Near Emmaus


1 Comment

Paul N. Anderson reviews History’s The Bible (Part II)

The Bible Novel[Part one of Anderson's review can be found here.]

Paul Anderson’s second part of his The Bible review is available. In it, he incorporates the reactions from his students as well as his own reflections upon the series. The main consensus was that the film was nice but the Book (i.e., the Bible) will always be dear; interestingly, when I was out and about, I saw that there are The Bible novels—one being an abridged, young-reader version—based on the movie but more closely follow the Book (picture to the right). Anderson well concludes:

Overall, the History Channel’s series on The Bible will have made an important contribution to modern and postmodern culture—informing the biblically illiterate and challenging Bible readers to greater text-based faithfulness. It does not claim to be “history-as-such,” as each episode begins with the disclaimer that it is an “an adaptation of bible stories.” And yet, trusting viewers may fail to distinguish dramatic narration from the fact of literary presentations in the biblical text—displacing the former uncritically with the latter. Then again, such is the challenge of all historical narrative—biblical and otherwise—as later editors and writers seek to preserve reports of what had happened in the past, through the filter of their own understandings and interests, as means of addressing the needs of later audiences. In that sense, the tension between the text and the film might also help us appreciate more fully what the biblical writers themselves were also seeking to do, perhaps helping us appreciate more authentically the grand story of God’s redemptive work in human history as preserved and rendered so powerfully in the Bible.

Read part two of Anderson’s review in its entirety here.

About these ads


5 Comments

Paul N. Anderson reviews History’s The Bible (Part I)

The Bible Miniseries[Part two of Anderson's review can be found here.]

Paul Anderson has posted the first part of his review of History’s The Bible subtitled “Not Infallible, but Somewhat Inspired.” I only got the chance to watch the section from the 10 plagues to the battle between David and Goliath so I found Anderson’s review to be helpful in informing me as to what I have been missing. The review has inspired me to pull a The Bible marathon on the next airing.

You can read Anderson’s review here.


25 Comments

History’s The Bible: first impressions

the-bibleLast night was the first opportunity I have had to watch the History Channel’s miniseries The Bible. I have seen criticism after criticism appear on Facebook and Twitter, yet the ratings seem to be doing quite well. I decided to watch last night’s episode and a little bit of the rerun from the previous week. Honestly, I enjoyed it.

Maybe the expectations were ridiculously high for some people. Maybe (more likely) people enjoy being critical. I entered with medium-to-low expectations because the History Channel has been somewhat frustrating in recent years. Also, while a ten hour miniseries is lengthy it seems a topic like “the Bible” may be a wee bit too large to cover adequately.

I came to the series with the understanding that the producers were Christians. Similarly, I know their aim is to highlight the parts of the Bible that they appreciate the most. So when I hear people complain that the dark side of the Bible is being ignored I am a little surprised. Did you expect an hour to be dedicated to the sacrifice of Jepthah’s daughter? Were you anticipating a half-hour of someone reading Levitical legislation from Torah?

I know there have been more serious criticisms, like the stereotypical white Jesus and the unfortunate casting of a Satan character that bears resemblance to our President. Also, I haven’t seen any of the episodes on the Old Testament, so I may be missing a lot. That said, last night there were several things that grabbed my attention. Caiaphas was a character with which I could sympathize (see Mark Goodacre’s comments in “Understanding Caiaphas–The Bible Series” for some helpful insights). Judas was the same. These men were not demonized, completely, but humanized. Do Christians believe these men did a terrible thing in assisting in Jesus’ death? Paradoxically, yes, though Christians believe that Jesus’ death was an event that altered the cosmos for our good as well. (We are an interesting, complex religious group, eh?) Even the character playing Jesus does a good job at it. Jesus appears somewhat surprised by the crowds announcing him as Messiah and he comes to believe it. In other words, Jesus is a very human figure who must learn of his vocation. Even in the scene where he tells Peter he will betray him Jesus seems to be hearing the voice of God as he embraces Peter, and then he tells Peter what will happen like a prophet. Jesus is learning. Jesus is informed by the divine. Jesus is not presented as an ethereal, divine-but-barely human figure. I thought this was well done.

