I finally got a chance to watch the premier episode of The
Bible, which aired on Sunday night on the History Channel. I wrote a post[1]
late last week in anticipation of that episode and in response to a Wall Street
Journal article that the producers of the miniseries had penned.
I admit that I went into my viewing of the episode with high
hopes and low expectations. So many television adaptations of the stories of
Scripture have been cheesy, low-budget affairs that left me shaking my head in
shame. The Bible didn’t necessarily disappoint me in this way, but I still came
away with neither a sense of excitement nor shame. All in all, the episode was
a wash for me.
I do not want to recap the scenes of the first episode;
rather I want to explore some of the “under the hood” things I noticed as a
Bible nerd and pastor.
First, we must consider the selection of stories that were
told in this first episode. Those stories included Noah and the Flood (with a
dialogue of the Creation narrative from Genesis 1), the call of Abram, the
desertion of Lot from Abram’s camp, Abram’s rescue of Lot, the birth of Ishmael
to Abram and Hagar, the destruction of Sodom, the departure of Hagar and
Ishmael at the birth of Isaac, Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, the birth of Moses
and rescue by Pharaoh’s daughter, his murder of an Egyptian, the burning bush
encounter, Moses’ return to Egypt and the plagues, the Exodus from Egypt
through the Red Sea, the reception of the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, and
finally Joshua’s reconnaissance of Jericho and the introduction of Rahab.
My first
observation is that the producers had to choose what stories to include in the
series. There is enough material in Genesis alone to fill a 10-part miniseries!
The producers had to choose, therefore, those narratives that helped them make
their point, which was “trust in God,” a mantra repeated over and over in the
first episode. I understand the exclusion of some of the Genesis material for
the sake of plot development, and there are certainly sections of that book
that can be excluded because of the general audience implied in the network
airing of the program (i.e., Lot’s daughters offered to the men at Sodom and
their later rape of their father after Sodom’s destruction.)
The stories
that the producers chose are indeed those that are “more familiar” to the
general public, and thus they are the ones that would make the miniseries more
compelling to the widest audience.
I thought
that the mixture of the Flood narrative with the Creation account of Genesis 1
was very well done and shrewd for two reasons: first, there is enough material
between Genesis 1 and 9 to dominate and entire episode, which would have been
impractical. Secondly, the creation accounts are the ground of so much
discussion and argument that the producers could have spent too much time and
production interpreting and then rendering their interpretation of Genesis 1-3.
Thus, by combining two major narratives (especially these two oft-argued ones)
the produces quickly moved the plot of the episode to Abram, where there is
certainly more “meat” on the bone for filmmakers.
Another
highlight for me was the sacrificial scene in which Abraham takes his son Isaac
to the mountaintop as an offering to God.[2] It
was a new experience for me to see that scene acted out with its themes of
betrayal, murder, sorrow, and hope all thrown into one. I was moved to tears by
the (admittedly mediocre) acting of Isaac and by the miraculous appearance of a
lamb as a replacement for the boy on the altar.
This scene
is also where I began to realize why I was slightly bothered by the details of
the episode. In the Scriptures it is God who speaks to Abraham and instructs
him to sacrifice Isaac as a test. In the TV version, Abraham seemingly comes to
this idea of child sacrifice on his own (in other instances of communication
between Abraham and God in the show God’s voice is heard by Abraham and by the
audience). It is a further complication (and certainly foreshadowing by the
producers) that a lamb is caught by its foot at the top of Mt. Sinai at the
exact moment of the sacrifice. In the Scriptural account of that incident it is
a ram caught by its horns that takes Isaac’s place.
This may
seem like the splitting of hairs by a Bible nerd, but I think these two accounts
are indicative of a serious assumption that the producers of The Bible have
made in the weaving together of a grand narrative of Scripture. It is clear to
me that the producers are moving the plot along toward the Cross and
Resurrection of Jesus and are making subtle attempts to connect the Old
Testament narratives that they have selected more appropriately serve that
plot. Please understand – I believe that Scripture should be interpreted in light of the Cross and Resurrection. The
lens through which Christians read Scripture is that of Jesus’ Incarnation and
his teachings. It is his interpretation of Scripture that drives our
interpretation of Scripture.
Therefore,
I understand the producers’ redaction of the Biblical narratives to serve this
purpose. However, by altering the details of the narratives they run the risk
of overlaying their specific understanding of God’s redemptive activity in too
heavy-handed a manner for educated Christians to stomach. Further, while it is
clear that no interpretation of Scripture or any other source in film is
without directorial interpretation, such interpretation and plot-manipulation
can become the narrative of the show rather than the Bible it intends to bring
to life.
Underneath
all of this is one major reflection I had at the conclusion of the episode: it
is impossible to produce something like The Bible intends to be without
filtering it through 21st-century sensibilities. Consider two
elements of the first episode:
First,
Abraham’s relationship with Hagar. In the episode it is Sara who is mourning
her inability to bear Abraham a son, contrary to God’s promise. She recommends
to Abraham that he impregnate the woman Hagar, who just happens to be in the
camp with Abraham, Sarah, and their entourage. Abraham resists, acts shocked
and slightly revolted by the idea of “cheating” on Sarah. When he is finally
convinced to go through with it, we see him coming out of Hagar’s tent with a
look of disappointment or anger, or even shame.
The
Scriptural account[3] we
have few details of the encounter between Abraham and Hagar, and even less of
Abraham’s moral perspective on the situation. What we know about ancient
cultures, though, renders the 21st century morality demonstrated in
the episode moot. Hagar was a slave. She had no choice in the matter, most
likely, and I doubt that Abraham would have demonstrated the same martial
fidelity that we see in the episode when Sarah gives him the “hall pass.”
Further, it
is anachronistic to see Lot’s wife arguing with Lot in front of Abraham and
Sarah. I realize that we’ve come a long way in our treatment of women from the
times of the Old Testament,[4]
but the 21st-century perspective on husband/wife relationships was
hard to swallow.
Second, the
segment concerning Sodom. In the producer’s interpretation of this thoroughly
troubling narrative from Genesis 19 the two angelic visitors to Lot’s house are
warriors. These two men take Lot, his wife, and their two daughters out of the
city, in harmony with Scripture. However, the producers saw fit to make the two
angelic warriors draw inappropriately modern swords and proceed to cut down
dozens of Sodomites in true action-flick style. Apparently the producers
couldn’t find enough action in this segment of the narrative to make it
palatable to American audiences, so they created some swordplay, blood, and
death to spice things up.
Why?! Isn’t
there enough morally questionable content in this portion of Scripture? Would
it have been more objectionable to have Lot say to the crowds outside his house,
“I beg you brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who
have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you
please…”[5]
Apparently so. We, the viewers, can handle some canned death and dismemberment
that’s not in Scripture, but we
couldn’t stomach the morally inflammatory content of the actual narrative.
In the
final analysis, The Bible is a well-made show about some of the more popular
stories of Scripture. It has an agenda that will certainly be demonstrated in
future episodes, though for now the driving theme of the series is “trust in
God.” I maintain that the broader culture needs to hear and see the Scriptures,
and I understand that any production of the Bible will necessitate some
interpretation. Of the shows I’ve seen that try to bring the Bible to life,
this is the best. However, as a Bible nerd I am aware that even this good
effort cannot help but leave gaps that must be filled in by minsters and mature
Christians everywhere.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment