10 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
You are arguing that Jesus exists and using many arguments that Christians use
I use these arguments because they make sense. If some Christians use some of them as well, that tells us zero about the validity of the arguments. They might also say grass is green but that doesn't mean it isn't.
David Fitz has managed to stress you out to the extent that even an atheist now sounds like a preacher.
That's ridiculous. I'm not "stressed" by his stupid arguments, just motivated to critique them for the benefit of those who don't have the background knowledge to see their flaws. Nothing more.
 It means they've caught you in a trap and they know it.
Nonsense again. I only bother to counter their arguments when I know there is a good chance some of those looking on will benefit. As soon as it becomes clear I'm talking to no-one but close minded Mythers, I move on. Life is too short to waste on ideologues.
Hence I said the argument was futile. Not your article, but the backward and forwards argument.
I think I'll decide when I'll bother with them and when I won't. I don't think I need your help with that thanks.
 June 30, 2014 at 10:19 PM    

DarkMithras666 said...
"I use these arguments because they make sense. If some Christians use some of them as well, that tells us zero about the validity of the arguments. They might also say grass is green but that doesn't mean it isn't."
However this is not the case if you are using sources that lack credibility. Using the gospels to prove Jesus, is like using the Argonautica to prove Jason. The gospels get so much wrong. If they can't even get the basics of a census correct what chance have you got of biographical facts?
The only Census that Quirinius did didn't even affect Galilee, and Jesus would have been around 7 at the time. You have earthquakes! The massacre of innocents is not mentioned outside the gospels.
These are historical events that would be in living memory to the people that wrote the gospels - yet they make these fundamental errors?
Given that historians learn tales of WWII from war veterans, as it is in living memory. How on earth did these Hebrews make such huge errors?
It was clearly fabricated. If they fabricated that - what else is true? We know for fact that the gospels were heavily edited over the centuries, so do you even know what parts you are referencing?
So no - you simply cannot count the gospels. You need outside sources.
Gospels are a myther trap, and here they will win on the very account that a 'gospel' argument can be disintegrated in no time.
If you use the gospels, then congratulations, you may as well move onto Geoffrey of Monmouth and his concrete proof that London was founded when Brutus of Troy founded Londona after defeating two giants.
Hence the need for outside sources. And what viable sources do you have?
Josephus - a good prime source as he was non-bias.
Tacitus - mentioned in name only.
Suetonius - name only
Talamud - says they hanged him!
Mara - mentions a King of the Jews
No mention of him being a fisherman, having 12 disciples, healing the sick, Lazarus, Judas' betrayal, wise men and no room at the inn.
Goes back to by point you have a bloke called Yeshua, who lived in the 1st century believed in god and preached. Then was killed.
That is it.
So let's stick to it.
It's the only thing Mythers can't beat.
 July 1, 2014 at 6:52 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
However this is not the case if you are using sources that lack credibility. Using the gospels to prove Jesus, is like using the Argonautica to prove Jason. The gospels get so much wrong
Then this still doesn't bother me because if they are "using the gospels to prove Jesus", I'm not. So we don't have a problem. I'm using the gospels the way historians use such texts. They are evidence of what people in subsequent decades believed about Jesus and so can be used to indicate how those beliefs developed and evolved.
This is why they can be use to examine this question, they just can't be taken at naive face value. Luckily no historian uses them that way.
Goes back to by point you have a bloke called Yeshua, who lived in the 1st century believed in god and preached. Then was killed.
That is it.
So let's stick to it.
That's all I'm sticking to. And all I have ever stuck to. So I have no idea why you keep posting these weird comments on my blog.
 July 1, 2014 at 7:38 PM    

