This is an update to a series of blogs I've run on the film Agora, about the murder of the scientist Hypatia in the 5th century A.D. (see Killings Hypatia and Weisz Is Hypatia). Until now I was responding to what other people said who saw it. But then I discovered Agora was playing at a theater in Berkeley, so Jen and I went to see it. I can now give it my own first-person review...
A while ago I blogged about a coming film on Hypatia of Alexandria (Weisz Is Hypatia). I've heard reviews from people who've seen it (still hasn't come to where I am, and might never), and they've reassured me it isn't as loose with historical facts as it at first sounded. It does engage in fictional "what ifs" apparently, but that's fine.
One review of note is by a medievalist who posted at the website of Skeptic magazine (Was Hypatia of Alexandria a Scientist? by S. James Killings). His area of expertise is not Late Antiquity, or ancient science, so he gets a lot wrong. Nevertheless, he's right about a lot, so in case you'd like to benefit from reading his brief commentary but not get misled by the errors in it, I've composed the following corrective, which is also informative and educational in its own right. You won't likely have known a lot of this stuff.
This blog entry adds to the running series I've had going for a while now addressing misrepresentations of ancient science in the media (the latest being Flynn's Pile of Boners). An extensive bibliography of references are already provided in my chapter on ancient science in The Christian Delusion (TCD). I'll start with the minor errors (in Killings' blog, not the movie) and progress to the more serious.
Quick notable note. Last year I blogged about the advance premiere of the odd doco The Nature of Existence by Roger Nygard. Revisit my remarks there to see what I knew about it then. I was interviewed extensively for it, and I have a two second appearance in the film.
I've since received a reviewer's copy and seen it. I gave it a qualified review for The Skeptical Inquirer (which I believe will appear in their next issue, July/August 2010). The movie has its flaws and will not please everyone. But it's amusing, informative, and well worth seeing. I recommend you go support Roger's effort (and it was a Herculean effort indeed--he literally trekked the whole world for this) and then discuss it with others who saw it, even if to bitch about it. It makes particularly good material for an atheist community group to go see and praise or critique it. But even by yourself, it will teach, entertain, and provoke thought. It might even be more enjoyed by believers. Could be a good chance to take a believing friend or relative to the movies. It's not an f-you kind of film. Just a "this is what people say" kind of film. And everyone gets their say. Which makes it more subversive.
The Nature of Existence formally premieres in theaters this Friday (June 18) in New York city and a few other cities, and then premieres in others in following weeks. To find out when and where it will be coming to a theater near you, check out the official website, which has premier dates and an email list signup for notification when it will arrive near your town.
For my full review, I'll have to direct you to the next issue of the Skeptical Inquirer. They got an exclusive from me. I'll just say that if you go, be prepared for a loosely disorganized stream of amusing, frustrating, and bizarre (and often amusingly bizarre) clips of people the world over (atheists included) telling you what they believe. Don't expect a tidy answer or resolution. It's a tour of the diverse. But you'll see and hear things you never knew before. Or imagined. And if you're attentive, you'll get the jokes. Think Religulous except more ambitious and less mean. And no final thought (which many will actually be relieved to hear).
The absurdly beautiful Rachel Weisz is playing the famous atheist and feminist icon, the late 4th century pagan philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria, in the epic film Agora by Alejandro Amenábar, which is projected to release in December, just before Christmas. According to Rueters, the film sounds like an interesting pro-atheist myth, exaggerating certain realities to convey a pro-science message against maniacal religious fundamentalism. Reviewers who have seen early edits give the impression that Hypatia is depicted as an atheist, and as an active scientific investigator on the verge of proving heliocentrism. An intriguing, perhaps inspiring idea. But fiction surely.
The best scholarly account of the facts can be found in Maria Dzielska's Hypatia of Alexandria (Harvard University: 1995). Hypatia was by all accounts a Neoplatonic theist, although the difference would be mild to most modern imaginations. Neoplatonists did not accept the notion of sacred scripture or revealed dogmas, and were far more liberal minded (and arguably even more principled) than most Christian leaders of the day, but they were still mystics and believers. Likewise, though the real Hypatia was indeed a brilliant mathematician, a talented astronomer, and a renowned philosophy professor (and yes, beautiful), she like many of her generation was more a compiler and commentator on past scientific glories, who attempted nothing original and certainly would not have been pursuing heliocentric theory. By all indications, that pursuit had been abandoned by then. Nor did she invent any scientific instruments as Wikipedia claims, although she was a master of many, an actual go-to girl for how to make them in her time (from astrolabes to hydrometers to monochords).
