The Bible, Fourth Week

With the Fourth Week episodes I can say that the series has really hit its stride. There are still points of criticism, but when I compare last night’s two hours depicting the ministry of Christ to the other “Life of Christ” films, I must say this one holds up pretty well. During the first hour I thought the teachings of Jesus were overshadowed by his miracles—but then one of my favorite Jesus films, the animated so-called children’s film, is The Miracle Maker—and then in the last hour largely devoted to Jesus in Jerusalem, quite a number of teachings are worked in, from John’s gospel, as well as the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for those who haven’t read much about the New Testament). At least they included his admonition to love our enemy, and the Beatitudes (see the opening verses of Matthew 5) were recited as Jesus leads his disciples on the road and then is seen teaching on top of a hill.

If they could not have found a Mediterranean actor, then the producers made a good choice of actor Diogo Morgado to play the crucial role of Jesus. Made up with a beard and long hair, it would seem that Rembrandt’s series of great portraits “The Head of Christ” was the model for Jesus. In the early scene in which Jesus heals the crippled man let down through the ceiling by his friends, Jesus’ smile is luminous as he bends over the man. His first statement that the man’s sins are forgiven outrages some of the pious onlookers. One man in particular (presumably a rabbi or synagogue leader who will reappear often as an accuser) draws the proper conclusion that Jesus must be claiming the prerogative of God, and therefore is blaspheming. Backing up his claim, Jesus orders the bedridden man to rise and walk—and he does. Throughout last night’s two episodes this Jesus is a very compassionate figure, very much in contrast to the angry, always in a hurry Jesus that Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini depicted in The Gospel According to St. Matthew.

Jesus is often angry and in a hurry in Pasolini's Gospel According to St. Matthew, like a revolutionary prophet.

I recall hearing just two of Jesus’ many parables, but the first one used—that from Luke’s gospel of the two men praying in the temple--was well used, reminding me of how creatively the parable of the Father and Two Sons (often reduced to “The Prodigal Son”) was placed in Franco Ziferelli’s great mini-series Jesus of Nazareth. In both films the parable was taken out of its gospel of Luke setting and used in a new context to make a point. In the latter's film Jesus tells the story of an obedient and a disobedient son to bring the faithful Peter and his hated neighbor, the tax collector Matthew, together, each one seeing himself portrayed in the parable. In last night’s episode Matthew is also one of the characters, sitting at his table and collecting money. The Jewish leader whom we saw first condemning Jesus speaks scornfully of Matthew, whereupon Jesus tells the story of a Pharisee who offered up a boastful prayer about how good he was, followed by the tax collector who merely asked for God to be merciful to him, a sinner. Jesus, drawing out the moral that it is Matthew, and not his accuser, who is closer to God, directly calls out to Matthew to “Come” and join his band of followers.

The disciples themselves are not happy over a despised tax collector joining up with them—and this is another good point of the episode. Although only a few of them emerge as persons, they are not depicted as plaster saints, but as men (and a woman—to the producers credit they show Mary Magdalene in many scenes, her inclusion no doubt based upon Luke 8:1-3 where “other women,” two more by name, are said to have traveled with Jesus and provided “out of their resources” for their daily needs). My biggest criticism of the interchange between the disciples and Jesus is one of omission: when Jesus asks them who do they say that he is, and Peter gives the right answer, Jesus does not follow up by telling them that he must go up to Jerusalem and suffer the cross—nor is there the rebuke “Get behind me, Satan” when Peter contradicts his master. However, this theme is well handled when the crowd, fed the miraculous fish and loaves, starts chanting “Messiah!” Realizing that they mean by “Messiah an earthly king, Jesus is troubled by this. Eventually he makes it plain to his disciples that he will be a suffering Messiah, not an earthly king using violence to gain power.

One other deviation from the source that bothered me was Jesus’ observation that not one of the stones of the beautiful temple would be standing. For some reason they had Jesus make this warning to a child, not to his disciples who had been overly impressed with the magnificent building that Herod had built. What in the world would a child understand about this? In the gospels this prediction of the temple’s destruction is accompanied by a series of apocalyptic warnings about the end times, but this too is left out.

There is much more that could be said, including the most unusual shot of Jesus of any Jesus film that I have seen—a view of Jesus from under the surface of the stormy Lake Galilee—

but I will close with just three more observations:

Unlike the film known simply as Jesus, said to be the most viewed of any of the Jesus films because so many missionaries have been using it all over the world, this version clearly shows that the unlettered peasant from Galilee did pose a threat to Roman law and order. In several scenes we see how ruthless Roman Governor Pontius Pilate is, and how fearful the Jerusalem priests and Pharisees are that Jesus might disrupt the fragile peace then existing. The priests are well aware that their positions depend upon the good graces of the Romans. More than once Pilate threatens to close down the temple if there is any disturbance, so when Jesus shows what a large following he has when he enters the Holy City and then promptly upsets the tables of the money changers in the temple, the high priest is very anxious to remove the threat before the arrival of the biggest day of the year for the temple, the Feast of Passover.

The scene in which Pilate tells the crowd that they must pay for the aqueduct bringing water into the city was well done—until his soldiers bring out their concealed weapons and start slaughtering everyone. This unhistorical incidence of violence seems gratuitous, designed to appeal to the action movie lovers in the audience. However, in the Passover Eve sequence I was very impressed by the juxtaposition of the three prayers—Jesus’ at the Last Supper with his disciples; the Romans, Pilate and his wife, praying to their ancestors; and the anxious priests at the temple, ready to arrest and put on trial the usurper from Galilee.

