The Bible: A History, Part 7

Sunday saw the final entry in Channel 4's The Bible: A History, a series which has varied in quality, as well as in approach, but ended on a reasonably high note thanks to Robert Beckford's examination of the book of Revelation.

Beckford has been 4's primary religious presenter over the last decade, charting his quest to revise the Pentecostal faith of his upbringing, and to propose instead a less literal reading of the Bible which nevertheless remains a book with an important message for today.

As with other programmes in the series, this entry begins by looking at some of the traditional takes on the book, including William Blake and modern day fundamentalists. But it also looks at the sad tale of the Branch Dividians at Waco. I would have preferred a little more clarity as to the differences between the Dividians and the Pentecostal church which he visits, though it's there for those with an ear to hear. However, it also includes a compelling interview with one of the survivors of the Waco siege, who bizarrely still justifies some of what happened that day.

Throughout the programme there's a good deal of discussion as to the enduring imagery of Revelation, both by people like Blake, but also in popular contemporary culture, but Beckford's quest is to move away from these images of death and destruction to find something that speaks to us today.

As usual there are a range of interviewees to help him on his journey including a somewhat uncomfortably posed Mark Goodacre, Christopher Rowland and Martin Palmer who considers Beckford's quest a "fool's errand". Goodacre does a good job of putting the book in its historical context. Meanwhile Beckford has travelled to Patmos and is shown the traditional location given to John's vision by a Greek Orthodox priest. (Incidentally, priests from the Orthodox church have featured very prominently in this series, particularly given that there are so few Orthodox Christians in the UK).

After Patmos it's on to America, and the Pilgrim Fathers intent on creating a place that reflected the end of Revelation, but who found themselves supposedly "battling Satan" in the Salem Witch Trials 70 years later. Prof. Paul Boyer provides the background and finds similar rhetoric in today's post-9/11 world. Beckford turns instead to the Brixton riots, the time when he could begin to realise that the Bible in general and Revelation in particular can be "profoundly political". There's a brief look at the Diggers Revolution and the Civil Rights Movement.

And it's here that we meet arguably the programme's most compelling interviewee, Prof. James Coen (spelling undoubtedly wrong, but there was no caption). Coen, who was active in the 60s draws out the way that King and others harnessed the imagery of Revelation to bring about an end to injustice, and the battle between good and evil.

Another group adopting the text in a similar way is those protesting about Climate Change and there's some footage taken from a Climate Change rally featuring horsemen of the apocalypse intercut with a discussion with school children as to whether such an approach is justifiable.

Beckford's personal emphasis seems very much on the closing chapters of Revelation, and the inspired images found therein which link to the very start of the Bible and the Garden of Eden. It's this that is the focus of his closing monologue - a strong argument for a non-literal reading of the text which sides with the oppressed in the hope of creating a new Heaven and a new Earth.

Like last weeks episode on Paul I find myself broadly in agreement with the arguments presented, although I would have liked to see the way the imagery of the Roman Empire relates to the images in Revelation drawn out a little more. But there was little here that stood out as being weak or irrelevant and it made a strong case for the enduring influence of the book today.

The Bible: A History, Part 6

Having courted controversy with last week's look at Jesus Channel 4's The Bible: A History moved onto safer ground this week with a look at St. Paul. Not that it wasn't controversial in it's own way - it was - but a largely unknown historian's look at the man responsible for the spread of Christianity was always going to raise fewer eyebrows than Gerry Adams' take on the Prince of Peace.

The historian in question was Tom Holland a prize-winning author who has specialised in classical history. His controversial point was that far from being an authoritarian oppressor, he was actually the archetypal liberator. "Look to the make the world fairer today" Holland explained in a tantalising introduction "and you owe a debt of gratitude to Paul". It was a point repeated as the programme began to draw to a close. It is Paul who has been most influential on western thinking not Darwin, Marx or Freud.

The problem is that aside from this introduction and conclusion, the middle of the programme struggles to flesh out Holland's point. He makes passing reference in his opening statement to how the ancient Romans and Greeks saw inequality as a virtue, but didn't really demonstrate the point any further. This comes, I think, from the "all things to all men" nature of programmes such as these. Before it could get onto subtler issues like this, the programme needed to explain who Paul was where he came from etc.. It was the right choice, but it did leave Holland's key point a little a little lacking in weight.

