The History Channels The Bible premiers tonight

[patrick457]

I loved the imagery of the burning bush! However, it really bothered me that for the Passover - they showed one lamb being cut - and everyone getting blood out to put on their doorpost. It totally left out the meal, the familes eating the lamb that they sacrificed.

Did that bother any one else?

I wonder if they will downplay the Last Supper.

Not really. Some Moses films tend to focus more on the daubing lamb’s blood over the doorposts rather than the meal. The Prince of Egypt, like The Bible, omits the meal entirely. (In fact, I note the overall huge influence The Prince of Egypt has on the Moses segment - something I already noted from the trailer.) DeMille’s The Ten Commandments show Moses and company having the meal, but AFAIK no scene where it is commanded.

A couple of films I know of that focus on the meal is the 1995 Moses (yet another Lux Vide production), which follows the biblical text more or less faithfully at this point, and the 2006 The Ten Commandments (the live-action TV series), but the overall impact of the scene in the latter is somewhat lessened due to that series’ de-emphasis on the Hebrews’ Hebrew identity (ironically, this is the only production along with the 1956 The Ten Commandments which shows Joseph’s bones being taken out of Egypt - in fact, this series even seems to pay more attention to it than in DeMille’s film): the animal blood is not explicitly identified as deriving from lambs or goats (in fact, what ‘meat’ they are to eat is never specified), and while Moses does command the people to tell their progeny of their former lives as slaves, there is no on-screen command of the meal being instituted as a perpetual ordinance.

BTW, did anyone notice how much of a large ham the pharaoh was here? I mean, he was more hammy than Yul Brynner’s Rameses.

 

[patrick457]

Um… did you also notice how a lot of the characters look Western European, and how THAT probably wouldn’t be accurate, either?

Jesus being the most blatant example.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Jesus being the most blatant example.

It’s odd that he would notice Samson but not Jesus. Considering that, well, you know… it’s Jesus!

 

[geneseesquire]

I saw an extended 4 minute trailer of the new miniseries that is launching Sunday, March 3rd, on the History channel. It looks like it will cover the Genesis to Revelations, and I for one am looking forward to this. Many of the Christian shows that I have watched on the History Channel have left something to be desired; typically there is some sort of liberal interjection in their “history.”

Thoughts…?

breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/02/01/history-channel-bible-extended-look

I watched some of the first episode and was extremely dissatisfied with the portrayal. Most of the important theological points were omitted or inaccurately represented. When Moses approached the burning bush, the Bible states that God told him to remove his sandals and that Moses hid his face in the presence of God. And that’s just one example of the corruption in this series.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

I watched some of the first episode and was extremely dissatisfied with the portrayal. Most of the important theological points were omitted or inaccurately represented. When Moses approached the burning bush, the Bible states that God told him to remove his sandals and that Moses hid his face in the presence of God. And that’s just one example of the corruption in this series.

“Corruption” oh come now. LOL I almost fell out of the chair reading that! They have only ten, that’s ten hours to portray the Bible stories. Jesus of Nazareth was a movie lasting six hours and that was only based on the Gospels. I will reiterate what I said almost when I started this thread; this series is a victory for us. With all the secularist anti-Christian
nonsense we see everytime we blink our eye’s these days I would think more people would share my feelings on this issue. Even if any of you have complaints so far, tune in this week, because this is the episode when Christ appears.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

“Corruption” oh come now. LOL I almost fell out of the chair reading that! They have only ten, that’s ten hours to portray the Bible stories. Jesus of Nazareth was a movie lasting six hours and that was only based on the Gospels. I will reiterate what I said almost when I started this thread; this series is a victory for us. With all the secularist anti-Christian
nonsense we see everytime we blink our eye’s these days I would think more people would share my feelings on this issue. Even if any of you have complaints so far, tune in this week, because this is the episode when Christ appears.

Yeah I LOL’d at “corruption” as well. Catholics are behind this series and many theologians have been consulted. They are doing the best they can.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

They probably had hundreds of hours of film … but had to cut it down to ten hours. [actually each televised hour is only 40 minutes … ]

So … about 2000 years of history condensed down to about seven hours.

So, get your Bible out and follow along …

 

[MugenOne]

Exactly! That’s how I feel as well. Some of you are too critical. If you want to have the Bible filmed in its entirety, hire a Hong Kong film crew.