It also sounds like the film has her "trapped in the legendary Library of Alexandria" in the midst of Christian riots in the end, which suggests she is burned with the library, when in fact those riots burned the library's annex, the Serapeum. A great loss to the ancient written record to be sure (tens of thousands of books were destroyed), nevertheless the Great Library itself was far larger (hundreds of thousands of books) and probably survived this occasion (in any case, it would have been situated on the other side of the city). I worry the film might perpetuate this slight error, confusing one library for the other. I know there is a tendency to go for the better story rather than the truer one. And though many pagan intellectuals may have been killed in the Serapeum (the Christians destroyed it specifically to crush the cult--burning the books was not their object),.jpg)
Hypatia was not. She was killed far more hideously elsewhere in the city (and decades later). By at least one account she died as a result of a Christian mob "scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell." And not in a library, but inside a Christian Church--to which she was dragged naked through the streets. (Damn, I want to see Rachel Weisz naked as much as the next guy, but not like this!).
Historical worries aside (I haven't seen it yet, so some or all of my concerns may be unfounded), this could still be well worth seeing, as idealistic fiction if not history. I'll be eager to see it either way, and I'll report more fully when I do. In any case, since I'd like to see more films set in ancient Greece and Rome, it can't hurt to plug the ones there are. And though I can't vouch for anyone else involved, Weisz is certainly a talented actress.
As many know I was interviewed for the film The God Who Wasn't There, which came out years ago and includes an extended version of my interview in the DVD extras. When I finally got to see the film, I privately circulated (eventually to journalists, academics, colleagues and others) a brief white paper on potential errors in it (only regarding the first third regarding ancient history, as that's my field). I then forgot about it. Several people recently have asked me about the film again, which reminded me I should just publish my brief. It is now available via my website as Critical Notes on the Movie The God Who Wasn't There (2005). Some of the points I make in that document I have since revised in subtle ways (as will be clear in my book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ), but it's adequate enough to stand un-edited from the original.
People have also asked me my opinion of the film. In general, the movie is as much about the supernatural God who isn't there (the Jesus everyone believes is going to come back from outer space and kill us) as the historical man who wasn't there, so it's not exactly a documentary about historicity (that subject only occupies something like a third of the film and is covered entertainingly but briefly). I find the film fun, funny, well-edited, and (for the most part) well-produced. It's definitely a feel good movie for atheists, and it definitely pisses off Christians to no end. I like it.
But it's not PBS edufare. GWWT suffers from the unavoidable problem of all entertaining documentaries:
it oversimplifies things. But it's nowhere near as egregiously full of sh*t as Zeitgeist: The Movie, which has been thoroughly debunked as absolute garbage by several knowledgeable commentators (the best critiques are catalogued by Jim Lippard at the end of his own blog post on that awful doco). I wouldn't recommend Zeitgeist at all. But I only wouldn't recommend GWWT as a scholarly introduction to Jesus Myth theory. I still recommend it as awesome entertainment, played out with acceptable license. It takes liberties, but they aren't that excessive (as my white paper explains), and if you want authoritative discussion, you really ought to be reading a book instead.
[Though I grant you,
there aren't any such books I'd recommend yet, beyond Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, which is in its own ways flawed and incomplete--as you might glean from my critical review.
Besides what you can read there, what I would say Doherty's book is lacking (and only because it's impossible for a single book to include everything) is coverage of a variety of essential supplementary topics, such as the fiction-myth analysis of the Gospels provided in Randel Helms' Gospel Fictions, which I also highly recommend (even though Helms doesn't argue Jesus didn't exist).]
Here's some brief humor for those who are odd like me. Some time ago my sister-in-law sent us the following email:
You (Seinfeld fans) will recall that Sack Lunch was the name of the movie Elaine Benis wished to see instead of the dreaded English Patient. ("It's got Dabney Coleman. How can it miss?!) In my opinion, Sack Lunch is the greatest fake name for a movie ever. But perhaps you can do better. The winner will receive...um, a sack lunch. But maybe one with some really gourmet stuff in it. Oh, and this is a democracy so we can all vote.
