In Theory: Should the Bible be a TV show?
- Share via
The History Channel’s new mini-series takes on the most famous book of all, the Bible, and not everyone is happy with the results.
An article on Religious News Network points out 10 instances of errors, or the makers taking artistic liberties, in “The Bible,” such as angels using what appear to be martial arts when rescuing Lot and his family from Sodom, or Jeremiah escaping Jerusalem undetected by the Babylonians when, according to the Bible, he was captured and bound in chains.
Although each episode begins with a disclaimer stating, “This program is an adaptation of Bible stories. It endeavors to stay true to the spirit of the book,” one instance is causing some concern. The story of Noah’s Ark is accompanied by Noah relating the account of creation from Genesis. David Hargrave, minister of Brook Hollow Christian Church in Texas, said, “My perplexed reaction was due to putting those words in the mouth of Noah when they weren’t written any earlier than Moses (in the most traditional of sources) and probably centuries later.”
The producers admitted having to take some poetic license in order to get the entire Bible into 10 hours’ worth of shows. Nevertheless the show pulled in nearly 14 million viewers for its first episode and an average of about 10 million for subsequent ones.
Q: Is the Bible a suitable subject for a TV show or full-length movie?
When the “Ten Commandments” came out I loved it, and I especially liked “Ben-Hur.” But to attempt to take on the whole Bible, that’s a stretch. Actually, the name “Bible” for a movie is just a little arrogant, or at least an overreach, in my opinion.
While I am glad at the interest the current movie seems to be getting, those of us who have been to seminary or who have had some sort of training in holy writ — and I am not trying to sound elitist here — know that there are more than 60 books in the Bible, if you count both the New and Old testaments. How in heaven’s name can you do justice to all 60-plus?
What about the thoughts of the great Isaiah and the concepts of Jeremiah, not to mention the other prophets? What about the history of Israel? These are as important as the great flood or the burning bush, but I don’t think they are mentioned in the series. And by the way, is the story of the great flood, historically questionable, even that important? But it makes for great TV, so I see why the story is included.
And there’s another thing: What about the outlook or worldview or theology of the producers of this series? They have a conservative Christian bias, I believe, and although I’m a Christian, I don’t share their slant. The world should know that there are Christians and there are Christians, and they often disagree with one another. The producers of this series are really evangelists and that’s the reason there’s as much about Jesus in this series as there is about the whole Old Testament. So I think the title, “The Bible”, is a misnomer, and a disingenuous one, at that. The real name of this series should be something like, “Bombastic, Oo-aah Scenes from Biblical Times with a Special Emphasis on Jesus, God’s Son, the Savior of the World.”
Give me “60 Minutes” any time.
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
The increasing number of trite, formula-driven movies and TV fare indicates Hollywood could use a fresh infusion of inspiration. In this regard, the Bible is an excellent source. Hands down, it is the greatest best-seller ever, and with good reason. It is packed full of literature, history and poetry that rivals the best penned by anyone at any time.
It is full of inspiring stories of courage and heroism, tales of espionage, intrigue, betrayal, murder and suicide. For the romantically inclined, there are accounts of tender love, forbidden passions, and one of the most explicit descriptions of sexual love ever printed.
For war enthusiasts the Bible is replete with descriptions of military campaign strategies that turned almost certain defeat into victory. There are enough crime scenes described to incubate dozens of innovative CSI episodes. And there are incredible, unexplainable events relating encounters with aliens and transport to other space-time dimensions for sci-fi enthusiasts.
The Psalms present an in-depth psychological analysis of virtually every human emotional state, and it used the technique of stream of consciousness writing thousands of years before James Joyce or Virginia Woolf ever put ink on paper. Its stirring soliloquies rival anything Hamlet ever uttered.
For more practical self-help enthusiasts, the Bible contains abundant material on marriage, parenting, business management and wealth-accumulation, and even healthy dietary guidelines.