That said, Holland did explore two of the areas where Paul's reputation is blackest - his comments on women and homosexuals. Personally I find the criticism Paul gets in these areas distinctly lacking in context. Ancient thinkers will always be from a different culture than our own, and thus when their values are held under such scrutiny hundreds or thousands of years later we are, of course, not going to agree with every word. But I agree with Holland that such statements as "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one" (Gal 3:28) were utterly revolutionary, and to criticise Paul for failing to see the full extent to which his line of thinking goes is to be gravely uninformed.

Holland does go on to tackle those two issues in particular, finding himself in a gay bar to explore Paul's attitude to homosexuality, before talking to a female New Testament lecturer about Paul's attitude to women.

Holland approaches these two issues differently. In the first case he argues that while Paul, like his culture, prohibited homosexuality, he was always very "flexible" in his thinking. He was always challenging his own prejudices, and this too is something he has passed onto the western world. "His aim is always to push against the limits of preconceptions in the name of equality and love" Holland explains. In other words, had he had the time to work these thoughts through, or had he been born into our culture, he probably would not have spoken out against homosexuality as he did.

In honesty, whilst it may be a fair point, it also overlooks a lot of key evidence. Far from being disapproved of in classical culture, sex between males was rife, though only in certain contexts, few, if any, of which bear any similarity to what we think of today when we talk about homosexuality. Secondly, quite what Paul is speaking against is never that clear - at least not once you get into the original Greek. Again, I guess this was a time issue, but it would have been nice to see a little more explanation of this point, given Channel 4's typical audience.

What's interesting is that the programme took a very different angle on the question of women's rights. Rather than re-applying the same arguments, which would not have been inappropriate, he talks to Paula Gooder who explains that some of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul were probably not written by him, including 1 Timothy with it's rules telling women to learn in silence, and forbidding them to teach. It's the perspective I came around to a number of years ago. These statements seem just too greatly opposed to Paul's words (as above) and his actions, working with women teachers, greeting women apostles and so on. Personally I think both issues hang on the translation of hapax legomenon which seem to weigh against the thrust of Paul's words, actions and lines of thinking, but I digress.

Having explored Paul's conversion and his ideas about taking the gospel to the gentiles earlier in the programme, it ends by looking at his death, taking the view that Paul was killed in the Neronian persecution of the early 60s AD. There was no mention of alternative theories, but again this is probably because of time constraints. That said Holland did refer to a legend in which Paul's freshly severed head bounces three times forming a spring of water in each place it hit the ground.

It's hard to sum up my feeling about this episode. In many ways it was one of my favourites. I agreed with almost everything it said, which always leaves one well disposed towards something, and particularly appreciated Holland's attempt to rehabilitate Paul, by explaining his cultural context and the impact his thought has had on 21st century thought. At the same time there were a few extraneous moments (like the footage from Holland's visit to speaker's corner) which should have been cut in favour of fleshing out some of the more important arguments.

Next week, it's the final episode of the series when Robert Beckford takes a look at Revelation. Given Beckford's track record, not to mention his personal history, I have high expectations.

The Bible: A History, Part 5

As I mentioned whilst reviewing last week's instalment of The Bible: A History my review of this week's entry has been posted at rejesus.co.uk (as well as a preview piece I wrote a fortnight ago).

I do have a few additional points to add. Firstly, as with previous episodes there were clips from various Bible films. I struggled to recognise most of those from last week's episode, so it was a relief to fair rather better this week. The excerpts were mainly from Life and Passion of Jesus Christ , The Living Bible series and The Living Christ series with another shot from The Westminster Passion Play (at a guess).

Secondly, it seemed a bit ambitious for the programme to take on the whole of the Jesus story, and this left certain elements feeling a little up in the air. For example, the discussion about Jesus' birthplace not being Nazareth has featured in numerous documentaries over the years and didn't really add a great deal to proceedings. It was useful to see Helen Bond giving him some pointers, I suppose, as it gave his visit to the Holy Land some context and legitimacy, but there were various moments which felt like they didn't really fit.

For me, I think, this was the strongest episode so far, and I do find Adams and his faith fascinating. One point that did grate however, was when he talked about his faith being private. I think it loses that aspect when you go on camera to talk about it.

Next week it's historian Tom Holland looking at Paul. Hopefully he will continue the series' recent good run of form.

Edit: John Crace of The Guardian clearly disagrees with me.