And so the contest among friends and family began. Here was my entry. Enjoy. (Or not. Whatever.)
The absurdly beautiful Rachel Weisz is playing the famous atheist and feminist icon, the late 4th century pagan philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria, in the epic film Agora by Alejandro Amenábar, which is projected to release in December, just before Christmas. According to Rueters, the film sounds like an interesting pro-atheist myth, exaggerating certain realities to convey a pro-science message against maniacal religious fundamentalism. Reviewers who have seen early edits give the impression that Hypatia is depicted as an atheist, and as an active scientific investigator on the verge of proving heliocentrism. An intriguing, perhaps inspiring idea. But fiction surely.
The best scholarly account of the facts can be found in Maria Dzielska's Hypatia of Alexandria (Harvard University: 1995). Hypatia was by all accounts a Neoplatonic theist, although the difference would be mild to most modern imaginations. Neoplatonists did not accept the notion of sacred scripture or revealed dogmas, and were far more liberal minded (and arguably even more principled) than most Christian leaders of the day, but they were still mystics and believers. Likewise, though the real Hypatia was indeed a brilliant mathematician, a talented astronomer, and a renowned philosophy professor (and yes, beautiful), she like many of her generation was more a compiler and commentator on past scientific glories, who attempted nothing original and certainly would not have been pursuing heliocentric theory. By all indications, that pursuit had been abandoned by then. Nor did she invent any scientific instruments as Wikipedia claims, although she was a master of many, an actual go-to girl for how to make them in her time (from astrolabes to hydrometers to monochords).
It also sounds like the film has her "trapped in the legendary Library of Alexandria" in the midst of Christian riots in the end, which suggests she is burned with the library, when in fact those riots burned the library's annex, the Serapeum. A great loss to the ancient written record to be sure (tens of thousands of books were destroyed), nevertheless the Great Library itself was far larger (hundreds of thousands of books) and probably survived this occasion (in any case, it would have been situated on the other side of the city). I worry the film might perpetuate this slight error, confusing one library for the other. I know there is a tendency to go for the better story rather than the truer one. And though many pagan intellectuals may have been killed in the Serapeum (the Christians destroyed it specifically to crush the cult--burning the books was not their object),.jpg)
Hypatia was not. She was killed far more hideously elsewhere in the city (and decades later). By at least one account she died as a result of a Christian mob "scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell." And not in a library, but inside a Christian Church--to which she was dragged naked through the streets. (Damn, I want to see Rachel Weisz naked as much as the next guy, but not like this!).
As many know I was interviewed for the film The God Who Wasn't There, which came out years ago and includes an extended version of my interview in the DVD extras. When I finally got to see the film, I privately circulated (eventually to journalists, academics, colleagues and others) a brief white paper on potential errors in it (only regarding the first third regarding ancient history, as that's my field). I then forgot about it. Several people recently have asked me about the film again, which reminded me I should just publish my brief. It is now available via my website as Critical Notes on the Movie The God Who Wasn't There (2005). Some of the points I make in that document I have since revised in subtle ways (as will be clear in my book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ), but it's adequate enough to stand un-edited from the original.
it oversimplifies things. But it's nowhere near as egregiously full of sh*t as Zeitgeist: The Movie, which has been thoroughly debunked as absolute garbage by several knowledgeable commentators (the best critiques are catalogued by Jim Lippard at the end of his own blog post on that awful doco). I wouldn't recommend Zeitgeist at all. But I only wouldn't recommend GWWT as a scholarly introduction to Jesus Myth theory. I still recommend it as awesome entertainment, played out with acceptable license. It takes liberties, but they aren't that excessive (as my white paper explains), and if you want authoritative discussion, you really ought to be reading a book instead.
there aren't any such books I'd recommend yet, beyond Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, which is in its own ways flawed and incomplete--as you might glean from my critical review.
Besides what you can read there, what I would say Doherty's book is lacking (and only because it's impossible for a single book to include everything) is coverage of a variety of essential supplementary topics, such as the fiction-myth analysis of the Gospels provided in Randel Helms' Gospel Fictions, which I also highly recommend (even though Helms doesn't argue Jesus didn't exist).]