The last observation actually stems from the reaction to last week, the depiction of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness. Until right wing columnist Glenn Beck’s observation, I had not noticed any resemblance between the Moroccan actor playing the devil and President Obama.  A second look, and I can see some resemblance, but I think Mr. Beck’s remark actually reveals more of his politics and his view of the President than anything else. Isn’t it interesting that this became the subject of so much speculation and discussion of a series whose producers were as surprised as anyone about this unintended consequence?

Wow!

The Bible, The Third Week

We’re now three fifths of the way through the History Channel’s reworking of the Bible, and what a reworking it is! The scriptwriters seem to inflate the violence of the Bible (and there is no denying that there is a lot in the original text) in every possible way, from the Ninja fight scene in the story of Lot and his visitors at the doomed city of Sodom on to the New Testament, with even the holy moment of the Annunciation taking place amidst Roman violence. Wow!

Last week I wrote: “This makes me wonder what the producers have decided about the huge section of the Bible after Kings David and Solomon, which includes the great prophetic writings. Out of the background of the violence of holy war and the ban arises Jeremiah and the exile of Israel, and the even the grander book of Isaiah with his concept of shalom and the nonviolent Suffering Servant, the latter shaping Jesus’ understanding of his mission.”

I now have the answer, and it is one that I find very disturbing because I believe that the producers have little or no understanding of the theology of the Scriptures, especially of what for Christians unites the writings sacred to the Jews with the story of Jesus and the church. The 3rd week left off with King David and his young son Solomon playing with a model of the temple. The 3rd week jumps ahead almost 300 years to the reign of Zedekiah, “the 21st king,” the script tells us. Thus there is nothing about the ministry of Elijah, a prophet who became an important figure in Jewish folklore, namely that he would be the forerunner of the Messiah (which is why all four gospels begin with the ministry of John the Baptist, who dresses and preaches like Elijah.). Worst of all, there is nothing of the ministry of Isaiah the 8th century B.C.E. prophet of social justice and peace, who urged the king to trust that God would prevent the mighty Assyrian army from conquering Jerusalem.

Isaiah’s promise of an era of Shalom when ”the wolf shall live with the lamb” (see Isaiah 11:1-9) marks the transition from the view of God as a violent war God to that of the God who desires not the destruction of Israel’s enemies, but the God who seeks to use Israel to call the nations so that God “shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plough shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah 2:4; also see Isaiah 49:6). More on this later: for now let’s get back to the program.

The prophet Jeremiah confronts King Zedekiah.

At least we are given a glimpse of the prophet Jeremiah bearing a huge yoke across his shoulders as a sign that the nation would soon become captive to mighty Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The prophet tells King Zedekiah to surrender to the army outside the city walls, but the king does not listen to him. Thus we are treated to lots of battle scenes during which the Babylonians batter down the city gates and rush in to slaughter the inhabitants. Amidst all the blood there are two scenes that are moving: when Jeremiah looks up and sees the temple in flames; and the capture of the fleeing royal family, after which the Babylonians kill the two young royal princes while their anguished father is looking on, and then, the Babylonian uses his thumbs (as earlier in the case of Sampson) to punch out Zedekiah’s eyes.

  

King Cyrus and Daniel

Three stories from the Book of Daniel are used to show life for the Jews in Babylonian captivity under King Nebuchadnezzar—Daniel interpreting the King’s dream and thus gaining royal favor; the story of the three men cast into the fiery furnace because they would not bow to the king’s golden statue; and Daniel thrown into the lion’s den.

The film’s handling of history seems very muddled at this point, the latter story supposedly taking place after the Persian King Cyrus conquers Babylon without a battle. In the Book of Daniel itself it is King Darius, a successor to Cyrus, who reluctantly orders Daniel to become supper for the lions. To muddy things further, in the Book of Ezra we are told that shortly after Cyrus conquers Babylon, he issues his decree allowing the Jews to return home. (The filmmakers take a Fundamentalist approach to the Book of Daniel in the belief that it is a historical book dealing with events of the 6th century B.C.E., whereas many scholars believe it was written several centuries later to bolster Jewish resistance against the Seleucid Empire. For a scholarly article see the Wikipedia’s “The Book of Daniel” at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel.)

The series moves on to the New Testament with the last words of the first hour, “This isn’t the end…it’s the beginning.” Maybe so, but the emphasis upon violence continues. The Jews are now under Roman rule, and as we see in the depiction of a crucifixion, it is a harsh rule. The depiction of the Annunciation, in which an angel appears to Mary, telling her that she will give birth to the Messiah, has to be the strangest ever filmed. She is out in a street of Nazareth when Roman soldiers appear, brutally pushing and shoving people around. She moves through a door, and the angel appears to her announcing the GoodN\ews/Bad News. (The good thing about this, and all of the other angel depictions, is that they are not the glowing, feminine winged creatures of Victorian art, but look like mortals wearing hoods.)

Joseph saves Mary from the anger of their neighbors.

Joseph, much younger than tradition makes him out to be, is understandably upset when he discovers that Mary is pregnant, but he comes to her defense when the villagers are about to attack what they consider to be a fallen woman. The events of the journey to Nazareth quickly follow, with the couple arriving at the Bethlehem inn amidst a rainstorm. A rainstorm! This is a peculiar touch, because the shepherds are close by where they can see the Star (imported from the Gospel of Matthew’s Magi story, Luke mentioning angel messengers, but no bright Star). Everything is telescoped into a single night, with cutaways to one of the kings visiting King Herod to discover where the prophesized new king will be born, the king ordering out his soldiers, the arrival of the shepherds at the manger, and then the Magi with their gifts (no Drummer Boy, thank goodness), Joseph’s dream about Herod’s soldiers, the flight to Egypt, and the slaughter of the innocents (more opportunity to show some bloody action).

The Birth of the Christ Child.