One of the most important aspects of this miniseries is that it has people talking about the Bible again. I am quite surprised to see scholars slicing and dicing this series to bits. Sure, we should be critical to some extent. Sure, we should evaluate the poetic license taken by the producers (though, as Tom Verenna notes in “History’s ‘The Bible’ in Broader Contexts”, it is a bit odd how literalistic people want this series to be, something Peter Enns observed as well in “Q:What Do Roma Downey and the Writers of the Bible Have in Commong? A: Neither Sticks to the Script”). But some people are full of venom and many of them need not be. Listen, we who appreciate the liberal arts whine about how our religion and philosophy departments are being closed or defunded all over the place. Our area of study doesn’t make money like the science  or business departments. In fact, liberal arts doesn’t make anywhere near the money of the basketball and football teams on campus. Similarly, we live in a culture that is becoming more and more biblically illiterate. Whether you are a Christian or not this should be concerning since it is impossibly difficult to understand much of western civilization if one doesn’t know a little bit about the Bible.

Those who teach topics related to the Bible should be pleased with this one thing: people care about the topic you teach. You are not completely irrelevant right now. Maybe, if you use this series rather than hacking it to pieces you can find a way to increase enrollment in your Introduction to the Hebrew Bible class next semester and we know administrators are paying attention to how many students take a given class. So go ahead and note where you find this series is lacking, but don’t miss the opportunity it is presenting to get people interested in the Bible again. The same may be true of local churches as well.

The Bible series was bound to be imperfect. No one will be pleased, completely, but then again we aren’t the people who spent the time and money to produce the series. If you want a perfect series, go produce it (I guarantee others won’t think it is perfect). But the epidemic of negativity among those of us who have been lamenting biblical illiteracy seems hypocritical to me. Sure, address your concerns, but realize The Bible is giving you a platform for discussing everything from Jesus’ skin tone to Judas’ role in Jesus death. It has people listening again. Don’t miss the opportunity to engage in dialogue. It isn’t every Spring that people care about the Bible as much as March Madness.


18 Comments

Rev. on BBC.

One of my favorites shows on TV (actually Hulu) is BBC’s Rev. It is about Rev. Adam Smallbone, a Vicar of a small inner city Anglican perish in London. If you have ever worked in a small church context or an inner city context you will appreciate this show. If you don’t believe me ask Mark Stevens!

Here are some sample clips (that admittedly are even funnier in the context of an episode):

I have seen three episodes (that is all Hulu has available this far) but it has dealt with sticky issues related to helping the poor, interfaith relations, contemporary church, maintaining a healthy sex life with one’s spouse, and the danger of being judgmental when combating social ills.  I won’t say anymore, but if you are familiar with “church life” I think you will like this show.

 


5 Comments

Alcatraz (1.2 and 1.3)

 

OK, so who has watched episodes 2 and 3 of Alcatraz? The show has captured my attention thus far. Of course, I find the most perplexing thing to be the timelessness of Dr. Beauregard and Dr. Sangupta/Lucy Banerjee. They are the same age as the “63′s” and they were both on Alcatraz when the prisoners disappeared. Also, as the moderator of AlcatrazHub.com has noted there seems to be something important about the drawing of blood.

Anyone have any theories as to what is happening?


14 Comments

Alcatraz (1.1)

FOX's Alcatraz

When LOST was popular I was working full-time doing a graveyard shift while going to graduate school at the same time. Needless to say I didn’t have an opportunity to dedicate much time to the last project by J.J. Abrams, et al. By the time I considered watching the end of the story was being talked about everywhere so I lost interest.  I hope Fox’s new show Alcatraz will be my redemption!

I watched episode 1 last night and it caught my attention enough to keep me viewing. (I watched it without my wife though, so you know I will be watching it twice!) The main plot is that when Alcatraz closed its doors it wasn’t because they transferred all the prisoners elsewhere. It is because they disappeared and they are reappearing decades later. You can read the network’s fuller description here.

I don’t image that there is much to “spoil” at this juncture, but if anyone comments and you read the comments be aware we may talk about what happened.

Did anyone else watch it yet? What did you think? What would you guess is happening? Do you think it has staying power?