The History Channels The Bible premiers tonight

[J_the_Centrist]

Oh, I’m not dissing the series itself; in fact I’m following it and actually enjoying it except for some of the pet peeves. They should compress, given the timetable they have, but they can also do better by not omitting significant details such as some of those I mentioned. They could have done better with the details of David’s story (especially Nathan’s confrontation) and the attempted execution of Daniel’s friends. They could have accurately portrayed John the Baptist’s death, used the narrator, or skipped it altogether instead of presenting it in a way that has absolutely no support in the texts, and still keep to the timetable.

I’m just pointing out some areas that for me weaken the story with the liberties taken.

Or is the series immune to criticism on this board, because if it’s hands-off, I can stop.

Ok, you put me in my place LOL. There are many people on here complaining about things that are ridiculous and insignificant, not seeming to understand that this series is a victory for us. I also have complaints, both as a Biblically literate person, as well as someone who has studied film and filmmaking. Though I am overwhelmingly satisfied, even if I hated the series I would never fail to realize the victory this series is culturally, as well as spiritually.

I also didn’t understand the lack of clarification with the John the Baptist character. What about Esther (Haddassah), Jonah, Deborah, Ahab and Jezebel, the other two wise men (unless I’m mistaken), etc. These are all understandable complaints, but I would rather give air time to this series than, well, most if not all of the nonsense on TV today. I’m not even “old” and I’m saying that.

 

[RobbyS]

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 …

The best part of this is that it considers the Bible as a single entity, ending with the appearance of Christ.

 

[RobbyS]

Just completed episodes 7/8. Generally enjoyable, but I have identified my peeves from that one.

Daniel and company were exiled during the first Babylonian invasion, during Jehoiakim’s reign, not Zedekiah’s (which was the third Babylonian invasion).

The description of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was too abbreviated. The four metals and the feet of iron mixed with clay was an important detail and should have been included.

The attempted execution of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah was not as powerful as it could have been. The fire should have been pre-kindled and the soldiers killed by the intense heat as they threw them in. This would have emphasized the power of the miracle.

Daniel was thrown to the lions under Cyrus, not Darius as the book of Daniel relates, but I can let this pass since historically, there was likely no “Darius the Mede” in real history and the deuterocanonical Bel and the Dragon does place Cyrus in the role of the king who threw Daniel to the lions (under different circumstances). I can accept that there was a real Daniel while also accepting that the genre of the book is apocalyptic and not strictly historical.

The timetable between Jesus’ birth, the visit of the Magi and the massacre of the innocents is too compressed.

John the Baptist is executed for political reasons, rather than as part of the trick hatched by Herodias. Antipas is portrayed as sadistic towards John when in fact he respected John and enjoyed listening to him. Antipas was greatly troubled after realizing that he had been tricked into ordering John’s execution.

Jesus called Simon “Peter” from the get-go, way before his confession at Caesarea Philippi.

To be honest, I’m quite annoyed by these lapses.

Jesus may have dubbed Simon as “Rocky” before, maybe because Simon was so mercurial.

 

[patrick457]

Postponing the Moses segment - and the other bits - to focus on Jesus (because that’s what’s everyone’s talking about nowadays). My observations:

• I like how the Jesus segment opens with the incident in Josephus (Jewish War 1.648-655) where the golden eagle is torn down out of the Temple gate (the only other major Jesus film I know of which shows this event is The Greatest Story Ever Told), which helps show the very volatile political situation at the turn of the era. (There is a slight alteration here: the eagle is over the actual sanctuary itself, which does put the question of why the Romans were able to enter the Court of the Israelites. But then again the scene does happen at night, so…)
• After we get introduced to a very bloated and (somewhat grossly) ill Herod the Great, we are introduced to Mary and a (rather young) Joseph. This is where Mark Goodacre - one of the historical consultants for the series - says:

While Herod is suffering away in his palace, the viewer gets to meet Mary and Joseph for the first time, in Nazareth in Galilee. The viewer is treated to an imagination of a first century BCE synagogue. This, of course, is difficult to imagine given our lack of detailed knowledge, but I was delighted to see Mary and Joseph sitting down next to one another, in a scene that depicts the meeting of their eyes.