Jump to “25 years later” and we have John the Baptist, Jesus’ baptism, and his temptations in the wilderness. I am always interested in the creative ways this is depicted—my favorite being a long scene in the CBS miniseries Jesus in which Satan takes a female and a male form and even demands that Jesus “empty himself of his divinity—and the makers of this film add their own touch of creativity. Actor Diogo Morgado truly looks wracked with thirst and hunger when Satan tosses him a large round stone and tempts him to turn it into bread. And in the 3rd temptation (the script follows Matthew’s order) in which Satan offers Jesus sovereignty over all the kingdoms of the world we see Jesus upon a throne with a Roman (I think it is Pilate, whom we see in several scenes with Herod Antipas) offering him a crown. The golden crown quickly changes into thorns, and there is a flash of a hammer driving nails into his hands. This is an inspired way of revealing that Jesus has chosen a far different way than Satan’s for living out his calling to become the savior of the Jews (and of the world. I hope there will be more such creativity in the remainder of the series.

This depiction of Jesus envisioning his crucifixion makes the exclusion of Isaiah the prophet from the Old Testament portion of the series all the more heinous because it is obviously the Book of Isaiah that formed the model for the kind of Messiah Jesus chose to follow. In the last portion of Isaiah, written much later during the Babylonian Exile than the words of the prophet of the first 39 chapters who resided in Jerusalem, there are a series four “Servant Poems” in which God promises to raise up a Servant who will become a “light to the nations,” “nations meaning Gentiles.

In the last of these poems (Isaiah 52 & 53) this Servant is seen as voluntarily taking upon himself the penalty of guilt and suffering of everyone else, so that, we read in Ch. 53:5 “But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed.” To leave out this prophet is inexcusable. Granted, even at 5 hours, the time available for covering the Hebrew Scriptures was limited, but to choose the violent story of Sampson over the story of Isaiah and that of the prophet of the Exile shows that the producers just “don’t get it” when it comes to what the Bible is really about! They chose a violent action story over the theologically important story of the Book of Isaiah. Leaving out Isaiah is comparable to writing a history of the founding of the United States without mentioning the Declaration of Independence.

History Channel's The Bible, Second Week

(Note: this is my 3rd blog on the series: scroll down to see the one on Week One. It includes some references to other films that might interest you).

Moses has appointed Joshua to be the new leader of Israel.

Well, now we have had four hours of History Channel's The Bible, which might better be called Fight Highlights of the Bible. The second week’s events took up where the first week left off. Moses has died within sight of the Promised Land, but leadership of Israel has been passed on to Joshua, who has sent two spies to reconnoiter Jericho. This is the strategic city that stands between them and the Promised Land. When the spies are discovered, there is a chase and a fight in the narrow city streets. The writers seem to want to pack as much swordplay as possible into this series, presumably because they think that’s what the public wants. Maybe they are right—last week’s episode reportedly drew over 13 million viewers, surpassing all three network program offerings. (14 million according to the History Channel.) We’ll see about tonight’s episodes, which again are of very mixed quality.

The good news is that we have left behind Genesis with its mixture of myth, legend, and tradition-bound history, so the producers' literalistic approach to the Bible is not as much an issue (at least for this viewer). The bad news is that in picking which of the multitude of The Bible's stories to include, they left out the stories of two strong women—Ruth, the Moabite ancestress of King David, and Deborah, one of the judges of early Israel. At least they included with the guys Rahab the Harlot in the story of the spies in Jericho, but the role of the film Rahab is less heroic than the original in the Book of Joshua. Rather than volunteering to help hide the spies, she is forced at sword-point to help, and she does not provide or let down the rope by which the pair escapes over the walls. They climb down using the same rope and scaling hook by which they entered the city. This rewriting of the biblical story seems strange to me, given that producers Roma Downey (of “Touched by an Angel” fame) and Mark Burnett “(Survivor” and “The Amazing Race”) are biblical literalists.  As we’ll see they take liberties with the other stories as well. By this I do not mean leaving out details for the sake of condensing, but of changing the details of a story.

It is understandable, given the series’ emphasis upon violence (weren’t the Ninja Angels in the story of Lot and Sodom hilarious last week?), that the one story included from the Book of Judges would be that of Sampson. And the color blind casting of black actors Nonso Anozie as Samson and Sharon Duncan Brewster as his mother is almost as intriguing as the story itself. The huge brawny actor looks like he could be a World Wrestling Entertainment star. With his slaying of so many Philistines before Delilah tricks him into revealing the source of his strength, and his bringing the temple down on himself and his taunting enemies (Delilah is shown in the doomed crowd), adventure fans are well served. But is the Bible well served? What kind of image of God and of the Book regarded by believers as his word does this and the other episodes leave with the viewer unacquainted with the Bible?

Delilah giving the sleeping Sampson a haircut.

In the episode with Samuel the people plead for a king despite the prophet’s warning that a king would become a tyrant. His reluctant choice of Saul proves disappointing, as we see when the king is about to enter into battle but Samuel has not come yet to offer the necessary sacrifice to God beforehand. Saul goes ahead himself and sacrifices the lamb. Samuel is very upset with the king assuming his priestly role. Then when Saul disobeys Samuel’s order to destroy the entire enemy, including women, children, and livestock, the prophet kills the captured king (though not by decapitation as in the Bible) and disowns Saul, telling the king that he will anoint someone else. The film glosses over somewhat the brutality of the Israelites’ holy war and what the Bible calls “the ban,” meaning total annihilation of the enemy. Scholars have long debated the ethics of this, especially in that the author(s) of the two books of Samuel claim that this order comes from God. More on this in a later blog when I want us all to think about violence and the Bible.

