The Bible on the History Channel #3

So last night I started up the DVR and watched my recording of the third installment of “The Bible” on the History Channel. Overall, I would say that this installment was better than #2 and about on the same level as #1. I also have read some other blogs that rate the program as “total heresy” which I think is too strong a statement (I think they are really trying to get the basic message of the Bible in there) or that rate it as wonderful and are getting ready to buy the workbooks to use for their Sunday School classes (better to study the Bible directly). I am going to come down somewhere in between those again.

So I liked the lead up to the scene on the siege and exile of Jerusalem. I wish they had connected it better to how the seeds of unfaithfulness were sown by David and Solomon (how does the reign of Solomon and building of the temple get completely skipped in this series!?) and ultimately led to the failure under Zedekiah and the Exile. However, I thought the program accurately portrayed the siege and the reasons for God bringing on the exile. I thought they also did a good job of portraying Zedekiah’s weak character. They compressed the story a bit but that was understandable. They also got Jeremiah pretty accurately. I would have brought out that the reason Jeremiah went to Egypt was because of the rebellion of the Israelites left in the land but they left that out.

Overall, I also thought they did well with the story of Daniel. I especially appreciated that they did not remove the miraculous from the story and included the fiery furnace story (with the one like a “son of man” walking in the fire) and the lion’s den story. I also liked that they worked in Daniel’s dreams of the image, beasts and son of man. I can’t believe they left out the handwriting on the wall scene as Cyrus came into Babylon. There were inaccuracies. Daniel was exiled during the reign of Jehoiakim and so would already have been in Babylon 10-11 years before Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. I was also surprised that they worked in the comment that Isaiah was in Babylon and prophesied that Cyrus would free the people. The program has taken a pretty conservative approach so far to the text so I was surprised to find “second Isaiah” popping up there. I am also surprised they left out any reference to the “conversion” of Nebuchadnezzar from Daniel 4.

So far,the Jesus section has been ok. I thought the annunciation scene was done well except for the addition of the fighting in Nazareth. The birth scene looked like it was based more on Christmas card theology than what the Bible actually says, but perhaps they were just trying to put all the stories together. The baptism scene was pretty good. I think it got across who Jesus was. The temptation scene was also good. I just wondered why they had to portray Satan with a southern European accent and Jesus with a British accent. I am still reserving judgment until they get into Jesus’ teaching and the cross-resurrection section. Maybe next week?

Again, overall basic good ideas but they still get details unnecessarily wrong.