The History Channels The Bible premiers tonight

[pnewton]

FYI - The producer Roma Downey was interview on EWTN. She is a devout Catholic. It had to be a tough job selling that show and making it acceptable to such a wide range of interests, including sponsers. Still, it may be one of the few Gospel presentations some people hear in their life.

 

[surritter]

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.

Of course there were women who followed Jesus, and most prominent among them was Mary Magdalene. But you apparently agree that she was with the Twelve (oh wait, the Thirteen if we count Mary) when they were on the boat and Peter walked on water? Or that she was with them in the Garden of Gethsemane as Jesus was arrested? (Recall that this was right after the Last Supper…)

So that’s my point – the TV show took a truth (that you rightfully pointed out) but then stretched it a beyond what the Scriptures say and beyond what really would have happened.

 

[patrick457]

Of course there were women who followed Jesus, and most prominent among them was Mary Magdalene. But you apparently agree that she was with the Twelve (oh wait, the Thirteen if we count Mary) when they were on the boat and Peter walked on water? Or that she was with them in the Garden of Gethsemane as Jesus was arrested? (Recall that this was right after the Last Supper…)

So that’s my point – the TV show took a truth (that you rightfully pointed out) but then stretched it a beyond what the Scriptures say and beyond what really would have happened.

Tell you what - I’ll wait until I actually watch the whole thing and I’ll visit this thread once more with extreme loquaciousness. In other words, I’ll be jottin’ me notes down when it’s playing before me.

 

[surritter]

Tell you what - I’ll wait until I actually watch the whole thing and I’ll visit this thread once more with extreme loquaciousness. In other words, I’ll be jottin’ me notes down when it’s playing before me.

Gotcha – once you watch last night’s episode I think you’ll know what I mean.

 

[Maxirad]

Michael Voris has blasted the miniseries in a new episode of The Vortex. No, I will not post a link to the episode here on CAF since it can be seen as uncharitable.

 

[Dwyer]

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen them or the Media has broadcast them on TV but I thought ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and it’s sequel “A.D” were a lot better than ‘The Bible’.

Didn’t know this but ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and “A.D” were both based on novels written by Anthony Burgess who was a lapsed Catholic.

 

[patrick457]

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen them or the Media has broadcast them on TV but I thought ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and it’s sequel “A.D” were a lot better than ‘The Bible’.

Didn’t know this but ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and “A.D” were both based on novels written by Anthony Burgess who was a lapsed Catholic.

Pope Paul VI was having an audience with Sir Lew Grade, congratulating him on his TV series Moses the Lawgiver (1974), which Grade co-produced with Italy’s main TV channel RAI. The pope had expressed his wish at the end of their meeting that Grade should do the life of Jesus next, a prospect to which Grade agreed. A fortnight after the meeting the head of RAI asked him what they should next do together. Grade, after needing to have his wife remind him of what the pope said, then replied without hesitation that they were going to do ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. Franco Zeffirelli was slated as the director.

Zeffirelli commissioned Anthony Burgess to write a screenplay, which was later developed by Zeffirelli and Suso Cecchi d’Amico. Burgess’ scrpt was preceded by an earlier draft, which would be published as the novel Man of Nazareth. It is often said that Man of Naza eth was the basis for his screenplay, but apparently there is a huge difference between Man of Nazareth and Jesus of Nazareth that many assume that little of Burgess’ original version survived the making of the film, and certainly Burgess implied that this was the case.

Apparently, the original draft was deemed by Zeffirelli to be ‘ludicrous’. Burgess thought it was lucky - ‘providential’ - that the ecclesiastical advisory panel appointed by RAI had not read his screenplay (which had Jesus being married!) Suso Cecchi d’Amico apparently also failed to produce what Zeffirelli required, leading the latter to re-write the script himself. Burgess had proposed publishing his novel in tandem with the broadcast, but this was preempted by a novelization of the series by William Barclay (also known as Jesus of Nazareth), and Zeffirelli’s publication of his own ‘spiritual diary’ on the making of the film, Il Mio Gesu. Burgess, feeling somewhat disowned, had to resign himself with releasing the novel first in France in Italy before it was published in English, and then again not in Britan but in America.

Zeffirelli, on his part, complained that while Burgess’ six-act draft “profoundly permeated with the tone and meaning of the gospel narrative,” it had dialogue that “did not fit the gospel records.” Hence “a conflict arose between my aim and the historical, theological, and mystical reworking of the gospels that Burgess had prepared.” He, however, did not object to the structure of the screenplay - in fact, he had adopted it but made it more ‘orthodox’ in contrast to Burgess’ more detached, disinterested, postmodernist version.