King Saul

The portrayal of King Saul, both in the script and by actor Francis Magee, was the strongest factor in this second part of the series. He is shown as a man in over his head, tragically worried that young David will supplant his own son Jonathan on the throne. With a few more scenes inserted this section could have been even more moving, the tension between Jonathan and his father caused by his strong friendship with David could have been more developed, adding to the tragedy. For example, when David receives word of the death of the king and his son there is little of the lamenting over them that takes up all of Chapter One of 2nd Samuel—just David's comment, “How the mighty have fallen.” Also, backing up a little, the depiction of Samuel's choosing David to supplant Saul is disappointing, the prophet simply coming upon David after he has killed a wolf with his sling, and anointing him almost straightway. The biblical story of Samuel going to Jesse's house and examining all of David's brothers while the overlooked (by Jesse) youngster is out watching the sheep is such a delightful one, in keeping with the biblical tradition that God usually chooses what is considered the lesser person to carry out his missions.

Even more disappointing is the way in which the prophet Nathan is portrayed, minus the passion and artistry of the angry prophet chronicled in the original story. Although Hollywood made a muddle of the story in David and Bathsheba (trying to justify the adultery on the basis of “true love”), I still recall so many decades after seeing the 1951 film Raymond Massey's portrayal of Nathan. Equally disappointing is Nathan's direct approach in his accusation of the king. The prophet’s clever use of the story about a poor man whose lamb is stolen by the rich neighbor, thus “capturing the conscience of the king,” is left out entirely--just a declaration of guilt and the curse upon the illegitimate child the guilty pair has produced.

The episode ends with David and his new son Solomon playing with a model of the temple that David has been forbidden to build, leaving “the rest of the story” to be completed this coming Sunday. The 3rd Week will bring us to the midpoint of the series, with the story of Jesus and the Book of Revelation yet to come. This makes me wonder what the producers have decided about the huge section of the Bible after Kings David and Solomon, which includes the great prophetic writings. Out of the background of the violence of holy war and the ban arises Jeremiah and the exile of Israel, and the even grander book of Isaiah with his concept of shalom and the nonviolent Suffering Servant, the latter shaping Jesus’ understanding of his mission. Thus it is still too early to judge the success or failure of this ambitious attempt to portray the Bible on film, but I suspect that the verdict will not be favorable, given what we have seen thus far. Still, I hope for continued success for the series because at least it has even the secular media taking notice, which reminds me of the old Hollywood dictum that even bad publicity is preferable to no publicity.

History Channel's The Bible, First Week

I am beginning these remarks about Week One of the History Channel’s The Bible during a commercial break in The Vikings—strange that the HC should debut both big budget series on the same night! Anyway, now that I have seen the entire first installment, I can go beyond my first bog when I had watched but ten short excerpts from the series.

I am not nearly as enthusiastic about the series as last week. The literalistic approach gets in the way more than I had hoped it would—and yet at the same time, some of the looseness with biblical text also bothers me. I was a bit surprised that the episode began with a storm-tossed boat in which Noah tells his family, “In the beginning God…” and over the next few minutes he recites a digest version of the Genesis creation story. Biblical scholars believe that Genesis was written as the opening of what came to be called the Pentateuch at the end of the kingdom of Judah in the 6^th century BCE, possibly during the Babylonian and Persians period when the old stories were in danger of being forgotten by the Jews because of their captivity. And yet in this episode, set in prehistoric days, it seems that Noah is the author, or at least the transmitter of the Genesis stories because he is quoting the text as we now know it.

The Bible is such a large and complex book, no, a library of books, that we expect much has to be left out of the presentation, even one of ten hours in length. Noah in two or three minutes relates the events of the six days of creation, the camera showing us the natural beauty of the sea, the fish, animals and birds, concluding with a close up of Adam, his face covered still with the mud from which he has been created Then in but a few seconds we have the tale of the Temptation and Fall, immediately followed by Cain murdering his brother Abel. When Noah says that on the seventh day God rested, the storm has stopped, and he walks out onto the deck of the huge ark to enjoy the sunshine. The camera rapidly draws back, revealing a rainbow, and then the ark becomes a speck, and we move high into the stratosphere so that the curvature of the earth is visible, and we go even higher to see that the entire planet is flooded—not, as most biblical scholars believe, just the plains of the Fertile Crescent, but the whole darn planet.

Thus this is indeed a literalistic interpretation of the Jewish/Christian scriptures. It could be very puzzling or even misleading for non-believers who have known of this story only because they have seen so many children’s wooden and plastic toys labeled “Noah’s Ark.’ Misleading in that the God depicted might seem not only wrathful but unjustly arbitrary. We see people outside the ark being drowned by the deluge. Why them? Why are Noah and his family tucked safely inside? I do not recall any mention of the pervasive wickedness of those drowning, nor of the contrasting good and righteous life of Noah. Now Cecil B. DeMille would never have made that mistake: he would have clearly shown the audience how wicked the people were by pushing the old Hays Code to the limit and staging an orgy of nearly naked revelers, as he did in his Ten Commandments.

Moving on, my initial good feeling about the Abraham sequence was partially fulfilled, though I am puzzled why the script has everyone calling the patriarch “Abraham” from its beginning, when his original name was Abram (and Sarah’s Sarai). The name change is the Genesis author's way of showing that when the patriarch enters into the covenant with God, his whole life is changed, as well as the future of humankind.  If you want to see a really satisfying depiction of the life of Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah, be sure to see the Bible Collection’s Abraham, in which the great actor Richard Harris portrays the patriarch in an unforgettable way. The sacrifice of Isaac is the climax of this almost two-hour film, and when Abraham hears God’s call to sacrifice his son, the agony of the father’s heart is expressed both in his words and the horror we see in his eyes. This is the film to see to gain a good understanding of the patriarch—and as an added bonus, the film stars Barbara Hershey as Sarai/Sarah.