The Bible: A History, Part 4

On a personal level I found Sunday's fourth entry in The Bible: A History the most enjoyable so far. As you'd expect from its title, Daughters of Eve moved away from the format of the previous 3 programmes (all of which focussed on only one part of the Bible) to survey a range of woman from the Bible. As you'd expect, presenter Bettany Hughes started by looking at Eve, before moving on to examine Deborah, Bathsheba, Jezebel, Mary, Salome, Lydia and, most surprisingly, the second Jezebel from the book of Revelation. Along the way she spoke to various female scholars who gave us extra insights into the biblical text.

I stress my personal enjoyment of the programme because for someone a little bored of the conventional takes on these characters, and comfortable with the possibility of bias in the biblical text, it was nice to have something a bit more interesting to think on. The attempted redemption of Jezebel for example is something I'm still thinking about and weighing even a few days later. And it was interesting to hear that some parts of Jewish tradition, and I stress the some, consider the woman of Genesis 1 not to be Eve but a different woman entirely, Lilith.

The potential problem with all this is, I think, that this wasn't just a programme made for me and my ilk, but a broadcast programme on a national TV channel. Biblical literacy is low enough amongst the church, let alone the general populace, and I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with the weight given to some of these more obscure theories. And, as Doug Chaplin points out, it's strange that Ruth and Esther didn't get talked about, though sparing us another alternative take on Mary Magdalene was definitely a smart move.

Having said all that, perhaps this isn't really too much of a problem; after all how many people are really going to turn to Channel 4 expecting a traditional take on anything? In fact, Channel 4 has done so many religious history programmes in this demythologising style that the majority of those tuning in are perhaps likely to be those open to alternative takes on these stories.

What I did appreciate about the programme was the way it stuck to being about biblical history. Whereas the previous three programmes had used the Bible as a springboard for exploring their own agendas, this one (whilst undoubtedly still driven by Hughes's agenda) felt like it stuck closely to its core subject matter. Perhaps this is because Hughes is a historian, hence her agenda is a re-reading of the history advertised in the programme's title. There's seemingly no change of gears when her agenda comes to the fore. In contrast, Widdecombe is a law maker, once she gets onto her own agenda it is far more obvious.

The other key strength of the programme was that Hughes came at it with a conviction that the Bible does, actually, indicate the strength of some of its heroines. Augustine may have obscured Eve, but the same church elevated Mary. Jezebel may be castigated for her show of female strength, but Deborah is praised for it. Bathsheba's reputation may only be slightly mitigated once we understand her context, but Lydia's is clearly strengthened once we understand hers.

So all in all, whilst I have a few qualms about the programme's balance, it was certainly the strongest entry so far, and one which I'd like to watch again to pick up some of the subtleties of what was said. Next week Gerry Adams will launch the series' New Testament section with a look at Jesus. I'll be reviewing that one fairly soon afterwards at rejesus.co.uk where I currently have a piece previewing the Adams episode.

The Bible: A History, Part 3

Having previously dispatched Creation and Abraham, Channel 4's The Bible: A History finally arrived at The Ten Commandments on Sunday. Tory MP Anne Widdecombe was hosting this particular instalment - a call to return to the values of the Ten Commandments in our society today.

Widdecombe's always been a quirky character. During the last Tory government she was unpopular for being something of a battleaxe and slated for her bad dress sense and terrible hair. Whilst I begrudged her politics I secretly admired the way she didn't seem to care too much about how she looked. In honesty, she just looked like a typical woman of her age, but as was the case with Susan Boyle, to appear "normal" in front of the TV cameras is apparently shocking.

Anyway she held onto her seat and served for a while in the Shadow Cabinet before retiring to the backbenches. As the Labour government's popularity started to wane, her popularity has seemed to grow a little (albeit with a new hairstyle), and I was beginning to admire her, not least because, much as I disagree with many of her views, she practises what she preaches and seems to have integrity. It was no surprise that she was one of the few politicians to come up smelling of roses in the recent expenses scandal. Her Christianity has always been important too her and has seemingly shaped her views.

The programme started with an overview of the Moses story, featuring some choice clips from DeMille's 1956 film. This was intercut with various commandments flashing up on screen and Widdecombe bemoaning how the Decalogue has slipped out of fashion in the last few years.