Since several people have asked me about the role of an academic consultant, this is the kind of thing that one comments on. There was a question, for example, over whether or not to depict Mary and Joseph separated into different parts of the synagogue, a male section and a female section. This is where a consultant points out that there is no evidence for that kind of segregation in this period. It is one of those areas where history and drama come together – the scene works better as drama if the two are side by side, but it coheres at the same time with what we know of the history.

• That being said I do find the series’ falling into the stereotype of Romans as this big group of baddies who did nothing but raid houses, bully locals and crucify people left and right to be rather unfortunate. It’s a popular image, but historically it is actually more likely that Roman rule was indirect (meaning that they’re not always everywhere patrolling the streets and such), and that the Jews more or less governed their own affairs. In fact, the series seems to imply that Herod the client king was using only Roman troops, which might be great dramatically, but historically is a bit off. E.P. Sanders goes into this in more detail in his paper Jesus in Historical Context.

New Testament scholars often think of Rome as occupying Palestine in Jesus’ day, with soldiers on the street corners. Many older commentaries on Matthew, for example, describe Jesus’ healing the servant of a Roman centurion in Capernaum (Matthew 8.5-13), thus importing into the story a Roman military officer. But Matthew states only that the man was a military officer. Some of the scholars who fit into sketch three, however, go much further, pointing to Sepphoris (only a few miles from Jesus’ home in Nazareth) as the seat of the Roman administration of Galilee in Jesus’ day, staffed by high-ranking Romans with Roman troops stationed nearby. Others write about Rome “ruling” and “occupying” Palestine in Jesus’ day, and one scholar even proposes that Rome had “annexed” Palestine.

None of this bears the faintest resemblance to reality. A full understanding of the governmental structures in Palestine in Jesus’ day would demand that we go back over a hundred years. It will be sufficient, though, to begin with Herod the Great, who reigned from 37 to 4 BCE and died about the time Jesus was born. His two wills divided his kingdom among some of his sons. After Augustus Caesar considered Herod’s wills and determined which points would be binding, three sons stepped into office and governed their parts of Herod’s former kingdom on the same terms and conditions that had applied to their father.

What were those terms and conditions? Herod conquered his kingdom with the aid of Roman troops, but he then hastened to get rid of them, in fact paid large bribes to make sure they left. They did not return. Herod ruled his kingdom and defeated his enemies by using his own army of mixed Idumean and Jewish troops. He was probably the ablest of Rome’s client kings.

Rome’s client kingdoms may be compared to the countries of Eastern Europe before the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia all had their own governments. They passed laws and enforced them. They had to contribute to the Soviet Empire in various ways, but Moscow intervened directly in these countries only very occasionally, when unrest or civil tumult got out of hand or when a brash government felt too independent. That is similar to the way Rome dealt with Palestine. Herod ruled, and, as long as he ruled correctly (in Rome’s view), he was left in peace. The conditions of his rule were that he pay tribute, that he defend his borders, that he not allow revolt at home, and that he contribute troops to any military activity Rome wished to carry out in one of the nearby countries.

 

[patrick457]

As a semi-independent king-completely independent in domestic policy, provided he observed the four conditions-Herod carried out fantastic building schemes, and he probably imported gentile architects and head masons. At least one of his principal aides, Nicholaus (or Nicholas) of Damascus, was a gentile, and Herod built some cities that were heavily populated with gentiles, but these were new cities. Herod did not fill the Jewish parts of his kingdom with gentiles. A lot of Jews lived in the gentile cities, such as Caesarea, but not many gentiles lived in the predominantly Jewish cities. Herod was more a Jewish king than a geographical king, though the thinly populated area east of the Jordan valley and north of the Sea of Galilee was predominantly gentile.

Moreover, in many ways, Herod was loyal to Jewish law and traditions. He did not put his own image, or that of Augustus, or that of a pagan god on his coins. He respected the temple and lavished attention and money on it To comply with new pious views of purity, he even had priests trained as masons so that laypeople would never step into the most sacred areas of the temple. In all of his palaces, he installed Jewish immersion pools so that he, his family, and his staff could be pure by Jewish law. He defended Jewish rights in the Diaspora, which shows that he thought that, even in gentile lands, Jews did not have to become like gentiles. They could remain partially separate; they could keep the sabbath, assemble in synagogues, and eat kosher food.

