Skip to comments.The History Channel's Bible Series, Episode 3
Posted on 03/17/2013 8:19:12 PM PDT by Jandy on Genesis
Episode 3 is expected to see a ratings bump with the first appearance of Jesus, played by the Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado. Though Morgado does not look like a Middle Eastern Semite, the producers have the age right. Morgado is 33, the age of Jesus at his death.
The History Channel's third episode of the Bible takes huge leaps through history. It moves from the Babylonian captivity to the baptism of Jesus. It is dramatic and entertaining, but as with episodes 1 and 2, it lacks historical grounding and fails to present the cultural complexities of Abraham's Horite descendants, especially those taken to Babylon.
The Babylonian Captivity
The inhabitants of the southern kingdom of Judea were subjected to two deportations to Babylon. The first took place in 597 BC when Jerusalem was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. According to II Kings 24:1-6, King Jehoiakim and the distinguished men of his kingdom were taken to Babylon, along with the treasures of the Temple and the palace.
The second deportation took place in 586 BC in the eleventh year of the reign of King Zedekiah, who was also named Mattaniah. He had formed an alliance against Babylon with the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Sidonians and Tyrians. Jeremiah prophesied that all these would also experience divine judgment. When the Babylonians entered Jerusalem, Zedekiah and his soldiers fled by night and were pursued by the Babylonians who overtook them near Jericho.
(Excerpt) Read more at jandyongenesis.blogspot.com ...
I did not get to see tonight’s episode.
Was it good?
I was a little disappointed with the old testament smiting and smoting, and have been waiting for the new testament.
Dunno how any one could fit the old and new testament into 10 hours.
I have friends who think this isnt Biblically accurate enough and arent watching. I think its well-done, presenting consequences of sin, the depravity of man, the blessings of faith, and the fulfillment of prophecy resulting in the coming of the Savior.
I didn’t really like it. I could sense a Charismatic influence in it, though I could be way off. Their emphasis on the “anointed,” their skipping quickly over David’s repentance and punishment, etc.
The Charismatics are really big on not criticizing pastors or “Prophets,” as they allegedly are, because they are “anointed.” I don’t recall that kind of phraseology used in the Bible as the way they presented it.
I missed it, but my wife says that the casting for Satan was right on.
Barry Obama is a Charismatic.
She’s right. Looked like B. Hussein Obama.
(see related thread)
I had a hard time believing Samson was black. Not just a dark skinned man from that part of the world, but an African black and Samson was from the 12 tribes of Israel. I’m guessing this is just PC affirmative action.
Too much of cinematic license. For example, there is no angel Gabriel announcing to Mary her virgin pregnancy, and Joseph is told of Mary’s pregnancy not in a dream, but by ordinary man. For those untutored in Luke’s Gospel account of the birth of Christ, this is quite a disservice. The three Kings makes for sophomoric acting.
For the record, Samson was a Danite, and so descended from Shem. Black people, IIRC, are identified as descendants of Ham in the Bible.
One inaccuracy that troubled me was showing Jeremiah “escaping” the destruction of Jerusalem. He was in prison when the Babylonians invaded, and had to be released by Nebuzaradan, the Babylonian general, who gave him money and food and let him go afterwards.
The Gospel according to Matthew is unclear about how Joseph learned of Mary's pregnancy. "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit, and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly." (Matt. 1:18-19).
The angel appeared to him in a dream to tell him that he need not worry about the pregnancy in which he was not an agent, since the child conceived was the Son of God, and that it was all right for him to take Mary home as his wife.
Same here. I’m enjoying it quite a bit and so is my wife.
I have only one hesitation about the series. Today’s Hollywood seems to portray Jesus as being filthy; poorly dressed; unwashed, matted hair; dirt on his face, etc.
I just cannot buy that. When Jesus walked by, people would reach out and touch his garment .. but who would touch such a filthy garment ..?? And .. Jesus was in possession of the very life of GOD; nobody can convince me that he walked the earth with dirt on his face and in a filthy garment.
The depiction I agree with most, happened in Ben Hur (the one with Charleston Heston). When Heston was being dragged across the dessert and he fell down from hunger and thirst, it showed a person in a clean white garment covered by a red garment, who scooped up some water and gave it to Heston. Suddenly, a Roman guard came charging toward Heston and screaming that Heston was not allowed to have water. At that moment, the man in the red and white garment stood up .. towering over the Guard .. and the Guard just stood there and stared at the man .. he also stopped yelling.
Two important events took place in that film: First, Heston touched the hand of Jesus, something happened to Heston - He came in contact with the Holiness of Jesus and it changed his heart and made him want to live. Second, the appearance of Jesus was not filthy, dirty, no matted hair, etc. Jesus was clean (even in the dessert) and his hair was neat and combed. Therefore, when Jesus stood up - the guard was shocked by Jesus’ appearance of authority and he immediately stopped what he was doing.
This scene from Ben hur is exactly how I believe Jesus appeared to the people .. they were stunned by the Holiness, which they had never encountered before, since all of them had been living with sin. Jesus’ appearance had to be neat and clean .. it could never be matted hair and a dirty face and filthy garments .. NEVER.
The only reference in the scripture to any washing of any kind was when Jesus washed the feet of His followers - since they would be dusty from walking in sandles on the dirt roads.
Yes, there was the angel Gabriel who did announce to Mary of her virgin pregnancy in tonight's episode. Gabriel's character was listed in the credits, as well.