 

[quilisma]

My husband, who was born and raised Catholic but fell away from practicing the Faith, came back to the Sacraments to marry me in the Church (I am his third wife, but the first who was Catholic). To me that was a major miracle!! But since then, he has gone back to non-practicing status.

But he has watched “The Bible” with great fascination and even asked me to order the DVD (which I did before the episode ended). He thought it was GREAT. I think it really made him think about Salvation History (he especially was interested in the segments about David – his namesake).

I have prayed and prayed that he would at some time during the miniseries see the “Catholics Come Home” ad, but it only aired once during each episode and EVERY TIME he was out of the room. Including this last time.

“Where two or three are gathered in My Name, there I am in their midst.” Could someone please, please, please join with me in praying that he will come back to the Sacraments again, this time to stay?

 

[jediliz]

any thoughts on the last episode that aired last night?

The way of the cross was pretty good…but was Simon of Cyrene black, my mom asked? (i called her a few times during the show). I said Samson was, maybe they were related.

Anyway, I was really confused why they even bothered with the “woman, behold your son” (though it may have been Mother) and “Son, there is your mother” when Mary, the Mother of Jesus was NOT present at Pentecost (but Mary Magdalene was?) and then when they talked about the fate of the apostles, they said John was poisoned (but he didn’t die…I never knew he was poisoned…always was taught he had died of natural causes because of his writing of Revelation). They didn’t show him caring for Jesus’ mother Mary at all…shrug Yet, they had Mary Magdalene at the Ascension AND Pentecost.

Oh, and Saint Stephen’s death…:crying:

 

[BlackBeard54]

I also had problems with the treatment of Mary, but I was pleasantly surprised at some things.

Peter performing The Sacrament of the Eucharist when he heard Jesus was resurrected

The Martyrdom of St. Stephen

The baptism of Cornelius and his family

The fact that this is one of the few treatments that went all the way, including Paul, the fate of the Apostles, etc… Still the ADD Bible, but points for trying to get the whole thing in.

 

[surritter]

any thoughts on the last episode that aired last night?

The way of the cross was pretty good…but was Simon of Cyrene black, my mom asked? (i called her a few times during the show). I said Samson was, maybe they were related.

Anyway, I was really confused why they even bothered with the “woman, behold your son” (though it may have been Mother) and “Son, there is your mother” when Mary, the Mother of Jesus was NOT present at Pentecost (but Mary Magdalene was?) and then when they talked about the fate of the apostles, they said John was poisoned (but he didn’t die…I never knew he was poisoned…always was taught he had died of natural causes because of his writing of Revelation). They didn’t show him caring for Jesus’ mother Mary at all…shrug Yet, they had Mary Magdalene at the Ascension AND Pentecost.

Oh, and Saint Stephen’s death…:crying:

Yes, quilisma, I will indeed pray for your husband!

jediliz – I think it’s a good assumption that Simon of Cyrene was black. Cyrene was in present-day Libya and so an African native is a pretty good guess.

I don’t think there was an issue with “Woman, behold your son,” because that was at the foot of the cross, and had nothing to do with Pentecost. But it’s interesting that Mary never shows up again, even though she was in the custody of John; maybe that’s what you mean?

I was continually bothered by the not-so-subtle implication that Mary Magdalene was an Apostle. They had her right there at the Agony in the Garden, and on the boat fishing at night, and at the Great Commission, Ascension, Pentecost, etc.
Of course she may have been at some of the non-Apostolic events, but they sure worked hard to give us the impression that she was an Apostle, ordained to the episcopacy right along with the others. :banghead:

And you’d think someone would have caught the error in the caption “3 days later” when showing Easter morning! It was only 2 days later. (It was on the 3rd day as they counted them back then, but it was not 3 days after the crucifixion!) Not a theological issue, of course, but it’s one that a competent script editor should have noticed.

And I’m not sure about John’s last days; some say he was boiled in oil, and others say he died of natural old age. So the way they presented in accounts for both. And I think the narrator did say something about those later Apostolic events as being part of “Christian traidition,” not necessarily in the Bible.

 

[milimac]

Just finished the series last night.

First of all, I’m glad to see the History Channel airing this rather than the normal conspiracy-theory programs we’re usually subjected to around Christmas and Easter (You know, like “Did Jesus really even exist?”)

Second, I know you’re never going to please everyone with this sort of project. It is the bible after all, so you risk treading on perceptions that people tightly hold. Same thing usually happens when any popular book is made into a movie as well.