Next up was an interview with Exeter University's Francesca Stavrakopoulou. She presented ideas such as the non-existence of Moses, the exaggerated numbers of Israelites in the Bible, and that the Torah may not have been written by Moses, but it was all disappointingly brief. Stavrakopoulou hadn't even had the chance to utter the words "documentary hypothesis" before Widdecombe dismissed her theories, brushing aside her arguments in manner that suggested she wasn't going to listen to a word of it.

Widdecombe was similarly brusque with atheists Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. The segment was introduced by footage from their recent Oxford debate, but quickly moved on to their one-to-one conversations afterwards. It's difficult to see what the programme makers were trying to do with this section. The major part of the Hitchens interview was taken from the end of their conversation, as he was quite literally walking out. Walking out rarely makes anyone look good, but including it and very little else it also made Widdecombe look bad. Was this the only part of the interview where she held her own even remotely?

Fry was a slightly different matter. Widdecombe was never going to fair well against a national treasure such as Fry, but his familiar affability was largely absent. There was something distinctly odd about seeing the usually mild mannered Fry describing the law of Moses as "hysterical rantings" in a fashion that could be described as as both something of a rant and somewhat hysterical.

But that said, Fry raised the better points. Yes, "Thou shalt not kill" is laudable, but the Ten Commandments are a mixed bunch. Widdecombe seemed to be pushing for them to be enshrined in law, but never acknowledged the potential difficulties this might involve. For example, how could "do not covet" be policed? And does Widdecombe really want a society where it is against the law to worship any God but the God of Christians and Jews? That is far more extreme than I could have imagined. Is this what she actually thinks or has she just not thought it all through?

Interspersed with all this was some interesting background information regarding Alfred the Great basing the first English law on the commandments, and a 17th century Puritan revival in Dorchester, but again these segments seemed a little odd. I enjoyed hearing about Alfred but couldn't help wondering why the academic they wheeled out to discuss a fairly insignificant point was given quite so much time. And the Puritan revival story made me wonder again what, exactly it was that Widdecombe is hoping for. A return to Puritanism?

If she's to get her wish then she is going to have to become a lot more persuasive than she was in this outing. I couldn't help but be reminded of a criticism levelled at another middle-aged woman similarly devoted to the Commandments from DeMille's 1923 version of The Ten Commandments. "You're holding a cross in your hand but you're using it like a whip."


Lastly, for those interested, it would appear that Clayboy's Doug Chaplain broadly shares my opinion on this programme.

The Bible: A History, Part 2

Following on from Howard Jacobson's look at Creation in last week's The Bible: A History was Rageh Omar's look at Abraham, and the three monotheistic faiths that all trace their roots back to him.

It was familiar territory for Omar, brought up a Muslim in nominally Christian country (the UK), who has explored relationships between Christians, Muslims and Jews in various other documentaries before.

Whilst the production values were similarly high as in the first programme in the series, it felt somewhat more tangential than the opening instalment. It was certainly interesting enough in its own way, but it felt less to do with the Bible per se and more to do with two religions that follow it and a third that doesn't. Even then though, I didn't feel I came away with a greater understanding of what the Qu'ran has to say about Abraham.

There was some interesting material - the overview of Sumerian culture towards the start of the programme, and the way in which the story of Abraham may have spoken to the Jews exiled in Babylon in the 6th century - but these felt like the exception rather than the rule.

None of which is to say that the relationship between the three faiths isn't important. It is, massively so. But it didn't really feel like this was a show about the Bible that talked about related issues; more a show about one of those issues that happened to mention the Bible.

In fairness, it's become clear to me now that this criticism could also be levelled at the first programme, with the major difference being arguably only my own interest one issue as against the other. So it will be interesting to see how next week's programme - Anne Widdecombe's look at Exodus and the Ten Commandments - fits with this trend.

The preview at the start and end of this week's offering promises Widdecombe's exploring how God's big ten came to underpin Western law, as well a confrontation with an angry sounding Stephen Fry (in which Widdecombe can surely only come out looking second best). It shall be interesting how much this programme actually ends up being to do with the Bible, not least because Widdecombe is the first Christian in this series to be presenting an episode.

Incidentally, under the 4 on Demand page for each episode numerous viewers have offered their own thoughts on the programme. As you might expect there is more than a little ranting from some quarters.

The Bible: A History, Part 1

I didn't have time to watch the first instalment of Channel 4's new series The Bible: A History on Sunday, but having just caught it this morning I thought I would post a few initial impressions.