“Corruption” oh come now. LOL I almost fell out of the chair reading that! They have only ten, that’s ten hours to portray the Bible stories. Jesus of Nazareth was a movie lasting six hours and that was only based on the Gospels. I will reiterate what I said almost when I started this thread; this series is a victory for us. With all the secularist anti-Christian
nonsense we see everytime we blink our eye’s these days I would think more people would share my feelings on this issue. Even if any of you have complaints so far, tune in this week, because this is the episode when Christ appears.

 

[pnewton]

“Corruption” oh come now. LOL I almost fell out of the chair reading that!

Same here. I am reminded of arm chair quarterbacks that are quick to lambast missed passes, forced fumbles and defensive breakdowns, but never played in the NFL. Corruption indeed.

There were parts I had to clarify with my family as we watched. But in the end, we watched it. We discussed the Bible. Many others did the same who may not have cracked the book or darkened a Church in years.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

Exactly! That’s how I feel as well. Some of you are too critical. If you want to have the Bible filmed in its entirety, hire a Hong Kong film crew.

Very, very well put my good sir!

 

[J_the_Centrist]

Same here. I am reminded of arm chair quarterbacks that are quick to lambast missed passes, forced fumbles and defensive breakdowns, but never played in the NFL. Corruption indeed.

There were parts I had to clarify with my family as we watched. But in the end, we watched it. We discussed the Bible. Many others did the same who may not have cracked the book or darkened a Church in years.

Exactly, people are discussing the Bible and that is a good thing! Furthermore, much of the people viewing this series are young people, like myself and even younger (way younger) than I am and the fact they are doing so is something none of us should complain about. Hopefully, this series and it’s success will spark a new trend of Biblically themed films, as it is obvious that there is an immense hunger for those in this country. Realistically though I think the very notion of this breaks the boundaries of naivety, Hollywood would never go in such a direction. For one thing, when Downey and Burnett presented the idea, the Hollywood execs wanted all New Testament references (yes Jesus included) removed from the series, God bless them for having the courage to refuse. Sometimes I think the only hope we have is to build a “new Hollywood”, where films could be made that reflect our values and beliefs.

 

[JCnMe]

haven’t read all of the posts- nor seen the storyline on the history channel as I don’t have cable-( I will buy the dvd when it comes out…)- but have seen some of those cast in the roles in promotions… as for Jesus- the line of David is said to have lighter eyes,skin and hair that still show up today…not all of Jewish descent are dark skinned and brown eyed…

 

[jediliz]

they did not have Mary visit Elizabeth (and no mention of her AT ALL) and they also seemed to portray Mary as having labor pains. rolls eyes And when they beheaded John the Baptist it was because Antipas (?) seemed to be annoyed not because the daughter of his lover requested the head as a gift.

I only saw the 2nd hour tonight since I watch Once Upon a time @ 7 PM.

BTW, what was the deal with Joseph and the Roman soldiers? It was like he was being drafted for service…when he finally returned, Mary was already pregnant with Jesus and he accused her of cheating on him.

 

[paul_c]

I like the fact that they are showing the Bible on the History Channel
I love that lots are people are watching it, which may clue Hollywood into the fact that there are millions of Americans that value their faith and would be interested in watching faith based shows (I loved touched by an angel)

But it does bother me that the producers deviate significantly from the bible text in ways that are not necessary. Why for instance did decide for instance to exclude Mary’s words: I am the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy words"? It seems to be a huge omission. And why create a situation where the Romans were harrassing her, prior to Gabriel’s visitation? Why not just follow the text for such an important event, particularly since it misses some important doctrinal teaching .

I also was disappointed in the calling of Peter. They have Jesus wading out to Peter’s boat, hoping in and asking Peter to fish. This is quite a change of dynamic from what the Bible really says. Jesus had met Peter through his brother Andrew, and Andrew was clued in to Jesus by John the baptist. And Jesus had preached from Peter’s boat at the shore before asking him to push out. And why skip over Peter’s reaction to the catch, Go away from me Lord, I am a sinful man.

I fully understand that they needed to trim the Bible down to fit in the allotted time, but I don’t get why they felt a need to change the greatest story ever told.