• Still, the depiction of the Roman tax raid helps to bring out the popular idea of why a messiah was needed; I think it segues nicely into the Annunciation. There’s also a contrast here between other films: whereas in other adaptations Gabriel appears to Mary during the peaceful routine of daily life, here the revelation comes in the midst of chaos, the light in the darkness, so to speak.
• Did I mention how tacky the angels’ armor is?
• The way the angel appears to Joseph here vaguely reminds me of the same scene from Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Il Vangelo secondo Matteo (aka The Gospel according to St. Matthew).
• I won’t comment on the film’s harmonization of the Matthaean and Lukan infancy narratives, which almost everyone is doing anyway, and its use of conventional imagery (such as the huge star of Bethlehem). I’m not too much bothered by the series’ focus on only one magos (Balthazar) out of the three: this is just the law of conservation at play. Got to admit that the huge rain which greets the holy couple as they arrive at Bethlehem is a new, nice touch.
• BTW, glad to see that for once, playnot the whole “no room in the inn” thing and show nasty innkeepers slamming the door shut over Mary and Joseph’s faces.
• The film then shows the quelling of the popular uprising after Herod’s death by the legate of Syria, Quintilius Varus, which ended with the crucifixion of two thousand people (Antiquities 17:295-98). This is one of those rare instances where Rome directly intervened in Judaean affairs, although they are not as brutal as the series shows them to be:

Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. After which he disbanded his army, which he found no way useful to him in the affairs he came about; for they behaved themselves very disorderly, and disobeyed his orders, and what Varus desired them to do, and this out of regard to that gain which they made by the mischief they did. As for himself, when he was informed that ten thousand Jews had gotten together, he made haste to catch them; but they did not proceed so far as to fight him, but, by the advice of Achiabus, they came together, and delivered themselves up to him: hereupon Varus forgave the crime of revolting to the multitude, but sent their several commanders to Caesar, many of whom Caesar dismissed; but for the several relations of Herod who had been among these men in this war, they were the only persons whom he punished, who, without the least regard to justice, fought against their own kindred.

One thing I find interesting about many recent Jesus films is their attempt to show how crucifixion wasn’t just some special punishment reserved for Jesus and the two men crucified with Him, but is a regular, normal part of the sea of civilization.

 

[patrick457]

• The young Jesus seeing crucified people (thereby glimpsing into His eventual fate) is by now, a cliche of Jesus films. The Greatest Story Ever Told started it IMHO, and was taken up by a number of productions like the 1999 Jesus and this.
• A little digression about Pilate and Antipas. Antipas is shown as being in Judaea, although in reality he was the tetrarch (‘ruler of a fourth’) of the Galilee. Antipas ruled the Galilee as his father had governed a much larger territory, and on the same terms and conditions: he paid tribute, cooperated with Rome and kept public order, for which in return Rome protected him against invasion, not so much by stationing troops in the country or on the borders (Antipas also had his own troops), but by the implied threat of retaliation against invaders. Like Herod the Great, Antipas was more or less free to run his tetrarchy as he wished as long as he fulfilled the main conditions, and he was a good politician like his father.

Judaea, on the other hand, had a quite different fate after Herod died. Here we encounter the other two ruling officials: the high priest and the Roman prefect. To explain how and why they governed Judaea while Antipas governed the Galilee, we have to go back to Herod’s death.

When Herod died, Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea were combined in a political unit called “Judaea;” they were governed by another of Herod’s sons, Archelaus. He started out, as did Antipas, governing this region as his father had done, but since he was controlling a difficult territory and was himself incompetent - he did not know when to yield to the will of the people and when to repress dissent - Rome took him out, because the Jews and Samaritans were complaining about his heavy-handedness as well. Augustus decided not to give this region to another of Herod’s sons, but to rule it directly, and he sent Coponius, a Roman of the equestrian order (thus, of some position in life), with a small number of troops, to govern Archelaus’ terittory. When this decision was made, there was a small uprising, but it was put down, and the Romans settled in to rule part of Palestine - for the first time. They had conquered Palestine seventy years earlier, but had not governed any of it before, except for a very brief period after the initial conquest when they imposed military control before deciding on which Jews would rule the country.

