The History Channels The Bible premiers tonight

[7_Sorrows]

Agreed! However, I like it a lot so far and have no complaints only that it should be 15 hours instead of 10 in order to tell the stories in greater detail. I read in the Hollywood Reporter that one of the criticisms of this film was that it puts too much emphasis on the Gospels, so I guess you won’t be disappointed.

if someone in hollywood gave that criticism, it is understandable. it is being shown on tv during the lenten season and so maybe the people who made the movie wanted to be shown as we approach Easter for a specific reason.
i don’t mean to say that the Old Testament stories are of lesser importance, but i do agree with you that the stories need to be told in greater detail.

 

[andrewstx]

Since when have films become “historically accurate”? And this coming from someone who likes to nitpick that sort of stuff.

But how far will we accept evangelical fundamentalism as being the only Christians and the norm for the United States?

If this series gets to the last supper and portrays it as being symbolic only I think we should all get upset and write letters.

 

[patrick457]

But how far will we accept evangelical fundamentalism as being the only Christians and the norm for the United States?

If this series gets to the last supper and portrays it as being symbolic only I think we should all get upset and write letters.

I’m not American, so I can’t comment on that, but I do notice that in popular culture, the “Christian” label is pretty much equivalent to Evangelicalism (I mean, ‘Christian music’; ‘Christian movies’, etc.) And no, I don’t think we’ll see any Jehovah’s Witnesses-esque “This means my body” - well, at least I hope so. Even actual Protestant productions I know of did not go so far, to their credit.

I should note (from the trailer) that Jesus here apparently will carry the whole cross - in fact, as I’ve said a number of times earlier, they really seem to have tried to copy The Passion of the Christ.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

The one that really hit me - was THIS ONE.

It just broke my heart…for I see too much of myself in it.

Peace
James

Wow, I never saw that one! Now that I have it not only reminds me of where I came from, but the work I still have to carry out. Thank you for sharing it!

Peace to you as well JRKH

 

[pnewton]

I love it! Very moving, very accurate. There is not one thing yet that contradicts anything in the Bible. Of course to show the emotions of real people, they have to add to it for dramatic effect and paraphrase the heck out of it (for instance, Sarah rushing to check on Abraham and Isaac), but nothing contradicts. That is a marvel.

 

[Dwyer]

Genesis 19: 4-9

4] But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;
[5] and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
[6] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[7] and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[8] Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
[9] But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door.

quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1801

I thought it was a better than average production and is worth watching.

They failed to deal with the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to commit homosexual acts on the two visitors (the Angels) but I guess that wouldn’t have gotten by today’s censors from the Hearst Corporation and Disney-ABC Television Group.

That’s my main criticism so far.

---

---

Anyone remember a 1970s version (mid to late 1970’s, maybe very early 1980s) of Genesis that was on TV?

I remember they showed Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, they must have shown Moses, and then they showed the Siege of Jericho which really stood out.

They showed the Israelite army marching around the walled city blowing their horns, and then when Jericho fell an idol statue of the god that the people of Jericho worshipped fell on the High Priest (who was sort of a short funny looking fellow) and crushed him.

Anyone remember what the name of this production was called? I doubt it was a Hollywood movie because it seemed more like a TV mini-series due to its length, but it might have been a movie.

It might have been called simply ‘Genesis’ or possibly also ‘The Bible’ but I’m not really sure what the title was.

It was shown on TV a few times but after that I never saw it again on TV.

If anyone can tell me the title of 1970s or early 1980s version, I’d appreciate it.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

I love it! Very moving, very accurate. There is not one thing yet that contradicts anything in the Bible. Of course to show the emotions of real people, they have to add to it for dramatic effect and paraphrase the heck out of it (for instance, Sarah rushing to check on Abraham and Isaac), but nothing contradicts. That is a marvel.

I agree completely, no matter whether one views Scripture through a literal or allegorical lens, or both (as I do depending on the area in question) they are remaining true to the text as written. That is something I believe we all can appreciate.

 

[patrick457]

Finally managed to see it, will write my thoughts about it shortly. For the record, those aren’t “ninja angels,” but angels with vaguely-Roman stock fantasy costumes/weaponry. I will agree that the angels vs. men of Sodom showdown in the Abraham story is a bit too excessive and laughably clicheish, but other than that, the series has started decently enough.

 

[JRKH]

Finally managed to see it, will write my thoughts about it shortly. For the record, those aren’t “ninja angels,” but angels with vaguely-Roman stock fantasy costumes/weaponry. I will agree that the angels vs. men of Sodom showdown in the Abraham story is a bit too excessive and laughably clicheish, but other than that, the series has started decently enough.

Yes - it was the actual fight/action scenes and not their costumes that prompted my “ninja angels” comment.
Also - in what little I saw, it seemed quite choppy. If one knows the bible stories, it would be easy enough to know what was going on…but if one does not, it could be difficult to follow.

That said, I suppose that it could prompt some to investigate the bible in order to get the “back-story”…

Peace
James

 

[J_the_Centrist]

Genesis 19: 4-9

quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1801

I thought it was a better than average production and is worth watching.

They failed to deal with the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to commit homosexual acts on the two visitors (the Angels) but I guess that wouldn’t have gotten by today’s censors from the Hearst Corporation and Disney-ABC Television Group.

That’s my main criticism so far.

---

---

Anyone remember a 1970s version (mid to late 1970’s, maybe very early 1980s) of Genesis that was on TV?

I remember they showed Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, they must have shown Moses, and then they showed the Siege of Jericho which really stood out.

They showed the Israelite army marching around the walled city blowing their horns, and then when Jericho fell an idol statue of the god that the people of Jericho worshipped fell on the High Priest (who was sort of a short funny looking fellow) and crushed him.

Anyone remember what the name of this production was called? I doubt it was a Hollywood movie because it seemed more like a TV mini-series due to its length, but it might have been a movie.

It might have been called simply ‘Genesis’ or possibly also ‘The Bible’ but I’m not really sure what the title was.

It was shown on TV a few times but after that I never saw it again on TV.

If anyone can tell me the title of 1970s or early 1980s version, I’d appreciate it.

I know of ‘The Bible’ a film from the 1960s that has all of the stories you described in it. I know of none from the 1970s and 1980s that has all of these in one production. In any case, if such a film exists I most likely wasn’t even born yet, I just happen to love film. If any such movie exists I also am interested. For the movie I provided above, I have seen the trailor on youtube, but years ago. I don’t know if its still on there but if you go to youtube and type something like ‘The Bible 1960s movie’ you may get.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/03/08/most-popular-show-on-tv/

most-popular-show-on-tv/

 

[Marie5890]

Producer Mark Burnett’s description of “weird” miraculuous happening during filming…

theclicker.today.com/_news/2013/03/08/17239036-mark-burnett-on-miraculous-the-bible-weird-things-happened-during-filming?lite

 

[patrick457]

Okay, as promised, my preliminary thoughts and observations:

Noah

• The opening sequence of the first episode handles the primordial history rather well. It manages to condense the first ten chapters of Genesis within five minutes with a high note of suspense. The filmmakers follow the trend of recent films here of showing the creation mythos - no, not ‘myth’ in that sense - in the form of oral narration. In fact, Genesis: The Creation and Flood produced by the Italian company Lux Vide as part of The Bible Collection series is literally built upon this idea: the idea of ancient history being passed down in the form of campfire stories. (Another production which follows this route is the 2000 TV movie In the Beginning.) A contrast between that production and this is that here the one who narrates the story is Noah to his family, while in In the Beginning it is Abraham to his. In Genesis, meanwhile, it is an unnamed elderly nomad fills in the role (in the case of this particular film, there may be some implicit connection between the narrator and the Noah figure who first appears at the second half - not least because the two characters are both played by the same actor). The Bible’s idea of showing Noah narrating it while the Flood is occuring is IMHO a brilliant concept.

Opening Sequence

• I note how overtly Christian this production is. The opening production for instance, features the words of Jesus over the scenes from the Old Testament and the New.
• Speaking of this film’s Jesus, he really fits the mold of the standard pop culture image of Christ: a handsome, young white man with long, tidy hair.

Abraham

I will again compare this film with another film, namely Abraham (another Lux Vide production, with Richard Harris in the title role).

• I should note that they really simplified things here: Abram and Sarai do not undergo name changes, but are known from the start as ‘Abraham’ and ‘Sarah’. I’ll call the character in this film consistently as ‘Abraham’, while the pre-name change biblical figure and the character in Abraham will be called Abram.
• I note the contrast between the two productions in the context of Abram’s call. In this particular film, we immediately begin with God’s call of Abraham and his departure from Ur of the Chaldeans. Abraham fleshes the backstory out a bit, focusing on how empty Abram’s life was before an unknown God calls him from out of the blue. There is also a difference in the way Abram’s former life is portrayed. In Abraham, Terah’s family live in Ur of the Chaldeans under rent: Terah and Abram live a semi-nomadic lifestyle as shepherds, while Lot and Nahor stay in the city. (This sets up a prefigurement for Lot’s decision to settle in Sodom: Abram and Lot were not total strangers to nomadism and sedentism, respectively.) Here, Abraham and Lot both dwell in the city; no mention is made of Terah or of Abram’s brothers.
• Another difference is the particular faith of Abram before his call. Abraham establishes that Terah’s family are polytheists following the local Mesopotamian cult and that Abram is called by a mysterious, unknown God; here, although a brief scene shows Sarah worshipping in front of figurines of deities, Abraham speaks of “God” without further explanation.
• The film from the offset establishes Lot’s wife as a negative character: she contests most everything Abraham says and does, which makes it hard for the audience to sympathize with her when she becomes a pillar of salt.

 

[patrick457]

• The film omits Abram’s short stint in Egypt where he passes off Sarai as his sister (Genesis 12:10-20), as well as the highly similar incident in Gerar (Genesis 20), and skips straight to the feud between Abram and Lot’s men (Genesis 13). A difference here and the biblical text is that here, Abraham is somewhat reluctant to let Lot go, while in Genesis, Abram himself is the one who suggests that they part ways. By comparison, Abraham includes the sojourn to Egypt but not the one at Gerar.
• The Battle of Siddim (Genesis 14) is reduced to Lot and his family being taken hostage. In fact, Lot here hasn’t settled down in Sodom yet (he had only said earlier that they are going to move to the pastures near Sodom): one can infer that his decision to live in the city in this film may be motivated by this raid. This is in contrast to Genesis, where Lot and others were taken as prisoners of war after the defeat of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (14:8-12). (P.S. I will admit that Abraham’s cry of “trust in God” as they charge towards Lot’s captors sounded a bit cheesy. )
• The covenant between God and Abram (Genesis 15) is reduced to a conversation between Abraham and Sarah. I should note that no film as of now has yet ever attempted to depict the bizzare covenant ritual involving dismembered animal parts and a levitating firepot (15:7-21). Even Abraham, which starts off showing a covenant being made between Terah and the local landlord (thus giving a historical context for biblical covenants), only depicts God’s conversation with Abram, with Abram simply offering a (normal) burnt sacrifice afterwards. There is a slight anachronism in Abraham’s hesitance to accept Sarah’s suggestion that he have a child with Hagar (concubinage and polygyny were after all not unusual in those days, so Sarai’s suggestion isn’t too weird as it is now).
• I find interesting the film’s breaking the mold of blonde, white angels by showing one of Abraham’s three visitors as a black man and the other as an Asian, but at the same time I can’t shake the feeling that their attempt at political correctness a tad too far. (Which also brings us to the question: if they can break popular conceptions about what angels look like, why is The Bible’s Jesus still the sanitized white dude of pop Christianity? )
• Sidetracking a bit: I think the angels look better when they have their capes on. The pseudo-Roman armor they wear beneath is, well, quite tacky and unconvincing. I actually think that one of the greatest mysteries of mankind is solved: where does the 2004 King Arthur’s Lancelot gets his fighting style from. Hey, Lancelot must be angel!
• God kinda looks like Jesus. Hmm…now that’s a good example of Christophany right there.
• Lot’s motivation for welcoming the angels here is apparently because they are treated cruelly by the Sodomites. This is actually in line with the Jewish interpretation which posits that the greatest sin of Sodom was actually lack of hospitality to the stranger. There was the story about the “bed” that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up (a la Procrustes). JRKH noted how the film omits Lot’s offering his daughters to the men of Sodom, but given their portrayal here as young girls (unlike in Genesis, where they are already of marriageable age and have husbands) I think that would be out of the question anyway.
• The men of Sodom are struck blind rather gruesomely, and we get the…‘angels vs. Sodomites’ fight. As I said earlier, this is really the weakest point of the whole film. It does raise a question: why bother with the fire and brimstone when you can just slice through hordes of civillians in a matter of seconds?

For comparison, here is the scene from Abraham showing the three visitors and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[patrick457]

• No clear motivation is given here for Hagar’s and Ishmael’s expulsion except Sarah’s jealousy. Since the film omits their encounter with the angel in the wilderness (21:15-21), God’s promise to make a nation out of Ishmael is put on the lips of Abraham as the two begin to leave.
• When God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham visibly objects. Interestingly, Matt Page in his review of Abraham also notes how that production chooses to handle this incident in quite similar manner:

That said, as the film progresses the histoircal strengths of the film seems to fade a little. For example, there is indication that Abraham lived in a culture where child sacrifice was not uncommon. This certainly changes the impact of the text somewhat, which never indicates an angsty reluctance on Abraham’s part. Removing the story from this context, and portraying Abraham as a proto-21st century father is, of course, very common, but it politicises the text into form easily manipulated by preachers. “Do you love God enough to sacrifice the things you hold most dear”? It’s an important question of course, but the story can be read in other ways.

• The depiction of Sarah as visibly disturbed that Abraham is going to do something to their son is more jarring especially considering the preceding scene is her goading Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishmael. IMHO it’s open to the interpretation that she thinks Abraham somehow acts in retaliation of that event.
• The two Abraham films both end at the same point: when the sacrifice of Isaac is aborted, which is understandable since the following three chapters (Genesis 23-25) mark a shift in the main characters.

To finish this segment, here’s a little scene guide.

The call of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-9)
Abraham and Lot separate (Genesis 13:1-13)

One year later
The rescue of Lot (Genesis 14:13-16)
God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:5-7)
Hagar (Genesis 16:1-4a, 15)

Ten years later
The birth of Isaac promised (Genesis 18:1-15)
Abraham intercedes for Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33)
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-26)
The birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:1-7)
Hagar and Ishmael expelled (Genesis 21:10-14)

Fourteen years later
The sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-19)

Next stop: Moses.

 

[Borealis]

We didn’t catch the premiere on the 3rd, but fortunately the show was replayed last night, and we DVR’ed it. My wife and I were watching the 1966 ‘The Bible: In the Beginning’ movie last week, and it took half an hour to get through Genesis 3, and my wife was bored to tears. I thought it was moving rather slowly as well. But she, our four-year-old son, and myself were very much drawn to this production. My wife, who is somewhat new to scriptural reading, was very proud to recognize some of the scenes as ones she has recently read. I noticed the discrepancies (like the totally understandable skipping over of the last half of Genesis, and the lack of a pillar of fire at the Red Sea), and our son was mesmerized. We’ve been teaching him the rudiments of the Baltimore Catechism, and he enjoyed the movie a great deal. We’ve set the remainder of the series to record, and we’re looking forward to watching it together.

 

[Gorgias]

Okay, as promised, my preliminary thoughts and observations:

Three posts are just preliminary thoughts?

here the one who narrates the story is Noah to his family

So… who’s the young girl to whom he’s speaking? Noah took his wife, his three sons and their wives into the ark. No mention of a daughter or a grand-daughter…

here, although a brief scene shows Sarah worshipping in front of figurines of deities, Abraham speaks of “God” without further explanation.

They make the same ‘error’ when dealing with Pharaoh’s statements to Moses. In a polytheistic society, it doesn’t make sense to talk about ‘God’; in our (at least culturally-)theistic society, references to ‘God’ make sense; therefore, the production panders to our culture for the sake of simplicity of reference.

The film from the offset establishes Lot’s wife as a negative character: she contests most everything Abraham says and does, which makes it hard for the audience to sympathize with her when she becomes a pillar of salt.

Yep; it even lays ‘blame’ for the separation between Lot and Abraham at her feet, although the Bible puts this speech in the mouth of Abraham.

Let’s also not forget that they get the notion of Sarah’s barrenness wrong: when Abraham mentions the promise of a son, Lot’s wife tells Sarah that everyone just knows that she cannot have a baby! Umm… whaaaa? Sarah, as portrayed, is way too young (as is Abraham – one gets the feeling that the producers didn’t want to show an old man leading the battle to rescue Lot). Her inability to conceive is explained by her age, not by a common understanding that she cannot bear children based on medical knowledge! The show seems to get age wrong in a big way – maybe as a desire to avoid the question of human longevity in Genesis – but in doing so, they change the dynamics of the stories therein!

The Battle of Siddim (Genesis 14) is reduced to Lot and his family being taken hostage.

This particularly bothered me, since it reduced Abraham from a political figure to be reckoned with to a guy who simply was fulfilling his family obligations to redeem a relative. (And, since I’m on the subject, what’s up with Sarah? “He made his own choice”??? No one in that culture would have made that particular objection to Abraham’s desire to save Lot! Oh, the anachronisms are getting pretty deep, here!)

The pseudo-Roman armor [the angels] wear

…not to mention the portrayal of the ‘Asian’ angel as a ninja. The story of Sodom is simply that the men of the town wished to kill the angels? And the angels respond with fancy two-handed swordplay? Puh-leeze…!

When God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham visibly objects.

Worse yet, Isaac himself is portrayed as struggling against Abraham. The ‘resolution’ of the scene, then, shifts from the appearance of a ram (a-hem! it’s a ram, not a lamb, History Channel!) to the scene in which Isaac runs away from Abraham into the comforting arms of Sarah! Whether it was inadvertent or not, they’ve changed the story into “Abraham is a religious nut, and even his family realize that he’s not quite right in the head…”

 

[patrick457]

Three posts are just preliminary thoughts?

Yes. When I get right serious a whole thread will probably follow and much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

They make the same ‘error’ when dealing with Pharaoh’s statements to Moses. In a polytheistic society, it doesn’t make sense to talk about ‘God’; in our (at least culturally-)theistic society, references to ‘God’ make sense; therefore, the production panders to our culture for the sake of simplicity of reference.

So what, you want the film to become as comprehensive as a scholar’s tome that nobody actually reads?

Yep; it even lays ‘blame’ for the separation between Lot and Abraham at her feet, although the Bible puts this speech in the mouth of Abraham.

Speaking of which, I’ve just been watching Testament: the Bible in Animation’s treatment of the Abraham story (there ain’t much cinematic treatments of Abraham in the history of film; I’ve only managed to watch four, including this particular production). It struck me that there are more similarities between that production and this, not least because of the short running length that both share (25 minutes in the case of Testament). For one, let’s compare the choice of scenes between The Bible and Testament:

The Bible

The call of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-5)
Abraham and Lot separate (Genesis 13:1-13)
The rescue of Lot (Genesis 14:13-16)
God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:5-7)
Hagar and Sarah (Genesis 16:1-4a, 15)
The birth of Isaac promised (Genesis 18:1-15)
Abraham intercedes for Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33)
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-26)
The birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:1-7)
Hagar and Ishmael expelled (Genesis 21:10-14)
The sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-13)

Testament: The Bible in Animation

The call of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-5)
God’s promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:17a; 13:16)
Abraham and Lot separate (Genesis 13:8-13)
Hagar and Sarah (Genesis 16:1-16)
The birth of Isaac promised (Genesis 18:1-15)
Abraham intercedes for Sodom (Genesis 18:16-26, 32-33)
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-3, 15-26)
The birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:1-7)
Hagar and Ishmael expelled (Genesis 21:10-14, 17-19)
The sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-13)

Both films condense the Abraham into key events, and even simplifies things. In both there is no change of name: the couple are known as Abraham and Sarah from the beginning. (Yet another Abraham film, this time from the 1950s, Abraham: Man of Faith* - with a running time of 14 minutes! - also does so.)

While in The Bible Lot’s wife is a negative character, in Testament Lot itself fills this role. [He complains to Abraham](

(name removed by moderator)E#t=05m41s) for their need to leave Haran and its comforts for the hard desert (yes, I mistakenly referred to Ur of the Chaldeans earlier, sorry about that). Hence, in Testament, the motivation for uncle and nephew going their separate ways is not so much of a quarrel between the two’s men, but due to Lot being a whiner. And yes, Testament also casually makes reference to “God.”

Testament itself is a children’s production and thus omits the harsher parts of the story including the capture of Lot or the men of Sodom showing up at his front door. Instead, the angels magically teleport Lot and his family away from their house into the outskirts of the city. Still, the destruction of Sodom is shown in some detail here when compared to other productions. Also, it is the only adaptation where the first expulsion of Hagar is depicted.

• As the name implies, [Abraham: Man of Faith](
  (name removed by moderator)E#t=05m41s) only shows the ‘good’ bits of Abraham’s life, omitting events which might cast a negative image. That means no Hagar and Ishmael, no “Abram the Hebrew” who goes to battle, no lying to pharaohs and kings.

 

[patrick457]

Let’s also not forget that they get the notion of Sarah’s barrenness wrong: when Abraham mentions the promise of a son, Lot’s wife tells Sarah that everyone just knows that she cannot have a baby! Umm… whaaaa? Sarah, as portrayed, is way too young (as is Abraham – one gets the feeling that the producers didn’t want to show an old man leading the battle to rescue Lot). Her inability to conceive is explained by her age, not by a common understanding that she cannot bear children based on medical knowledge! The show seems to get age wrong in a big way – maybe as a desire to avoid the question of human longevity in Genesis – but in doing so, they change the dynamics of the stories therein!

There is certainly a trend for recent biblical movies to show much younger characters (I’m thinking particularly of The Prince of Egypt and its not too old Moses leading the Israelites out of slavery). G. Andrew Tooze in Moses and the Reel Exodus notes the trend of Moses getting increasingly younger in film adaptations.

Out of the live adaptations of the Abraham story, I think Abraham is the one that really pulled the age thing rather decently, at least in the part of Abraham (the fact that Richard Harris was in his sixties when that was filmed may have played a part). Barbara Hershey’s Sarai/Sarah wasn’t too bad either.

As for the question of Sarai/Sarah’s infertility, one could pose the question: if Sarai’s barrenness in Genesis 18 was caused by her advanced age at the time of her statement, then why didn’t Abram and Sarai have a child during the theoretical time period when she was still able to? The usual answer that films have is that Sarah’s infertility was a condition she already had even when they were just leaving Haran: in other words, it is not that Sarah could no longer conceive, but that she could not conceive. This is the route taken by The Bible and Abraham (where it is established early on that Sarah could not bear children), and is also something implied in Testament.

This particularly bothered me, since it reduced Abraham from a political figure to be reckoned with to a guy who simply was fulfilling his family obligations to redeem a relative. (And, since I’m on the subject, what’s up with Sarah? “He made his own choice”??? No one in that culture would have made that particular objection to Abraham’s desire to save Lot! Oh, the anachronisms are getting pretty deep, here!)

I think it is an attempt by the filmmakers to emphasize the whole “few against many” theme. While I did think that they kind of overplayed this element a bit - the raiders who captured Lot, while better-equipped, don’t seem to be that many when compared to Abraham and his men - it does tie in with the overall theme of the episode: trust in God. (That’s a beautiful concept right there, but Abraham’s using as a war cry didn’t come off to me as being dramatic.)

…not to mention the portrayal of the ‘Asian’ angel as a ninja. The story of Sodom is simply that the men of the town wished to kill the angels? And the angels respond with fancy two-handed swordplay? Puh-leeze…!

Ninjas don’t fight in public view. Shinobi-no-mono, ‘men of stealth’.

Worse yet, Isaac himself is portrayed as struggling against Abraham. The ‘resolution’ of the scene, then, shifts from the appearance of a ram (a-hem! it’s a ram, not a lamb, History Channel!) to the scene in which Isaac runs away from Abraham into the comforting arms of Sarah! Whether it was inadvertent or not, they’ve changed the story into “Abraham is a religious nut, and even his family realize that he’s not quite right in the head…”

At least I think it’s better than the very sanitized portrayal of Isaac in Abraham: Man of Faith.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

If anyone is interested last weeks episode is already on youtube. It doesn’t have any commercials and plays uninterrupted. This is very good, especially for those lacking cable or just the History Channel.