I said my good feeling for the Abraham segment was “partially fulfilled” because the part dealing with Lot and Sodom was handled very poorly. When Abraham gave food to the three mysterious travelers, we see that they, when the three pulled back their monastic-like hoods, consisted of an African, a Chinese or Japanese, and from the quick glimpse of the third, a Caucasian. When the three show up at Lot’s house in Sodom, and the neighbors try to break in and carry them away, the three pull away their robes and hoods, revealing that they are wearing armor. Then drawing his two swords, the Asian fights off their attackers, exercising nimble jumps/somersaults and killing all within sword-reach. For a moment I thought the producers must have lifted this bizarre scene from a Ninja movie!

Apparently The Bible’s producers wanted to get to Moses and the Exodus ASAP, because the film jumps over the richly dramatic Jacob and Joseph sagas to arrive at Moses and Pharaoh’s son fighting each other. Unlike the excellent animated Prince of Egypt, these two are not loving friends, but bitter rivals, the blood-son anxious about succession to the throne. The major events of the Exodus story are told (see my previous blog for the Burning Bush episode) in rapid succession—the various plagues, quick cuts to Pharaoh saying “No” to Moses, and then the Passover (if there was any mention of the meal shared by the Hebrew families, I do not recall it), and the rush to the Red Sea, the chase by Pharaoh and his army, the parting of the sea, the drowning of the pursuers, the miraculous giving of Ten Commandments, and the passing on of leadership to Joshua. A better, far more poignant, rendering of this story is the animated Prince of Egypt in which Moses and Ramses grow up as loving brothers. This depiction makes the later conflict between the two princes of Egypts more tragic, with the Egyptian Pharaoh, after his army has perished in the Red Sea, calling out Moses' name, but in this version it is a lament.

 It will be interesting to see if the second week’s episode is as mixed a bag as this week’s. Before closing I want to make one more comment on the Sacrifice of Isaac episode. The patriarch’s total obedience to God carried to the extreme that he submits to the command to sacrifice his only son is easily misunderstood. In the 1997 film about a father’s burning the evidence that might implicate his son in a murder Before & After. Jacob (Liam Neeson), wanting to justify his illegal act, tells his wife Carolyn (Meryl Streep) the story of Abraham and Isaac. “Very obedient, Abraham. Very righteous,” he says with contempt, “But when they tell the story, they always miss the point. Who would want him for a father?” Of course, neither Jacob nor most people who read the biblical story understand the culture of Abraham’s time, one in which the sacrifice of the first born to a god was commonly accepted in order to obtain from the god the guarantee of future fertility, both of the wife’s womb and that of the fields. This is why the Hebrew prophets were so adamant that the people have absolutely nothing to do with their pagan neighbors’ especially their religion that included the sacrifice of first-born babies to appease the gods/goddesses.

 The producers of The Bible, who perhaps use a narrator too much (when Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar of salt we don’t have to be told this is what happened!), could have had either the narrator or the patriarch himself say something about how everyone was expected to sacrifice their first-born. Liam Neeson’s Jacob is the one who missed the point of the story, not the readers of the story, the point of the story being that faith in God must transcend our loyalty to family, and that trusting him “to provide the lamb” will be rewarded.

TV Series NOTHING SACRED on You Tube

During its 1997-98 brief run on ABC this series about the hardworking staff of St. Thomas Catholic
Church, located in the inner city of a large but undesignated city, was the best program on TV. No program (or movie for that matter) had shown both the daily activities of a parish connecting with its neighborhood and the sometimes-disturbing complexities of faith.

The first episode “Proofs for the Existence of God” provided enough food for thought to keep the minds of viewers busy until the next episode. From its very beginning when the credits are rolling we know that this is a special show. Quebec resident Renard Roux, who has done so much on Face Book to promote the YouTube clips of the show puts this better than I could:

“The opening credits for the show were awesome. The perfect mix with the stained glass windows, the vigil candles, the priestly vestments, Ray saying mass, Leo in the confessional, all overlaid with shots of despaired homeless, and people on the street. Also the rebellious ‘’Nothing’’ graffiti spray painted on the wall mixing with the calligraphy pen carefully scripting ‘’Sacred’’ on paper, tells us the series is going to be a wonderful mix of faith and belief and the suffering of day to day struggles. I also love how it ends with moments of joy as we see the group sitting at the table together.”

Kevin Anderson stars as Father Ray Francis Xavier Reyneaux, head priest, but with so many doubts that he is told by his superior to preach on the treatise by St. Thomas Aquinas, which gives its name to the episode. In the moving homily that concludes the episode it becomes obvious that the parish is not named after the medieval doctor of the church, but an earlier St. Thomas, branded as “Doubting Thomas.” Before we get to this, the almost too jammed-pack script deals with the homeless and local opposition to their presence, the soup kitchen, a feminist nun’s insistence that God be addressed as both Mother and Father, Ray’s temptation to rekindle a romance with an old flame, the desire of his assistant priest to escape the turmoil of the city to a quiet monastery, the dissatisfaction of a pregnant parishioner at Ray’s refusal to answer her directly about abortion, and a broken father-son relationship. Whew! Lots to think about.

Kevin Anderson is ably backed up by a strong supporting cast: Ann Dowd as feminist Sister Maureen Brody, Scott Michael Campbell as the fresh out of seminary Father Eric, Brad Sullivan as the older, experienced Father Leo, Tamara Mello as the troubled church secretary Rachel, and Bruce Altman as Sidney Walters, a good office manager, but one who has moved beyond Ray in regards to God, considering himself an atheist.