Coponius and the prefects who succeeded him lived in one of Herod’s palaces in Herod’s most agreeable city, Caesarea Maritima, which was heavily gentile. With the prefect stayed 3,000 troops, not enough to put down a serious uprising, but enough for minor riots limited to only one city. In addition to the cohorts settled in Caesarea, there was a garrison in a fort next to the temple complex in Jerusalem (the Antonia fortress), but its soldiers seldom had police duties. A few other very small garrisons were established in existing forts in other parts of the country. Those troops, too, had no regular police duties.

Most of the year, the prefect and a good deal of his soldiers stayed in Caesarea with other gentiles. The Jewish high priest, assisted by other aristocrats, many of whom were also priests, handled local government for him. Police duties were the responsibility of the high priest’s guards. Of course the priests were not Rome’s first choice, but in the absence of a strongman like Herod the Great, they fell back on local tradition: rule by the aristocracy, especially the priestly aristocracy. These local magistrates did the the prefect’s normal duties, such as management of daily affairs and collection of taxes, for him. The prefect would have only showed up a few times each year in public, usually in potentially dangerous seasons like Passover to watch out for potential unrest, to ensure that the huge crowds did not get out of hand, hence the reason why Pilate was ‘available’ in Jerusalem during Good Friday.

• What is it with John the Baptizer and dreadlocks?

 

[patrick457]

• Herod is visibly concerned about John and voices it aloud to Pilate, who advises him to keep an eye on the latter. This again is taken from Josephus (Antiquities 18.116-119):

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt – for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise – believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.

Again, I’ll let Goodacre have a say here:

Once the narrative moves forward by a few years, the political context requires some further explanation. Once again, turgid exposition is avoided and instead we see an encounter between Pontius Pilate, the newly arrived governor of Judea, and Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. The encounter between them sets the scene nicely for the drama to follow both in the immediate context – John’s baptism and death, and the broader context – the trial and crucifixion next week:

The conversation between the two men not only establishes the politics of the region and the period but also the question of a “Messiah” and what this language means. It reminds me of Peter Ustinov’s Herod the Great in Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth, who tells Proculus (a fictional character from Rome), over a sumptuous feast, all about the dreams of a “Messiah” figure and what this means. But by having this kind of conversation just before the beginning of Jesus’ mission, The Bible is able to segue neatly straight into John’s baptism and messianic preaching. “You need to keep an eye on your Messiah”, Pilate says, as the film cuts straight to Jesus walking along the side of the River Jordan, with snatches of what I think is a kind of “Jesus theme” in Hans Zimmer’s score, here heard for the first time in the drama:

And when it comes to Jesus’ walking, I can’t help thinking of Martin Scorsese’s comments about the importance of making sure that your Jesus walks normally, and not a couple of inches above ground. He loved Pasolini’s Gospel According to St Matthew (1964) in which Jesus clearly just walks. Diogo Morgado, who plays Jesus in The Bible, gets this right too. He does not glide; he does not float; he walks. In fact, there is a lovely moment towards the end of the episode where Jesus sploshes through the water to get to Peter’s boat for the miraculous haul of fishes story.

• Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado as a European-looking (in other words, ‘standard’) Jesus is really the elephant in the room, especially if he stands among a bunch of local extras. (Incidentally, Morgado is now thirty-three years old!)
• We get to the Temptation sequence, and its Obama-looking Satan (Moroccan actor Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni). Again, I’d like to link, this time to Bible Films Blog, for a little introduction on how the Devil is portrayed in Jesus films. Incidentally, I’ll just point out the obvious: Satan is one of two characters who makes an early appearance in the series (in the Genesis segment). The other of course is God/the Christophany in the Abraham segment.
• The temptation sequence follows Matthew’s version (stones to bread-throw yourself down-kingdoms of the world), instead of the Lukan version (stones to bread-kingdoms of the world-throw yourself down) preferred by some other films.
• When Satan tempts Jesus with the kingdoms of the earth, we see Jesus seated on a throne while Pilate crowns Him with an olive wreath and washes His feet. Nice foreshadowing right there.