Third, I know that some artistic license must be taken since every detail wasn’t recorded in the bible. However, I was disappointed with the numerous times that they strayed from biblical accounts and even some of their artistic-license choices – such as Jesus telling them that “no stone will be left on another” in Jerusalem, as he said it with a smile on his face and tickling a little girl, St. Paul being portrayed as a drifter, rather than a highly-educated student of Gamaliel, etc.

Fourth, this was made by Protestants, so of course it will have a Protestant bent to it, so you don’t hear about Jesus giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter or his bread of life discourse, and I don’t recall there being anything about the manna in the desert during the OT episodes. The way they treated the Eucharist was bizarre – I guess it was little more than some sort of memory aid? Still, I was glad to see that they didn’t really seem to play down Peter’s prominent role.

Finally, the contraception ad in the final episode was extremely tacky and lacking in good taste and sensitivity. I assume that is most likely The History Channel’s fault though and not the producers of the series(?)

I had high hopes, but I hate to say that I’ve found the Vikings series to be more interesting – I’m curious to see what happens with the priest that they’ve kidnapped.

 

[Little_Mary]

Just finished the series last night.

First of all, I’m glad to see the History Channel airing this rather than the normal conspiracy-theory programs we’re usually subjected to around Christmas and Easter (You know, like “Did Jesus really even exist?”)

Second, I know you’re never going to please everyone with this sort of project. It is the bible after all, so you risk treading on perceptions that people tightly hold. Same thing usually happens when any popular book is made into a movie as well.

Third, I know that some artistic license must be taken since every detail wasn’t recorded in the bible. However, I was disappointed with the numerous times that they strayed from biblical accounts and even some of their artistic-license choices – such as Jesus telling them that “no stone will be left on another” in Jerusalem, as he said it with a smile on his face and tickling a little girl, St. Paul being portrayed as a drifter, rather than a highly-educated student of Gamaliel, etc.

Fourth, this was made by Protestants, so of course it will have a Protestant bent to it, so you don’t hear about Jesus giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter or his bread of life discourse, and I don’t recall there being anything about the manna in the desert during the OT episodes. The way they treated the Eucharist was bizarre – I guess it was little more than some sort of memory aid? Still, I was glad to see that they didn’t really seem to play down Peter’s prominent role.

Finally, the contraception ad in the final episode was extremely tacky and lacking in good taste and sensitivity. I assume that is most likely The History Channel’s fault though and not the producers of the series(?)

I had high hopes, but I hate to say that I’ve found the Vikings series to be more interesting – I’m curious to see what happens with the priest that they’ve kidnapped.

I just want to point out that this series was made by Roma Downey and her husband, and they are both Catholic.

I watched the series and enjoyed it but I have a few questions about how they did some of the scenes, and I definitely think they could have, even should have, been far more clear about the real presence in the Eucharist and in Peter’s leadership as our first Pope to name only a couple of things.

I guess there will always be critics no matter what, but if they down played certain CAtholic beliefs in order to avoid offending other christians or to appeal to a broader christian audience, I have a real problem with that. The Truth is the Truth and should be taught AS IS.

I missed the contraception ad at the end. That is very disappointing to hear.

 

[patrick457]

As promised, my observations for episodes 7-8.

• Thankfully, the Pharisees are not portrayed in this series as a uniformly-evil and hypocritical cabal of dour, hypocritical old men in dark robes. The segment also notes how they are admired by the people, but why exactly do the people love them so much? Again, Josephus (Antiquities 18.1.2-3, 11-13):

Now the Pharisees simplify their way of life and give in to no sort of softness; and they follow the guidance of what their doctrine has handed down and prescribes as good; and they earnestly strive to observe the commandments it dictates to them. They also show respect to the elders, nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing they have introduced. Although they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since it has pleased God to make a combination of his council-chamber and of the people who wish to approach with their virtue and their vice. They also believe that souls have an immortal power in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments according to whether they showed virtue or vice in this life; the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but the former are allowed an easy passage through and live again. Because of these doctrines they hold great influence among the populace, and all divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices are performed according to their direction. In doing so the cities bear witness to all their virtuous conduct, both in their way of life and in their words.

As is common in many modern films, “the Pharisees” who randomly appear out of nowhere and question Jesus in the synoptics is here limited to one single character. Again, law of conservation is at play here. Again, the one good thing about this Pharisee is he isn’t so much resorting to the standard villain reaction when Jesus gets back at him.