I also am a little dissapointed that they didn’t make more of an effort to tie the Old Testament to the new testament. Perhaps they will somehow as it goes on.

Again, I don’t want to be too critical because they are doing more than others have, and perhaps this will open up the doors to more and better works on the Bible.

 

[patrick457]

As promised, my observations on the Moses segment. Compared to Abraham, Moses has become the subject of a horde of movies and shows in the hundred years of cinema’s existence, perhaps (I’m not sure) second only to Jesus. Of course I’m not going to name all those here, but I would like to name a number of productions alongside The Bible to compare how they all handle the biblical text in their depiction of Moses:

The Ten Commandments (1956)
The Living Bible’s Moses, Called by God (1958)
Moses the Lawgiver (1974)
Moses (1995)
Testament: The Bible in Animation’s Moses (1996)
The Prince of Egypt (1998)
The Ten Commandments (2006)

• First of all, we’ll take note of the hotly-contested issue of the exact identity of the two pharaohs of the Exodus, which is key to the exact dating of the event. Cecil B. DeMille has popularized the identification of the two pharaohs as Seti I (reigned ca. 1290-1279 BC) and Rameses II (reigned 1279-1213 BC). * Within our choice of films, The Prince of Egypt is an example of this identification played straight. The Bible doesn’t name the elder pharaoh, but the younger pharaoh is identified as ‘Ramesses’ in the credits.

Moses the Lawgiver, the 1994 Moses and Testament, meanwhile opt for a variation on this theme: the elder pharaoh is Rameses II, while the younger is Merneptah (reigned 1213-1203 BC). In contrast to this, the 1958 Moses, Called by God and the 2007 The Ten Commandments simply dismiss the problem by following the text and never giving a name to these two pharaohs onscreen. (In fact, in the 1958 film, the two pharaohs are played by the same actor!)

• To be more exact though, DeMille actually had a total of three pharaohs in the 1956 film: the cruel pharaoh who enslaves the Israelites, the more kinder Sethi, and Rameses.

• Of course, there’s also the matter of Moses (in the biblical text, at least) being the adopted son of the pharaoh’s daughter. Which leads us to the question of: how would have he gone along with the Egyptians, and what would have been his exact relation to the royal family?

• The 1956 film shows Moses as the perfect, noble prince. (Here DeMille is taking a page from Philo and Josephus.) In fact, he is Sethi’s original choice for his heir before his Hebrew heritage and his murder of the Egyptian taskmaster are revealed, at which his rival for Sethi’s affection (and for “throne princess” Nefertiri’s love), Sethi’s son Rameses, claims the throne and the girl. Also, Moses is here adopted by Bithiah, who is actually Sethi’s sister; hence, Moses and Rameses are cousins.
• Moses the Lawgiver also shows Moses and the pharaoh-to-be (here, Merneptah) as cousins, and also depicts a contrast between the two, with the (much younger) Merneptah as a spoiled brat.
• Testament begins as Moses is being hunted down after having killed the taskmaster. In the palace, Rameses regrets his decision to allow Moses to be raised as an Egyptian and advises his son Merneptah to beware of such ‘weakness’. When Merneptah counters that the pharaoh must be just, the older pharaoh answers that he should be, but only to Egyptians. For the Hebrews, death is the price for disobedience. As Moses later flashes back to his former life, we see him having a very close bond with Merneptah (as in The Prince of Egypt below), although we see a difference in their reactions to the slaves’ hardships: Merneptah laughs in amusement, while Moses turns his head away in anguish. Later, as they race across town in their chariots, Moses stops to see the taskmaster beating a slave, whom he kills.
• Moses shows a portrayal of Moses antithetical to DeMille’s. Moses is here no noble prince, but a clumsy young man who could never quite fit in palace life. Almost everyone in the court despises him, including Rameses (Christopher Lee ) - who prefers his own son Merneptah. Only his daughter (here named Ptira), Moses’ adoptive mother, is sympathetic to him. For their part, Merneptah and Moses are bitter rivals, but again in stark contrast to DeMille, Moses is the underdog who is always bested at everything by his step-uncle.
• In The Prince of Egypt, it is not the Pharaoh’s daughter (as in Exodus or in Moses), nor his sister (as in DeMille), but his wife who takes Moses in, hence Moses becomes the adopted son of the pharaoh. In contrast to The Ten Commandments and its bitter rivalry between Moses and Rameses, here the two foster brothers actually get along pretty well. There is no indication that Moses was a wanted man after killing the taskmaster: quite the opposite, Rameses is willing to forgive Moses, and continues to offer a chance of reconciliation the next time they meet. Their relationship only begins to deteriorate when Rameses learns of Moses’ true reason for returning to Egypt.