 

[patrick457]

• The call of Peter is a condensed adaptation of the Lukan version of the call of the first disciples (5:1-11).
• In the series, Herod’s cause for executing John the Baptizer is due to his fear of John’s seditious talk. Again, all right there in Josephus. Quoting him again, in full this time:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt – for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise – believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.

In all three gospels, John criticizes Herod for marrying his brother’s wife; Herod, in response, imprisons John. Both Mark and Matthew relate that at his birthday party, Herod is so delighted at the dancing of Herodias’ daughter that he offers the daughter anything he wishes. Both gospels concur that Herodias has engineered the daughter’s request for the head of John on a platter.

That being said, there is a difference between Mark and Matthew in respect to Herodias’ role. Mark assigns more blame on Herodias, she is the one who wants to have John killed but cannot, since Herod fears this righteous and holy man. She is the instigator and the actor, although always indirectly, through the immediate agency and power of her husband. In Matthew meanwhile, it is Herod who desires to execute John but who fears the crowd, which regards him as a prophet. Herodias does not play a large role in his gospel, limiting her action to “prompting” her daughter and receiving the severed head.

Mark: For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.

But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. For when Herodias’s daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.” And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.” And she went out and said to her mother, “For what should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. He went and beheaded him in the prison and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

Matthew: Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet.

But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company and pleased Herod, so that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” And the king was sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he commanded it to be given. He sent and had John beheaded in the prison, and his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. And his disciples came and took the body and buried it, and they went and told Jesus.

 

[patrick457]

(Final post for now )

Josephus is silent about Herodias in the context of John’s death, although he does know of and refers to Antipas’ divorce of his Nabataean wife Phasaelis (daughter of King Aretas IV of Nabataea) and his marriage to Herodias. In fact, the war which Antipas lost in the quote above is the result of the conflict with Aretas caused by Antipas’ divorce and the two rulers’ disagreement over territory. The lack of mention by Josephus has caused some historians to dismiss the version preserved in the gospel accounts as an invention by the evangelists, although this is just an argument from silence, and the two accounts are by no means incompatible.

I personally think that it might be due to the ambiguity which surrounds the gospel narratives at this point, as well as simple time constraints and the attempt to avoid introducing loads of one-off characters and possibly to cut down on the DeMille-style opulence and lust, as well as (most importantly IMHO) to flesh out the historical context and the importance of the Messiah in the story, which prompted the filmmakers to follow the Josephan version of John’s death.

 

[quilisma]

It almost seems as if this series should have been called “Josephus’ History” rather than “The Bible”, given its apparently heavy drawing upon Josephus’ narrative in preference to the Gospels themselves…

I keep telling myself that with only 10 hours to dramatize the entire Bible, it’s obvious that many details, and whole stories, must have had to end up on the cutting-room floor, and longer stories would necessarily have to be condensed and truncated. I must admit, though, that it sometimes seems to me that some of the lengthy fight sequences and long walking shots could have been shortened in order to make room for things like Nathan’s parable to David and other aforementioned important omissions.

That said, however, hubby and I are enjoying the series.

One question, however… since the subject matter IS so voluminous, why DID it have to be limited to 10 hours? Why not make a full-season series instead of a miniseries? I suppose that would have been even harder for Roma and Mark to sell to History Channel, but with 20-20 hindsight, History Channel could have pumped up its ratings for a whole season instead of just five weeks. (No way they could have known it would be so popular beforehand, I suppose.)

I do, however, like the fact that they timed the broadcasts in such a way that the Paschal events are aired in synch with this year’s actual Holy Week and Easter.

 

[porthos11]

Most interesting, and I didn’t realize the Josephus angle on John the Baptist. However, given that it’s supposed to be a history of the Bible, then I would have thought the Gospel accounts would be given precedence. Josephus material would be great filler for accounts not explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures, such as James’ death or the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[surritter]

Strange that tonight’s episode seemed to be subtly pushing for Mary Magdalene as one of the Apostles. Did anyone else catch that?

 

[Dwyer]

Strange that tonight’s episode seemed to be subtly pushing for Mary Magdalene as one of the Apostles. Did anyone else catch that?

To describe it as “Subtly” I think is subtle ; I think it was very unsubtle.

I had high hopes for this History Bible series but it’s just another Modern interpretation of the Bible.