Like all religious films, they are not accurate. Hollywood
wants to make money. Have heard some preachers who have pointed out errors that are not correct with the KJV version of the bible.
Hmmmm ..?? Jesus, the Christ
means .... Jesus, the Annointed One
Funny, I learned that in Bible School.
I noticed that when Jesus came out of the wilderness (on tonight’s episode) his shoe soles were brand new leather. That really touched me, for some reason.
NO, HE IS NOT!!!
I am a Charismatic .. and Obama definitely is not!
I have been around lots of charismatics.
Obama is one.
Well .. then you do not have a clear understanding of what a Charismatic is .. because Obama IS NOT.
Obama claims to be Muslim and Christian .. neither of which are Charismatic.
I saw no angel. Just a mere mortal man.
When I say Charismatic, I do not say it in biblical terms.
I say it in the way that a street hustler running a game of 3 card monte is a charismatic.
A Carnival bum, that is what Obama is, a Carnival bum.
Expecting the usual social engineering propaganda I’ve been pleasantly surprised by this series.
My opinion, for what it isn't worth:
Jesus was not from a poor family, by any means.
There are good arguments for Mary being related closely to the groom at the wedding in Cana, who himself is certainly not a poor man, based upon evidence in the description of the feast.
Elizabeth & Mary are cousins; and as a temple priest, she & Zacharias were not poor people.
Joseph (often called a ‘carpenter’ NT:5045) was a “skilled craftsman in wood” not some poor hammer-jockey. As a "craftsman" he could easily have had mastery over subordinate workers; the Book is silent on that matter.
Joseph of Arimathea ( a very wealthy Pharisee & member of the Sanhedrin) was almost certainly Mary's uncle, since he was able to claim Jesus’ body without any argument: the right of a kinsman-redeemer, the ‘senior’ uncle of the family. That is also a testament to Joseph being more than a poor man; her family would not have arranged a marriage so far across class lines.
This would put Jesus’ earthly family in at least the upper-middle class, so to speak, rather than among the poor.
An unkempt, dirty & poor man would not have been reading the scrolls & teaching in the synagogues, let alone listened to when teaching in the temple. Nor would one such have been dining with Nicodemus; or mixing socially in the homes of others of at least some substance.
Several, if not all, of the 12 were also not exactly poor people either: “ships” (as opposed to a skiff or rowboat) were not a cheap commodity.
I must say I was very impressed. Not being a bible thumper I found the scenes very moving, especially John’s baptism of Jesus and the 3 men in the fire...
I just wish I had watched last week.
That was the angel Gabriel.
Hubby and I noticed that too! Looks like the Evil One in the White House!
I was talking to my daughter on the phone last night and told her the same thing. She was working and didn’t see it. I told her I wanted to post it on FB but she said not to stir up trouble. She thought I was exaggerating how much he looked like him. This morning I went on FB and apparently I’m not the only one to see the resemblance!
I would have liked to have seen Job somewhere, because the problem of evil is a timeless story, is universal, and lays the groundwork for the Messiah. But I understand the problem with story continuity, and the fact that they can't include everything.
Would have liked to have seen some attempt at portraying Gabriel as fearsome, or at least as bright light. In Old Testament encounters, people usually trembled in fear.
I was very disappointed in the baptism of Jesus that a dove did not descend nor did God say “this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”.
Didn’t angels often appear as men?
It was a great episode...beautifully done. This critic would praise Bill Maher. This kind of review is stuff just to turn off, mute, disregard. I don’t need someone elses’s opinion of what is good and not...I’ll make up my own mind. And it is made up...I really enjoyed it...well done, Bravo!
Then don't capitalize the word.
Obama has political charisma. Therefore, he is charismatic.
A Charismatic, in the Biblical sense, is something completely different. With Charismatic members all over my family, believe me, there is a distinct difference.
Same here. I even turned up the volume and watched extra close. Nothing :(
Agree...it would’ve been nice to have seen Gabriel portrayed angelic and bright. The red cape thing is different than I’d expected.
You are so correct. And your opinion is worth a lot.
A very simple test is to look at the old art pictures and their descripton of the clothing of the people in the picture.
It is noted that Mary wore blue and white. This has to mean wealth, because in that time period, only a wealthy person could afford to purchase clothing which had been dyed, or to pay for cloth to be dyed.
However, Joseph (while always shown as well-dressed), wore clothing which was more of the earth tones. This could indicate he was in a slightly lower financial class, even though he was a well-known carpenter (and as you noted, a “craftsman” in his trade).
The next great symbol, the wise men. They were all dressed in bright colors, dripping with jewels. Of course, this indicates wealth. But, it also shows that because of Mary’s bright colored clothing, her family had to be wealthy.
Knowing this, there is no way Jesus walked around looking like a street urchin. I really resent this depiction. But, they base it on the fact “there was no room at the inn”, and Jesus had to be born in a stable. This place of birth had nothing whatsoever to do with the parents financial situation. It had to do with a private place for Mary to give birth; that’s all.
You’re also very correct regarding the “fishermen”. They left their fishing businesses (and their families) to follow Jesus, and no mention is made of how those families continued to be cared for without the “fishermen” there.
There is no possibility that Jesus would have called those men to follow Him, and then forced them to abandon their families to fend for themselves.
Having chrisma and being Charismatic are two very different things.
I thought it odd that when telling the story of Daniel, they skipped Belshazzar’s feast, one of the more dramatic and memorable events of the Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.