 

[patrick457]

• The 2006 The Ten Commandments is unique among Moses films in that it doesn’t show Moses having a close relation in any form to the elder pharaoh or his son: he is a prince of Egypt, but he is only one of many such ‘princes’. Moses’ step-brother here is Menerith (the natural son of the pharaoh’s daughter Bithia), who eventually grows up to become the captain of the younger pharaoh’s army. As in The Prince of Egypt, the two are very close since their childhood - here Menerith covers up for Moses as Rameses did in TPoE - but their relationship takes a turn for the worse as soon as he comes back from the desert bringing the message of the Hebrew God.
• The Bible shows Moses having a more active rivalry between the younger pharaoh, who is apparently his step-uncle (the segment thus sticks close to Exodus by having Moses’ adoptive mother - named in the credits as Batya, an alternative transliteration of Bithiah - be the Pharaoh’s daughter), which stands in contrast to the more intellectual rivalry of DeMille or the 1995 Moses. The two duel within the palace - in contrast to the friendly chariot-race of The Prince of Egypt and Testament, which is ended by the elder pharaoh, but not before the younger pharaoh receives a scar on his right cheek. The elder pharaoh is strict towards his brash, rather hammy son but is kinder to Moses.

• The elder pharaoh in this production is played by Aharon Ipalé, the same guy who played Seti I in The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. If that isn’t Hollywood continuity I don’t know what is. Now it does explain why Ramesses here is covered with gold dust: hey, Imhotep’s priests looked that way. (I was half-jokingly expecting Imhotep to show up at any moment )
• There’s also the question of how Moses comes to know of his Hebrew identity and his reaction to this knowledge, something which is never explained in Scripture.

• DeMille has Moses first learning of it from Nefertiri (who learned it from Bithiah’s servant Memnet). Upon confirmation, Moses then fully accepts his identity, spending time working with the slaves to learn more of their lives. “Egyptian or Hebrew, I am still Moses.” This however comes as a surprise to everyone else, since Bithiah kept Moses’ actual origins a well-kept secret: Ramesses uses this information (leaked by Dathan) to gain one up over Moses, and Seti has no choice but to banish him upon learning the truth.
• Moses, Called by God shows a slavishly literal depiction of the text and thus skirts around the question, because it portrays only what is written in Exodus: wherein Moses’ childhood is never fully given in detail.
• In Moses the Lawgiver, Moses learns of his true origin as the man whom he had saved from the taskmaster rats him out during an inquiry, which prompts him to reunite with Jochebed before leaving Egypt.
• In Moses, Moses - and pretty much almost everyone else - suspects that he is Hebrew, although his adoptive mother Ptira is in a state of denial. Merneptah even insults him for this obliquely before the pharaoh and the royal court (“When is an Egyptian not an Egyptian?”). He thinks that Jochebed, his wet-nurse from childhood, might be his mother, which is later confirmed by a meeting with her immediately before he flees from Egypt.
• Testament has Moses recalling his earlier life to Jethro in semi-symbolic terms (comparing himself to a cuckoo and Merneptah to a hawk) accompanied with flashbacks, the implication being that Moses knew all along his being Hebrew (due to Jochebed acting as a nurse for Moses; Exodus 2:9-10). “I have been a man after my own heart and thought I had found it. But back in Memphis, I was a Hebrew suddenly, shaped of the shadow that had always followed me.” Moses here deems that he had gotten his earlier life dishonestly and seeks to start a new one in Midian.
• The Prince of Egypt’s Moses learns that he is an Israelite after a chance meeting with Miriam and Aaron. He reacts in horror to this news, but eventually confirms the truth after seeing a dream-vision. (We should note here that TPoE doesn’t have a scene where the young Miriam suggests to the pharaoh’s daughter that Jochebed should nurse Moses.)