Overall I thought it was a great start to the series, with Howard Jacobson, a Jewish Atheist who wants to believe, doing a great job with his interviews, and being open about his own, seemingly shifting, perspectives. I'm actually intrigued to know what atheist's are making of this programme. It seemed to me, at least, that Richard Dawkins was given a fair chance to put his case across, but perhaps there are supporters of Dawkins who are crying "foul".

Christians, however, can have few such complaints. Those from the creationist perspective, whilst obviously disagreeing with most of what the programme had to say, were certainly well represented by Greg Haslam. It's tempting for programme makers to wheel in a nut job to represent 6-day creationists, but Haslam is well thought of within the broader Christian community and comes across well in the interview, even if he failed to persuade either Jacobson or myself.

There were also interviews with Jewish leaders from across the spectrum. Jonathan Sachs from the more liberal end of the Orthodox Jewish community, and Jacobson's own brother-in-law - a rabbi with firm belief in a 6-day creation.

Jacobson gives a good platform to the more literal minded believers before moving on to those who take a more symbolic interpretation of the creation stories, and juxtapose that with science and religious belief. John Polkinghorne was particularly interesting in this respect, and clearly gave Jacobson food for thought (although there is always a certain amount of contrivance with all these documentaries, as the journey of the presenter is, in itself, an engaging narrative - like the creation story itself it doesn't have to be 100% as it happen in order for it still to be "true".

The historical background was also provided in a very accessible, yet sufficiently detailed manner. Again those that hold to Mosaic authorship of Genesis will object, but really only a percentage of evangelical scholars hold to this position (and as these scholars get more specialised the percentage tends to move towards a later date). But in fairly nimble fashion the programme lays out evidence for polytheism relatively late in Israel's history, the exile of the Jews to Babylon and the effect on the Jewish faith, and the reform / development of Jewish faith that took place in that period resulting in a more textual faith.

There was one excellent quote by Jacobson, explaining why he was uncomfortable with the "new atheists" but I didn't manage to get it down. Perhaps some other time.

Doug Chaplain has also reviewed the programme.

Next week it's Rageh Omar looking at the story of Abraham and how it relates to the three Abrahamic faiths.

Start Date for The Bible: A History

According to Channel 4's website for The Bible: A History, the first in the series is going to air at 7pm on Sunday 24th January, with a repeat at 4am on Friday 29th January. The opening instalment is Howard Jacobson's look at creation, and there more on that episode on the website.

I assume that this programme is then going to go out weekly, in order such that Anne Widdecombe's take on The Ten Commandments will air on the 31st January.

Helen Bond, Gerry Adams & Jesus

Channel 4's website for their early 2009 series The Bible: A History still isn't telling us when the series will start. Meanwhile, over at The Bible and Interpretation blog, Helen Bond discusses her experiences on the series in her role as Gerry Adams' mentor during his trip to the Holy Land. She concludes:

Gerry’s background helped to illuminate for me certain aspects of Jesus’ life in a way that discussions with academics often has not. I’m not advocating giving up reading scholarly work, but true diversity of participation in Jesus studies involves discussion with a far greater variety of perspectives than are currently heard.

It's a fascinating piece and one I'd recommend reading even if you won't be able to watch the series.

Thanks to Mark Goodacre for the highlighting this.

The Bible: A History7 Part Channel 4 Series Featuring Gerry Adams

Didn't have time to tag this onto Saturday's post about religious telly over the Christmas period, but Mark Goodacre mentioned this a couple of weeks ago so I've been meaning to post it ever since.

Channel 4 is to screen a seven part series called The Bible: A History. Like their earlier series Christianity: A History, each episode will feature a public figure from a variety of backgrounds who will examine the history of a certain part of the Bible "from their own, very personal, perspective".

As I mentioned in the title, the name grabbing all the headlines is Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams. Having been brought up in an era when his voice was not even permitted to broadcast, it seems extraordinary that he will now be fronting his own show looking at Jesus' message of forgiveness.

Other names include Anne Widdecombe (who also featured in Christianity: A History), former BBC correspondent Rageh Omaar (Miracles of Jesus), Howard Jacobson (pictured above), Bettany Hughes and Robert Beckford. Mark Goodacre has been a series consultant and will appear in Beckford's episode on Revelation.

Channel 4's website for the programme includes an interview with Anne Widdecombe about the programme. There's also an article about the programme on the BBC website. There's nothing yet on the production company's website, Pioneer Productions.