I would like to cover the 20 episodes over the next year if there is interest among you readers, so please let me know at visualparables@hotmail.com if you might consider hosting a discussion group on themes found in the series. Believe me, there are plenty!

To watch the episodes, go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA2q1btCx1A&list=PLE5FAD7955A1F6286

  

For Reflection/Discussion on Episode 1 “Proofs for the Existence of God”

1. How is Fr. Ray different from the usual clergyman depicted in the media? Compare him to such movie priests as Bing Crosby’s Fr. O’Malley in Going My Way. He is by no means a perfect man: how do we see his temper get in his way? What better approach might he make to the yuppie complaining about the presence of the homeless people? What happens to him at the city council hearing on the soup kitchen?
2. What do you think of the way in which the theme of temptation is dealt with? How is this an obvious one to raise? But do you think it is a bit early in the series? How might the two have justified themselves?
3. What do you think of Sister Mo’s concern over the gender language used when speaking of and to God? How does this matter: that is, how is an exclusively male designation of God a part of the system that has kept women as second-class members of church and society?
4. What do you think of Fr. Eric’s desire to become a member of a monastic community? Does this seem like a real vocation, or his desire to escape? From what you see of the chaotic life of the parish, might you also feel this way were you him? How do most of us try to escape at times?
5. What does Rachel want when in the confessional she asks about what she should do concerning her pregnancy? What does Fr. Ray apparently believe about human nature and responsibility that he refuses to tell her what she should do?
6. What do you make of Fr. Leo’s quotation, “‘When I see the world’s wonders/What can I say?/I do not think/I’ll kill myself today”? Surprised that it was from a song sung by Lena Horne called “I Don’t Think I Will End It Today”? What songs have kept you going during hard times?
7. Do you believe that faith and doubt are opposites? How are they related in a mature faith, some would say “intertwined”? Have you had to wrestle with this in your spiritual journey, and if so, how did you resolve the two? What do you think of the way that Ray arrives at his faith in God at the end of his homily? What similar small signs of God do you see that make you take the gamble that God is real and close at hand?  Why might it be a good thing that we have the story of “doubting Thomas”? (Actually, when you reread the story was he actually doubting, or was he being dogmatic, refusing to trust the witness of his friends?)
8. Here’s Ray’s text to reflect upon (thanks again to Renard Roux’s Face Book posting):
       ‘’I can’t prove there’s a God... though I do catch a glimpse of him from time to time. When I saw God last.. he was a father reaching for his son. And for a second, I saw God. It didn’t make me feel any better.. but maybe that’s not what God ...is for. I saw him. And I believe I will see him today, and tomorrow.... on whose face? I don’t know. And that’s the adventure. So that’s the best I can do. And that’s faith. If you’re looking for proofs... you’re in the wrong business.’’
9. How is having Bach’s “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” playing under this and the baptism scene appropriate? As well as having Ray listening to the Lena Horne song at the end? How can this latter song be just as sacred at times as the song created for church use? Or do you think that this would mean that nothing is sacred?
10  You might close by reading or singing the hymn of a man who saw signs of God in nature, Maltbie Babcock’s “This is my Father’s World,” esp. verse 2, “…in the rustling grass I hear Him pass; he speaks to me everywhere.” How might ole Aquinas have gotten it a bit wrong, that instead of “proofs for the existence of God,” we should be thinking of the signs for the existence of God?

Episode 2 “Song of Songs”

J. A. Ortiz (Jose Zuniga) and Maritza (Judy Reyes), a couple who are to be married at St. Thomas run into problems when they have to shift their wedding reception from a hired hall to the parish. At the parish matters are chaotic, with Fr. Ray concerned about the cook Gary’s sobriety, a politician named Mr. Martin showing up with a camera crew as part of his political campaign in which he wants to shut down the kitchen, a young volunteer named James echoing his father’s opinion that those who do not work should not eat, the food for the wedding reception being mistaken by Sr. Mo and volunteers for a generous donation for the poor, and…
One of the lines that I have remembered all the years since first seeing this episode in 1997 is Father Leo’s reply to Ray when the latter, tired of all the problems that have arisen concerning the soup kitchen, says that he wishes he could just deal with the mass, “The reason the mass makes sense is what goes on in the basement.” The writers of this series are absolute in their conviction that faith and social concerns are inextricably woven together. As in James 2:14-17, the spiritual and concern for the matrial wellfare of others cannot be separated!

For Reflection/Discussion Discussion on Episode 2 “Song of Songs”