• I really found this film’s portrayal of the cure of the paralytic unique. Instead of being literally inside the house, as this scene is often shown, Jesus preaches to the crowd on the central courtyard of the residential compound - but the people break in through the roof of a house nevertheless because of the crowd.
• To be honest, Diogo Morgado’s Jesus doesn’t grow on me too much. He’s too very much the effeminate pretty-boy Christ of popular culture; even in the way he speaks. Yeah I know.
• Peter’s strong portrayal is really a new one for me, and I think I like it. It really shows he has some leadership qualities. Same goes for some of the other disciples.
• I really don’t know what to make of the scene where Pilate’s men upsets a cart just so the Roman entourage can pass on the road, other than as a means to show how Rome is bullying people and all that. The narrator tells how the Jews revolt against Pilate, who does not allow any interference to Roman rule nor to Roman taxes…
• …which segues into the scene where Jesus calls Matthew. Again, while it is popular perception that he was working directly for Rome, to be more historically accurate, a Galilean tax-gatherer like him would have been working for Antipas, who, as we mentioned earlier, was ruling the Galilee semi-independently.
• Again, the juxtaposition of the calling of Matthew with the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector is original, and once more, I think they handled it well.
• The film shows Jesus preaching the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s gospel in different locations, like Pasolini did in Il Vangelo secondo Matteo. Many people have this opinion that Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew is more of a theological/symbolic arrangement than something which literally reflects what would have really happened. They argue, would Jesus really have delivered a very long sermon, talking on and on and on uninterruptedly (the gospel’s text do not record anyone else’s dialogue - it’s just Jesus speaking for a whole two chapters) without alienating His hearers? Instead, they think that Matthew has cobbled together different bits and pieces of Jesus’ teaching - which He would have delivered at various times - and arranged all of them together into a single section: he portrays Jesus as a new Moses, reinterpreting the various precepts of the Torah out of a mountain, just as Moses had received it on a mountain.

Interestingly, in contrast to Matthew, Luke has a more naturalistic approach which works better in terms of narrative flow: instead of compiling most of Jesus’ teachings into one section as Matthew does, he instead breaks them into pieces and assigns them to different parts of Jesus’ ministry. As a result, Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (his analogue to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount) has contains far fewer teachings.

 

[patrick457]

(Make that “Jesus speaking for a whole three chapters”)

Filmmakers usually agree more with Luke’s approach than they do with Matthew’s, in that almost no Jesus film shows the Sermon of the Mount (when they choose to depict it) in its entirety. Like Luke, filmmakers often rearrange some of the material and move them earlier or later into the narrative. The only Jesus film I know of which shows it in full as Matthew wrote it is The Visual Bible: Matthew, but even then, as the title ‘visual Bible’ implies, they are under an obligation to film each and every word out of Matthew’s gospel.

Filmmakers also attempt to solve the problem of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount amounting basically to Jesus talking for hours on end either by showing some interaction on the part of the crowd (so the 1961 King of Kings or the 1999 Jesus) or Jesus doing something (so The Visual Bible: Matthew, where Jesus randomly pours a jug of water on Peter’s head! ), or intercutting to Jesus preaching the different parts of the Sermon in different locations (so Pasolini). The third option is particularly interesting since while it acknowledges and generally stays true to the text as written, it also shows the literary nature of Matthew’s arrangement: like the biblical text, this cinematic portrayal is comprised of different footages from different contexts edited together into one. The Bible follows the first and the third approach: Mary Magdalene questions Jesus on how they should pray, and we see shots of Jesus preaching from different locales (a hill, the banks of a river, etc.) and travelling.

• Surprise: the woman taken in adultery is not Mary Magdalene. (More on her later.) Another unique thing about this portrayal is that there is nothing ‘sexy’ about the woman, as other countless Jesus films portray her. While other films (even those who do not identify the woman as Mary M.) seem to like portraying the adulteress as some kind of prostitute, here there is no indication of the woman being anything other than a ‘regular’ civilian.
• We shift to Jerusalem, as Nicodemus voices to Caiaphas his concerns about Jesus. A version of the “Nothing good ever came from Nazareth” line (a perennial favorite of filmmakers, seemingly) is here spoken by Caiaphas himself, dismissing Jesus as a potential threat to public order. Here’s Mark Goodacre .The Bible

The Bible series continues on History Channel tonight and introduces, among others, the character of Caiaphas. The character of Caiaphas presents one of the greatest challenges for any Jesus film or Passion play, and many have failed the test, making Caiaphas a cartoon, caricature baddie who makes no historical sense and who is offensive to boot.