DarkMithras666 said...
"That's all I'm sticking to. And all I have ever stuck to. So I have no idea why you keep posting these weird comments on my blog."
Weird comments?
Is this how you approach everyone who questions your judgement?
Do you forget that I only commented on the futility of the myther-non myther argument... before writing a short on Boudica.
Nothing out of the ordinary.
You questioned why there was a problem, so explained it.
You questioned again.
So I explained again - using detail as you clearly didn't understand it.
That is why I am here... to try to explain a simple point, over and over again to someone who lacks the capacity to understand.
It's your blog? then don't post the comments, it is that simple.
If you didn't want criticism, then don't post the damn blog. It is that simple.
You bang on about self published authors... yet you are a mere blogger. I can't even use you as a reference in an argument. you have no published works, and clearly have nowhere near the level of understanding that you arrogantly think yourself to have.
So don't bother posting this. Just take it as me saying "good bye". Or paste some bits and denounce me as you do others... I truly do not care.
I have better things to do than waste time arguing with a blogger who puts the world to rights.
p.s
The gospels are considered an unreliable by all but the conservative historians. There are many reasons why from editing to inconsistencies. All Act's, Romans, Galatians ect are, are the ramblings of preachers.
It's not like using Tacitus to learn of Boudica. It is like using the Argonautica to learn of Jason.
You use Galatians 4:4...! Why? That's cherry picking a verse in a whole speech designed to convert the Galatians. You even use it out of context.
You quote Romans 1:3 to prove he was human and decended of David....utterly ignoring that the sentence continues with.."and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4)
So well done Tim - you have proven that a dead son of a non existent god came back to life...oh, and was also a bloke born of David.
And you wonder why I question your judgement?
My advice is... if you have the balls to write a blog, denouncing people who lack credentials and weight... expect flak from people who consider your work equally lacking.
 July 2, 2014 at 8:18 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Is this how you approach everyone who questions your judgement?
It's how I respond to people who keep making weird comments. You keep telling me that I'm "only" showing sufficient evidence for a human Jewish preacher who got executed. I keep agreeing with you. Then you keep repeating that I'm "only" doing this, as though that is some kind of problem for me. I keep telling you that it isn't a problem at all. I don't know how many times I have to keep doing this, but the fact you continue to bang on about this point as though it's some kind of problem for me is downright weird. Thus "weird comments".
*rant deleted*
If you didn't want criticism, then don't post the damn blog. It is that simple.
I have no problem with "criticism". I lose patience with repeated comments that make zero sense. See above.
The gospels are considered an unreliable by all but the conservative historians.
The gospels are considered unreliable as sources that can simply be taken at face value by all but the most conservative historians. The others use them the way historians use all ancient sources - with scepticism, critical analysis and great care.
All Act's, Romans, Galatians ect are, are the ramblings of preachers.
Which tell us what those preachers believed about Jesus. Given that they are written over a span of many decades, this means we can get an idea of how these beliefs evolved. That means we can use this analysis to draw some conclusions about what they evolved out of. Which leads us back much closer to the historical Jesus. This is how historians use source material.
I've explained this to you once. I have no idea why I need to explain it to you again.

You use Galatians 4:4...! Why?
Because in it Paul is clearly saying Jesus was born of a woman - a term which means "a human being" in its Jewish context. This means the Myther claims that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a human being are wrong.
That's cherry picking a verse in a whole speech designed to convert the Galatians.
That doesn't matter. It still tells us that Paul believed Jesus was a human and the Myther claim otherwise is wrong.
You even use it out of context.
Because the context doesn't change the meaning that's relevant to my point - that Paul believed Jesus was a human and not a mythical being.
You quote Romans 1:3 to prove he was human and decended of David....utterly ignoring that the sentence continues with.."and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4)
Because that doesn't change the fact that 1:3 also means Paul believed Jesus was a human. The fact that Paul also believed this human was also the angelic "Son of God" is beside the point I'm making.
So well done Tim - you have proven that a dead son of a non existent god came back to life...oh, and was also a bloke born of David.
And you wonder why I question your judgement?

I question your reading comprehension skills. Romans 1:3 shows that whatever else Paul believed about Jesus, he believed he was a human descendant of David. Which counters the Myther claim that Paul didn't believe this is wrong. If you continue to show that you aren't capable of following my arguments I don't think I'll continue to respond to your increasingly confused and incoherent comments.
 July 2, 2014 at 8:56 AM    

Jonathan Kennedy said... http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews-notes/fitzgerald-nailed/oneill-fitzgerald-debate/
 August 25, 2014 at 10:12 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Yes, the usual pathetic weaselly snivelling and picking of microscopic nits from Neil "Mr Furious" Godfrey, the world's most under-employed librarian. Nothing to see here.
 August 25, 2014 at 12:55 PM    