I watched the History Channel’s current miniseries on the Bible and found it personally edifying. I don’t think the inaccuracies distract from the central message and I am committed to supporting faith-based entertainment. I do offer this word of caution: Bible material is not for the faint-hearted or easily offended. It contains brutally honest portrayals of even its greatest heroes, and transparency that often contains “R” and even “X-rated” material.
Pastor Ché Ahn
HRock Church
Pasadena
--
From what I know about copyright law, the Bible is an intellectual work now in the public domain. I think most everyone along the spectrum of beliefs about the Bible — from it being a literally true history all the way to it is a collection of myths centered in the Middle East — agrees. The popularity of “The Bible” TV series among Christians confirms that the suitability ship has sailed.
Critics of the series call it flat, tedious and pedestrian. The many devastating pans include my favorite: “This production makes Cecil B. DeMille look like a sober theologian.”
I’m be happy if the dreck making up most TV and many movies would be replaced by thought-provoking and entertaining renditions of anything interesting. Give us soaring sagas of emotion and action like the Bible and other holy books, along with lots more stories and ideas from great unholy sources. Or write new ones.
There are good reasons why the Bible is a best-seller transcending all lists, with an audience beyond its believers. Intelligent presentations of it worthy of the source might even have atheists tuning in.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
--
It is difficult to understand how a book as lengthy and complex as the Bible could be made into a TV series or movie. There seems to be no way that either of those media could capture the richness, scope, and inconsistency of the Bible. So it is little wonder that the most recent attempt would be criticized for its cinematic value, acting and accuracy. The creators were attempting the impossible. And thinking that a disclaimer at the beginning of each episode saying that the series is an adaptation in the “spirit” of the book would cover these challenges is extremely naive.
However, believing as I do that the power of the Bible is in its metaphorical rather than its literal truth, I may not be the best one to decide whether it should be converted to a visual format. One of my professors in seminary, a world-respected Old Testament scholar, was fond of saying that we “should not bring our cameras” to the Bible. His meaning was that the message of the Bible was far more important than its factual precision. We know that the stories of the Bible were transmitted orally for many years before they were written down, and that they were copied by human scribes until the days of the printing press. How then could anyone know the exact way in which each detail occurred thousands of years ago?
The Bible is an integral part of our Western religious, historical, literary and cultural experience. And it is important that we become aware of its message and significance. So perhaps the value is this television series, with all of its flaws, is to bring this book into the public view for our greater awareness, exploration and questioning. The more we know, the more we are able to evaluate it for ourselves. And that is good.
The Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta
--
I think the Bible is sorely missing on television and I gladly welcome such productions as this. Our whole church watched. Now I’m one who wants to see the Bible delivered unadulterated, but I recognize that some suggestive license is permissible where the Bible is silent, so long as it remains unharmed. No bit of history records every activity between the moments of note, so suggestive segues are necessary to put flesh on cold facts, especially in artistic renderings. Critics have complained, but some gripes seem unwarranted; at least two in question here seem easily answerable.
The Noah’s Ark story, for example, was not concocted by Moses, but divinely inspired of God and delivered to Moses as he sat to record the historic tale. The event happened to Noah, not Moses, so why is it far-fetched to think Noah could utter the God-inspired creation account first, only to be recorded later by Moses as God easily repeated it word-for-word in the prophet’s penning of Genesis? Did the Earth experience different creations?
As for the angels in Sodom knowing martial arts, the Bible says that the angels serve in God’s army. “Martial arts” are “war arts,” and since the angels powerfully blinded the Sodomites, and their exit with Lot’s family signaled the bombardment of brimstone, is it so errant to suggest these divine warriors at least possessed the skills of lesser humans as they protected Lot’s family? The Bible has many passages of angels wielding swords and being in combat. Do we really think Bruce Lee has anything on Heaven’s elite? The creative license used to suggest the manner of Lot’s escape only intrigued my kids, making them desire to watch the whole series. That was good, and it made us talk about God and ask many what-ifs. We’d like to see more.
The Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose
--
Every film version of biblical stories that’s ever been made has taken poetic license with them. The Bible has so much narrative prose and editorial theology that it has to be reworked for film. Some errors are worse than others: I’m getting really, really tired of Jesus never looking Middle Eastern, always being portrayed as some cross between the Little Prince and Peter Frampton — and why do they always give him a British accent? But so long as the errors don’t do violence to the overall faith, I’m OK with a few.
In fact, sometimes the creative liberties are the best moments of such films. I found incredibly moving the moment in Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” when Jesus, as he’s carrying the cross, sees Mary through the crowd and says winsomely, “Look, Mother, I’m making all things new!” Completely wrong, of course, biblically — it takes a saying from the book of Revelation and puts it in the mouth of the earthly Jesus — but who cares, it made me cry. The moment in “The Last Temptation of Christ” when Jesus pulls his beating heart out of his chest and hands it to a disciple — not biblical at all, but a remarkably effective way to convey his self-emptying love.
The real question isn’t whether a biblical film is accurate, but whether it’s inspiring. I must admit, I only saw one episode of this series, but a friend who watched the whole thing says that it had some pretty inspiring moments. That’s what matters. “Jesus Christ Superstar” was inaccurate in countless details, but my siblings and I, who were bored out of our minds by Bible readings in church, acted out that show many, many times, wrapping bath towels around our heads, peasant-style, singing all the songs and jumping on our beds.
If this latest mini-series got kids playing Bible stories —and what self-respecting kid wouldn’t want to be one of those sword-wielding angels? —then it’s all good. And if it got adults curious enough to pick up the Bible and read it, then Hallelujah for creative liberties.
The Rev. Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
I believe scripture can be an appropriate basis for film or television treatment that is both entertaining and faith-affirming. Perhaps “The Bible” wasn’t perfect, but the producers’ sincere and respectful treatment of the book and its message was a welcome and encouraging change. Filmmakers don’t have to be believers, but to be successful, they do need to understand the audience and treat the material with respect.
In a webcast the day before the series began, producers Downey and Burnett told listening clergy, almost apologetically, that they had taken a few liberties with the text. Swordplay between the angels and residents of Sodom was added to hold the attention of boys accustomed to action-adventure movies. The Biblical ram miraculously provided for Abraham’s sacrifice was replaced with a lamb to highlight the parallel with the crucifixion of Christ, the Lamb of God.
I’m a little surprised at the consternation over Noah’s creation story. As a prophet of God, entitled to revelation and entrusted with preserving life, Noah certainly would have been familiar with life’s origins. I don’t think that it was terrible that for dramatic purposes, the wording resembled Genesis.
Adapting the Bible for television or film in a way that pleases in every detail is a huge challenge. Personally, I could have done without the angels. And I would rather they had used the language of the King James Bible. Its beauty would have enhanced the stories.
Even so, Downey and Burnett at times succeeded wonderfully in their storytelling, particularly with the final episodes focusing on Christ’s ministry, crucifixion and resurrection. In those scenes, they demonstrated that scripture can be adapted in powerful and meaningful way.
Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta
--
I don’t sense that the critiques of The History Channel’s Bible miniseries are about the unsuitability of the material. Certainly the stories of faith and falsity, love and betrayal, and sin and salvation strike a primal chord within us, and we are compelled to respond in the art and actions of our lives.
The critiques are much more about presentation. One critic points out errors (martial arts angels — what?), while others note that the presentation is somehow flat and less inspiring than it should be. It is apparently difficult to put a fine point on what it is that four in 10 Americans went looking for in the miniseries that they didn’t quite find.
Maybe it’s what we always miss when a favorite book is made into a movie: the lack of ability to develop the inner thoughts and motivations of the characters; subtleties of plot and dialogue; development of the secondary characters, and venues that bring a time and place to life for us. Moreover, when our favorite books become movies, we miss the fabulousness of our own imagination. This is particularly true in the case of Bible stories, which would have lived in the imaginations of many viewers since childhood.
Moreover, the eternal truths of scripture are not all written in story form. I’m sure it’s difficult to do justice to the law, poetry, letters, prayers, songs and wisdom sayings that make up most of the books of the Bible.