They also censored the Sodom and Gomorrah story as well in Episode One so as not to offend you know who.

So, both portrayals of the Old Testament and New Testament are flawed.

They obviously spent a lot of money to make the TV series; but then they change the stories to fit a Socially Liberal Modern culture.

 

[surritter]

Well said, Dwyer. I was trying to be nice when I said “subtle.”

Actually I was somewhat perturbed that she appeared in nearly every scene.

 

[patrick457]

Well said, Dwyer. I was trying to be nice when I said “subtle.”

Actually I was somewhat perturbed that she appeared in nearly every scene.

Soon afterward he went on nthrough cities and villages, proclaiming and obringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.

===

There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. When he was in Galilee, they followed him and ministered to him, and there were also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

Jesus’ travelling band was not just a boys-only club. Sure, she isn’t one of the Twelve, but there were women who followed Jesus along with the apostles; the Evangelists just don’t pay much attention to them.

 

[patrick457]

Most interesting, and I didn’t realize the Josephus angle on John the Baptist. However, given that it’s supposed to be a history of the Bible, then I would have thought the Gospel accounts would be given precedence. Josephus material would be great filler for accounts not explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures, such as James’ death or the destruction of Jerusalem.

The difference between The Bible’s approach to the OT stories and the NT is mainly due to the fact that while much of the historical background of the Old Testament is still unclear, we are on much firmer ground when it comes to the New Testament. We may not know when the Flood occurred, precisely when Abraham lived, or who the pharaohs of the Exodus were, but we do know that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and that He lived during the time of the Herods and the emperors Augustus and Tiberius. Some people may claim that Noah, Abraham, or Moses never existed with a straight face, but almost everyone - save for a handful of folks - would agree (even if they don’t believe Christian claims about Jesus) that Jesus as an historical figure did exist.

Josephus is our main literary source for much of the history of the Second Temple period; in a number of places, he is our only source. (Not even the gospels count, since, you know, they’re not so much a history-book of the first decades of the 1st century, but the story of one Man.) That’s how important he is. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we should simply take Josephus uncritically on face value - that would simply be fundamentalism. We do need to critique and check Josephus against other data we have.

Personally, for all its ‘flaws’, I like the approach taken by The Bible - and other recent biblical films - here. Jesus did not live in a vacuum; the history IMHO is very important in understanding the life of Jesus and Christian origins. But then again, I am also the person who thinks that the approach of modern historical Jesus studies - where you look at the historical, cultural and socio-political contexts first and then try to fit Jesus into that - is a huge progress from the infamous former quests, where the history is treated more as being simply the icing on the cake, a sort of backdrop where you simply drop Jesus into.

 

[patrick457]

I’ve yet to watch the following episodes, but based on clips from Youtube, I’ll repeat my one observation that I had before this series even began: the series pays too much homage to past films, The Prince of Egypt (for the Moses segment) and The Passion of the Christ (for the passion scenes) being the most overt examples. This isn’t in itself a bad thing, of course (it could be that the filmmakers were tapping into these because that’s what’s most likely a good section of the audience will have on their minds), but if you’re like me who had watched quite a number of adaptations of the Scriptures into the screen, they can sometimes get a bit distracting.

 

[pnewton]

They obviously spent a lot of money to make the TV series; but then they change the stories to fit a Socially Liberal Modern culture.

Are you imputing this motive onto the producer, or have you read this somewhere?

 

[Crescentinus]

If the show is politically incorrect, the likes of GLAAD will whine and sue the show for “hate speech”.

 

[MissRose73]

I have watched all of the episodes so far. I have to say those who put the series together did a good job of casting unknowns especially for the major roles compared to most films that cast well known performers. I would like to have seen more stories added but did the filmmakers anticipate the success with the ratings plus the books & dvd releases, most likely they did not. Maybe they will expand on it in the future as there are so many stories they could have told like those of Ruth, Esther, more of the Gospel accounts, etc. Yes, some dramatic license had to be taken at times but I have to say it was well done, and I am looking forward to the last part on Easter.

Also, the ads for the Bible app and the Catholics Come Home were well placed. Lets hope that many will get the Bible for their various devices to read & understand the Word. Also, lets hope more Catholics come home, and non Catholics understand what we have done in terms of education among many things.