Java Julie said...
Has anyone ever read Pontius Pilate's writings? Pontius Pilate did write about Jesus. He would have no reason to discuss Jesus if Jesus did not exist.
 September 9, 2014 at 10:03 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
"Has anyone ever read Pontius Pilate's writings?"
No. No such writings exist.
"Pontius Pilate did write about Jesus."
Then next time you get in your time machine to go back to Caesarea c. 30 AD, be sure to pick us up a copy.
"He would have no reason to discuss Jesus if Jesus did not exist."
Er, yup. See above.
 September 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM    

aj1964 said...
Here's a piece by Prof. Philip R. Davies, Professor emeritus of biblical studies at the University of Sheffield. Maybe puts the 'mythicist' debate in perspective. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml "surely the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear, or even to work out what kind of historical research might be appropriate. Such a normal exercise should hardly generate controversy in most fields of ancient history, but of course New Testament studies is not a normal case and the highly emotive and dismissive language of, say, Bart Ehrman’s response to Thompson’s The Mythic Past shows (if it needed to be shown), not that the matter is beyond dispute, but that the whole idea of raising this question needs to be attacked, ad hominem, as something outrageous. This is precisely the tactic anti-minimalists tried twenty years ago: their targets were ‘amateurs’, ‘incompetent’, and could be ignored. The ‘amateurs’ are now all retired professors, while virtually everyone else in the field has become minimalist (if in most cases grudgingly and tacitly). So, as the saying goes, déjà vu all over again."
 October 29, 2014 at 3:15 AM    

Tim O'Neill said...
Davies' slightly surly article goes on to say:
"I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability."
Except all but the most conservative scholars don't regard his existence as "entirely certain", just as the most logical, likely and parsimonious explanation of the evidence we have. So it's hard to tell exactly what the good professor is whining about.
 November 4, 2014 at 8:58 AM    

David Baines said...
I only just discovered this blog. Thank you for the critique of Fitzgerald's book, although it seemed like mere recreation for you. I am amused at the five star reviews that Fitzgerald's book has garnered on Amazon.com, but he obviously has a lot of friends - or starry-eyed empty-headed followers.
 January 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM    

Tim's Writing said...
I have read the book Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All. I vehemently disagree with your treatment. This is seminal work in the atheist arsenal. It is such an important work.
When I became an atheist in 1976, at first I thought that Jesus was an historical figure, but soon, I began to think that Jesus never existed at all.
Reading the New Testament made me think this. Scholars like David have made my own thinking even stronger.
 March 30, 2015 at 4:03 PM    

Tim O'Neill said...
" I vehemently disagree with your treatment.
Gosh. Why, exactly?
This is seminal work in the atheist arsenal."
I suggest you look up what the word "seminal" means in this context. This little self-published booklet by a total nobody is not "seminal" and never will be. It's just a weak rehash of the same old weak arguments that actual scholars rejected about a century ago.
"When I became an atheist in 1976, at first I thought that Jesus was an historical figure, but soon, I began to think that Jesus never existed at all. "
If you think highly of this piece of crap, your opinion on the issue of Jesus' historicity is clearly pretty worthless.
"Scholars like David have made my own thinking even stronger. "
He is not a "scholar", so that is more evidence you don't have much of a clue.
 March 30, 2015 at 6:21 PM   
Post a Comment



Newer Post  Older Post  Home


Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 


Search Amazon
   
 

Blog Information Profile for Thiudareiks
        http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html










 


+Brandi










































































































































Tim O'Neill

My Photo
View Full Size

Contact me
 Email

On Blogger since March 2007

Profile views - 9556

My blogs
The Books & Vino Appreciation Society
Van Demonian
Armarium Magnum

About me

Gender
Male
Location
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Introduction
Wry, dry, rather sarcastic, eccentric, occasionally arrogant Irish-Australian atheist bastard.
Interests
ancient and medieval history, international affairs, politics, scepticism, philosophy, literature, film






Help
Help Center
Help Forum
Video Tutorials

Community
Blogger Buzz
+Blogger

Developers
Blogger API
Developer Forum


Copyright © 1999 – 2015 Google
Terms of Service
 ·Privacy
 ·Content Policy
  
https://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980