When someone brings our favorite stories to the screen, maybe we hope that they saw something we missed, or worked out something on which we’d been stuck. So when a Bible mini-series is sort of a greatest hits review, we sing along gratefully, but also want more.
The Rev. Paige Eaves
Crescenta Valley United Methodist Church
Montrose
--
There inevitably will be some degree of complaint or controversy whenever a subject that people hold sacred is made into a movie or TV series. However, I believe that the Bible is a very suitable subject for TV and film, and that we actually have a responsibility to encourage and disseminate Biblical stories in whatever way possible. There is a glaring lack of knowledge today — especially among our youth — regarding the great stories and figures of the past, and I believe we have an obligation to mitigate this using any medium available.
At the same time, I feel that great care should be taken to avoid blatant errors which, in my opinion, defeat the purpose of education and also degrade the value of the historical lessons the movies and programs are ostensibly trying to teach. While it may be acceptable to take some artistic license to depict the stories of old, I draw the line when the need to entertain supersedes the spiritual message.
I feel that the entertainment industry, when relating the stories of the Bible, should impart the moral and ethical lessons that are contained within the texts. There is certainly no shortage of entertaining films and TV shows available to amuse us. When it comes to the Bible and religious messages, enjoyment should be part of the experience — but we should not sacrifice valuable lessons in the process.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
Chabad Jewish Center
Glendale
--
The Bible has, since it’s inception until very recent years enjoyed special status as Divinely inspired and inerrant, and therefore protected from general analysis, criticism, or portrayal strictly for entertainment. As the Protestant movement took shape, composers set sections of the Bible to music. But these composers were careful to present their work so that there was no doubt that as far as the composers were concerned they were only “underscoring” what God had created. Every selection in Handel’s towering oratorio “The Messiah” has scriptural reference.
The great German musician Johann Sebastian Bach, who wrote cantatas based on scripture for every Sunday service, as well as other divinely inspired works such as the Passions according to Matthew, and John, and the Mass in B Minor, inscribed these initials at the beginning of each of his works: J. J. which is Latin for Jesu Juva (Jesus Help Me). He generally inscribed the end of his manuscripts with these initials: “S.D.G.” which stood for “Soli Dei Gloria.” (To God alone be Glory.”) These authors wanted to be clear that these works were created for worship, not entertainment.
The 20th century saw a more daring perspective with regard to the Bible and diversion rather than worship. Johann Strauss’ setting of Oscar Wilde’s novel “Salome” shocked early 20th century operagoers. The opera was a cross pollination of Biblical themes and sexual eroticism. When Salome kissed the mouth of the decapitated John the Baptist, theatergoers stormed out of the theater. For many years major opera houses around the world refused to perform it. Sacrilegious! Blasphemy! It is now standard repertory.
It was around the beginning of the 20th century that motion pictures were able to string several scenes together long enough to tell a cohesive story. Nothing was off limits. Like cyberspace, film got started before censors could be put in place. Some Biblical themes were told several times by different producers. Movies such as Zanuck’s “David and Bathsheba”, or Demille’s “Samson and Delilah” and his “The Ten Commandments” have become classics. But again, audiences seem to be skeptical of movies that take too much creative license with Biblical themes. Some years ago there was a huge furor surrounding the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ.”
The Bible is a library of 66 books that seek to communicate, and so it is indeed suitable fare for other books, opera, and plays, as well as movies and television. It may encourage people to engage the Bible itself to seek to understand the stories and lessons on which the entertainment fare is based.
Further, people seeking to know more, may dialogue with each other and Biblical authorities, such as Sunday school teachers, and pastors, to learn historical and critical analysis of the stories being portrayed as entertainment. The historical context in which each book of the Bible came to be, makes reading the stories, or seeing the films, much more interesting and informative. Through much study and reflection, humans can begin to uncover the interplay between Divine Inspiration and the human will. There can never be too much literacy about, or too much exposure to, the holy stories concerning God.
The Rev. Dr. William Thomas Jr.
Little White Chapel
Burbank