 

[Monte_RCMS]

One of the interesting things to me was the lack of glamor in The Bible … Instead of Charlton Heston, we have some kind of unknown actor who does a good job … as one of millions of Jews who lived over that 2000 year period.

None of the actors has a manicure … they all look as if they have been living in tents in 120ºF weather in the desert with dust storms all the time and with not much water around.

They do a convincing job to demonstrate that life is difficult in general.

These are not folks who have been living in suburban San Diego. Or Larchmont.

If you read the whole bible, the book version, you get “put off” by all the killing … which is what was going on all over the world at the time and which is EXACTLY the same as what has been going on in those regions of the world during our own time … today … NO DIFFERENCE … not a nice bunch of people to hang out with.

If you think the horrible conditions in what the Bible, the book, describes are not the norm, then go onto the internet and read up on “human trafficking” … slavery today is just as prevalent and as nasty was it was back 3000 or 4000 years ago.

We, here, in Western Civilization, have been “spoiled” with not having had to live under those horrible conditions. If not for the civilizing influences of Christianity, we would be living just like those folks who are being depicted in the television show.

And now, of course, we have our neo-pagan society … in which we kill our own babies.

 

[pnewton]

I fully understand that they needed to trim the Bible down to fit in the allotted time, but I don’t get why they felt a need to change the greatest story ever told.

Consider this. Luke felt the need to change the story some, so he wrote his gospel. Then came John and he did the same thing. Now a producer today does not have the benefit of the Holy Spirit’s infallible guidance, nor of the ability to discuss with contemporaries. Furthermore, film is a different media than book. No screenplay ever written for a movie was “faithful” to the book, anymore than any translation can be an exact translation of another language. Change in making a movie about the Bible is inevitable. The only option is to not ever make biblical movies.

 

[paul_c]

Consider this. Luke felt the need to change the story some, so he wrote his gospel. Then came John and he did the same thing. Now a producer today does not have the benefit of the Holy Spirit’s infallible guidance, nor of the ability to discuss with contemporaries. Furthermore, film is a different media than book. No screenplay ever written for a movie was “faithful” to the book, anymore than any translation can be an exact translation of another language. Change in making a movie about the Bible is inevitable. The only option is to not ever make biblical movies.

why is it inevitable that a movie has to depart from its literary source? Is it because of the ego of the producers or screen writers? I’m also a little wary about your view that Luke felt he needed to change the story. Do you really think that was his motivation?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

why is it inevitable that a movie has to depart from its literary source? Is it because of the ego of the producers or screen writers? I’m also a little wary about your view that Luke felt he needed to change the story. Do you really think that was his motivation?

The Bible started out as oral history.

For 400 of their 3000 or so years … 20 generations, the Israelites lived in captivity in Egypt.

There were 332 pharaohs.

They got away from their roots.

The United States is barely more than 200 years old and look how far WE have drifted from our roots and our root documents.

Time and time again, the Israelites failed to be faithful to their covenant with G*d.

EVENTUALLY, some of their history got written down in Hebrew.

Some on papyrus … “paper” that disintegrates with time. Some on lambskin. Parchment is a thin material made from hide; often calfskin, sheepskin or goatskin

The Israeli people were basically nomadic desert tribes who fought wars with all their neighbors and very often were defeated in battle … these were not negotiated settlements … they were killed, slaughtered, and the survivors were dragged across the desert as part of the slave trade.

And got translated into Latin.

And eventually after 4000 years, found its way translated into English … and different “editions” … with variations that scholars still fight over. And different translations. And political correctness. Sodom and Gomorrah?

[What is the Hebrew original text of “Son of Man”, for example?]

And biblical archeologists are still discovering ancient relics that shed new light on some obscure point or other.

And then around AD632, the Muslims swept across and overran and conquered the whole region.

Libraries were burned.

So, in AD 2012, some film producers were told they had seven hours to tell the story of how you live in the desert for 3000 or more years … and get enslaved … and argue with G*d all the time [stiff necks] … and a meandering teacher named Joshua bin Josef comes along and gets crucified along with thousands of other difficult people … and then …

and then …

… and then …

HE rises from the dead.

Happy Easter!

[How do you tell that story on film to people who have no idea of what conditions were back then?]