1. Did you have an inkling at how bad things would turn out when Maritza says she wants a “perfect day”? Have you had days a little similar to that depicted in this episode? What was your worst day that you can remember, and how did you get through it?
2. What is the purpose of Mr. Martin the politician bringing his camera crew on his visit to St. Thomas? Why is Fr. Ray so upset by the presence of the TV cameraman? How must his concern for the dignity and pride of the soup kitchen patrons contribute to their sense of well-being at the soup kitchen? In the folk hymn “We Are One in the Spirit” there is in the 3rd stanza the statement, “and we’ll guard each man’s dignity and safe each man’s pride.” How does Ray embody this?
3. What role do we see Sidney playing in the soup kitchen? He is an atheist, and yet how is his sense of hospitality very “Christian”? If you know the series All in the Family, how is Sidney like that other self-professed atheist Mike (“Meathead’)?
4. How is the politician’s reaction to the men cleaning up in the church bathroom totally off base? What are the homeless men trying to do?
5. What do you think of Louis and his story to elicit money? How do Fr. Ray and Sister Mo show they are pros in dealing with him? Do you agree with those who say that the inequality of our society forces needy people into concocting such stories in order to gain money and food? What do you think of Sr. Mo’s suggestion to James that it is better to be taken in by an “undeserving” poor person than to risk turning down one who really is in need? Do you have a plan for dealing with street panhandlers?
6. In several episodes Ray is concerned about health regulations and requirements for getting welfare: how do such regulations sometimes get in the way of helping the needy?
7. Ray, upset by the intrusive TV camera, takes Danny the cameraman on a tour of the basement: what do you think of his question about why there are so many hungry people when the Dow is so high (at 8000 back then)? What does this say about our society and its values?
8. As Ray reads the marriage litany and we hear the lovely song, what effect does the montage of shots of a drunken Gary falling on the steps and the hostile James sitting alone on another step? What do you make of the conversation between the boy and Louis, especially Louis’ barb, “You’ve got more in common with that white guy than you think”? How does James seem to come around at the end? Do you think we might see him again at the kitchen?
9. Downstairs—what do you think of Sr. Mo and the volunteers’ efforts to hastily prepare for the wedding reception? Maybe a bit far-fetched, and yet—? What signs of community do you see? What does Fr. Leo do to add just the perfect atmosphere for the couple’s “perfect day”? Earlier Fr. Leo had said that the gospel text for the day was the Feeding of the 5000: how did this become more appropriate as the day wore on?
10. The staff thinks that it is sad that the storm canceled  the flight that would take Maritza and Ortiz away to their honeymoon destination, but do they seem that bothered? What do you think of the passages they read: were you aware that The Song of Songs was originally a love poem before it was allegorized and accepted into the Bible?

NOTE: I really do want to hear if you are interested in more episodes on the series. The above took over 5 hours to repair, time that I cannot afford to give if the discussion guides are not useful. Please let me know at visualparables@hotmail.com.

The Bible, First Week

The Bible, the First Week

I am beginning these remarks about the History Channel’s The Bible during a commercial break in The Vikings—strange that the HC should debut both big budget series on the same night! Anyway, now that I have seen the entire first installment, I can go beyond my first bog when I had watched but ten short excerpts from the series.
     I am not nearly as enthusiastic about the series as last week. The literalistic approach gets in the way more than I had hoped it would—and yet at the same time, some of the looseness with biblical text also bothers me. I was a bit surprised that the episode began with a storm-tossed boat in which Noah tells his family, “In the beginning God…” and over the next few minutes he recites a digest version of the Genesis creation story. Biblical scholars believe that Genesis was written, as the opening of what came to be called the Pentateuch, at the end of the kingdom of Judah in the 6th century BCE, possibly during the Babylonian and Persians periods when the old stories were in danger of being forgotten by the Jews because of their captivity. And yet in this episode, set in prehistoric days, it seems that Noah is the author, or at least the transmitter of the Genesis stories because he is quoting the text as we now know it.
     The Bible is such a large and complex book, no, a library of books, that we expect much has to be left out of the presentation, even one of ten hours in length. It certainly is he case for this series. Noah in two or three minutes relates the events of the six days of creation, the camera showing us the natural beauty of the sea, the fish, animals and birds, concluding with a close up of Adam, his face covered still with the mud from which he has been created Then in but a few seconds we have the tale of the Temptation and Fall, immediately followed by Cain murdering his brother Abel. When Noah says that on the seventh day God rested, the storm has stopped, and he walks out onto the deck of the huge ark to enjoy the sunshine. The camera rapidly draws back, the ark becoming a speck, and we move high into the stratosphere so that the curvature of the earth is visible, and we go even higher to see that the entire planet is flooded—not, as most biblical scholars believe, just the plains of the Fertile Crescent.
     Thus this is indeed a literalistic interpretation of the Jewish/Christian scriptures. It could be very puzzling or even misleading for non-believers who have known of Noah's story only because they have seen so many children’s wooden and plastic toys labeled “Noah’s Ark.’ Misleading in that the God depicted might seem not only wrathful but unjustly arbitrary. We see people outside the ark being drowned by the deluge. Why them? Why are Noah and his family tucked safely inside? I do not recall any mention of the pervasive wickedness of those drowning, nor of the good and righteous life of Noah. Now Cecil B. DeMille would never have made that mistake: he would have clearly shown the audience how wicked the people were by pushing the old Hays Code to the limit and staging an orgy of nearly naked revelers, as he did in his version of Ten Commandments.
     My initial good feeling about the Abraham sequence was partially fulfilled, though I am puzzled why the script has everyone calling the patriarch “Abraham” from the beginning, when his original name was Abram (and Sarah’s Sarai). If you want to see a really satisfying depiction of the life of Abraham and Sarah, be sure to see the Bible Collection’s Abraham, in which the great actor Richard Harris portrays the patriarch in an unforgettable way. The sacrifice of Isaac is the climax of this almost two hour film, and when Abraham hears God’s call, the agony of the father’s heart is expressed both in his argumentative words and the horror we see in his eyes. This is the film to see to gain a good understanding of the patriarch—and as an added bonus, the film stars Barbara Hershey as Sarai/Sarah.