There are, however, exceptions. When I consulted on The Passion (BBC / HBO, 2008), I was delighted to find that Frank Deasy, the writer, and Nigel Stafford-Clark, the producer, were eager to make all the characters in the drama understandable, even sympathetic. …]

The Bible series is in the same tradition. Although it cannot give as much screen time to Caiaphas as something like The Passion, it still works hard to try to understand the character and the historical context. I know that Helen Bond’s book Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? (Louisville: Westiminster John Knox, 2004) was used by the production team in order to help them to understand and so to write the character, and Helen herself was one of the consultants on the series. (For those not familiar with Helen’s work, a great place to begin is her online piece Joseph Caiaphas: In Search of a Shadow).

Caiaphas in The Bible is played by Adrian Schiller, one of several Doctor Who alumni to appear in the series. Schiller played Uncle in the magnificent 2011 episode The Doctor’s Wife, penned by Neil Gaiman. …] Schiller shows a fine understanding of the historical issues here, with the crowds that would have been in Jerusalem at Passover. A couple of quotations:

"There is no reason to think that he was anything other than utterly sincere in his beliefs and his adherence to his religion . . . .

Well, the challenge I wanted to meet was to present a reasonable man, an intelligent man, a man with a problem. And I hope that people watching the series will be sympathetic to difficulties he was faced with.

Simply because the influence of these stories is so enormous and so widespread, it’s important people know more of the detail, whatever your views about religion or God or morality. You can’t ignore these books, so don’t!"​

 

[milimac]

As promised, my observations for episodes 7-8.

• To be honest, Diogo Morgado’s Jesus doesn’t grow on me too much. He’s too very much the effeminate pretty-boy Christ of popular culture; even in the way he speaks. Yeah I know.
• Peter’s strong portrayal is really a new one for me, and I think I like it. It really shows he has some leadership qualities. Same goes for some of the other disciples.
• Again, the juxtaposition of the calling of Matthew with the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector is original, and once more, I think they handled it well.

I agree with your take on the portrayal of Jesus – a little too GQ; I could almost see him shaking his hair in the breeze or grabbing a surfboard when he walked on water. A little too emotional as well. Likewise, I agree that Peter was more of a bright spot in the series. Well cast I think – he even looked a little like the claymation character in The Miracle Maker - and fairly portrayed as the leader, although more implicitly than explicitly.

I also liked the artistic license taken in the calling of Matthew. I found the way they conflated that with the parable of the pharisee and tax collector to be touching.

 

[milimac]

I just want to point out that this series was made by Roma Downey and her husband, and they are both Catholic.

I missed the contraception ad at the end. That is very disappointing to hear.

Thanks, I didn’t realize that. I had heard that it was from a Protestant point of view and it seemed like that as well. I also saw that their team of advisers was primarily made up of evangelicals: thebibleminiseries.com/frequently-asked-questions/

It seemed that some of the Catholic aspects were played down quite a bit and left intentionally vague, but I guess them being Catholic would explain why they even had the Last Supper at all or Peter taking a piece of bread and giddily and wordlessly breaking it after the Resurrection (the viewer is left to make his own conclusions about why he’s doing that). Scenes like that just seem silly though when they are made intentionally vague, especially if you leave out parts about the manna in the desert, or the bread of presence in the temple, or the Bread of Life discourse to give it more context.

 

[porthos11]

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen them or the Media has broadcast them on TV but I thought ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and it’s sequel “A.D” were a lot better than ‘The Bible’.

Didn’t know this but ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and “A.D” were both based on novels written by Anthony Burgess who was a lapsed Catholic.

I loved A.D. Wish I could see it again.

 

[johnmann]

I’m very picky when it comes to movies so your experience may vary. I thought The Bible was just barely watchable until the introduction of surfer dude Jesus at which point it became completely unwatchable. Every scene I was reminded that Jesus is a drummer from a British grunge band.

 

[jaxster99]

I have seen only a couple of The Bible episodes, but I really liked most of what I saw. I too am pleasantly surprised to see the History channel airing this instead of their usual conspiracy theory programs. I loved the actor who played Jesus and heat that GE had some really heavy Holy Spirit moments during the filming. I was wondering why Barak Obama was talking to Jesus in the desert, however. Lol. The likeness was pretty eerie, but also kind of funny. I was disappointed with some scenes that left out major points – like when John the Baptist baptized Jesus and they showed the clouds moving in the sky overhead, but omitted the words from God (this is my beloved Son, listen to Him). Overall, this was a major improvement in TV programming I think. I look forward to watching the episodes I missed.