     I said my good feeling for the Abraham segment was “partially fulfilled” because the part dealing with Lot and Sodom was handled very poorly. When Abraham gave food to the three mysterious travelers, we see that their party, when the three pulled back their monastic-like hoods, consisted of an African, a Chinese or Japanese, and from the quick glimpse of the third, a Caucasian. When the three show up at Lot’s house in Sodom, and the neighbors try to break in and carry them away, the three pull away their robes and hoods, revealing that they are wearing armor. Then drawing his two swords, the Asian fights off their attackers, killing all within sword-reach as he jumps around. For a moment I thought the producers must have lifted this bizarre scene from a Ninja movie!
     Apparently The Bible’s producers wanted to get to Moses and the Exodus ASAP, because the film jumps over the richly dramatic Jacob and Joseph sagas to arrive at the scene in which the young Moses and Pharaoh’s son are fighting each other with swors. Unlike the excellent animated Prince of Egypt, these two are not loving friends, but bitter rivals, the blood-son anxious about succession to the throne. The major events of the Exodus story are told (see my previous blog for the Burning Bush episode) in rapid succession—the various plagues, quick cuts to Pharaoh saying “No” to Moses, and then the Passover (if there was any mention of the meal shared by the Hebrew families, I do not recall it), and the rush to the Red Sea, the chase by Pharaoh and his army, the parting of the sea, the drowning of the pursuers, the miraculous giving of Ten Commandments, and the passing on of leadership to Joshua
     It will be interesting to see if the second week’s episode is as mixed a bag as this week’s. Before closing I want to make one more comment on the Sacrifice of Isaac episode. The patriarch’s total obedience to God carried to the extreme that he submits to the command to sacrifice his only son is easily misunderstood. In the 1997 film about a father’s burning the evidence that might implicate his son in a murder Before & After. Jacob (Liam Neeson), wanting to justify his illegal act, tells his wife Carolyn (Meryl Streep) the story of Abraham and Isaac.

 “Very obedient, Abraham. Very righteous,” he says with contempt, “But when they tell the story, they always miss the point. Who would want him for a father?” Of course, neither Jacob nor most people understand the culture of Abraham’s time, one in which the sacrifice of the first born to a god was commonly accepted in order to obtain from the god the guarantee of future fertility, both of the wife’s womb and that of the fields. The producers of The Bible, who perhaps use a narrator too much (when Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar of salt we don’t have to be told this is what happened!), could have had either the narrator or the patriarch himself say something about how everyone was expected to sacrifice their first-born. Liam Neeson’s Jacob is the one who missed the point of the story, that faith in God must transcend our loyalty to family, and that trusting him “to provide the lamb” will be rewarded.

This Sunday--The Bible: 5-Week History Channel Series

1. Abraham about to sacrifice his son.  2. Christ at the Last Supper

An ambitious and spectacular new series entitled “The Bible” begins on the History Channel this Sunday, March 3. (Consult your local paper for the time). The ten hour-long series covers many of the highlights of the Old and New Testaments, beginning with stories from Genesis (Abraham is prominent here), the saga of King David, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the beginning of the work of the apostle Paul’s ministry.
     I have not been able to watch the entire series, but from what I have seen—there are eight very generous-length clips posted on HC’s website there is much to admire, and for some, parts to be taken with a grain of salt. By the latter I mean that the approach to such a story as Noah’s Ark in a literal one, accepting the historicity of the event.
     The clip depicting the Sacrifice of Abraham is very well done, bringing out the drama of the father’s agony over carrying out what he perceives to be the will of God, as well as the boy’s puzzlement and fear of what his father is about to do. Added to this is the cutaway to mother Sarah, becoming aware of her husband’s attention and rushing frantically up the mountain to stop the terrible proceedings. If the other scenes of their life together are as well done as this, viewers will gain a deeper appreciation of the humanity of the biblical characters.
     The other major story in the first week’s two-hour presentation is that of Moses, the available clip showing Moses on a windy night taking shelter in a small tent while watching the sheep when he spots the burning bush. Nice special effect, though purists might wonder why the voice from the bush does not tell Moses to take off his shoes. Also missing (and this is more important), Moses does not try to escape his calling by coming up with excuses. Maybe this is included elsewhere. However, it is good to see the inclusion of some flashbacks in black and white to Egypt where he killed the taskmaster.
      In Week 2’s presentation adventure lovers will appreciate the stories of Sampson and that of David and Goliath. Especially intriguing is the use of black actors in portraying Sampson and his mother. In the confrontation between David and Goliath David is shown as a youth. On his way to meet the Philistine champion, who is seven feet or more tall, David bolsters his courage by reciting the 23rd Psalm. Probably not very historic, but a nice dramatic touch.
      Weeks 3, 4 & 5 deal with the ministry of Christ. The actor playing Jesus is the usual European (or we should say American) actor giving us a dramatically satisfying portrayal of a strong leader. The clips show: Jesus ordering Peter to go fishing again and then calling him to discipleship; John the Baptist and the baptism of Christ; Jesus’ walking on the water; The Last Supper; Pilate’s meeting with Jesus; and Ananias and Paul.

Some observations about the scenes: An interesting touch of the walking on the water episode is the inclusion of Mary Magdalene with the disciples in the boat, justifiable in that the gospels tell us that she and some other women traveled with the disciples to tend to their needs. The writers draw heavily upon John’s gospel in the Last Supper and the meeting with Pilate. An interesting non-biblical scene is the one in which Judas staggers out of the room after taking the bread from Jesus; he spits it out of his moth as he passes a mysterious stranger. Matthew’s bit about Pilate’s wife warning him not to judge Jesus is included. The 10th clip expands upon Acts 9:10-22, in which Jesus appears to Ananias commanding him to go to the blinded Saul. Saul is very remorseful, almost groveling at one point until Ananias, pouring a pitcher of water over his head, baptizes him. In a close up of Saul/Paul’s face we can see the remorse giving away to relief and confidence that he is a changed person.
     Of interests to teachers is the commentary and “Questions to Reflect Upon,” clearly showing that the people responsible for producing the series Roma Downey and Mark Burnett are not out just to entertain us. There are so many features on the site ( http://www.bibleseries.tv/) that you could spend several hours exploring all of them. Thus even though I have qualms about the literalistic approach in some of the episodes, I heartily commend the series—and hope that the rest of it is as good as the clips displayed on the website. (From an “Extended Look” video it is evident that many other stories are included—Sodam and Gommorah, David & Basheba, etc.) It is good to see the History Channel getting back to its original purpose, the entertaining presentation of history.