“The Bible” on History Channel

Good television and good storytelling involves, among other things, setting up a conflict and working it out to its conclusion. How we tell the gospel story—or more importantly, how the Bible tells the story—builds suspense by illustrating the problem of human rebellion against God, exposing the conflict generated by that problem, and finding resolution. So often in evangelical presentations of the gospel, we cut right to the chase with an invitation (demand?) to seek forgiveness of one’s sin by believing in Jesus Christ. But without a backstory, that invitation can come across as meaningless to the postmodern or very possibly

Episode Three of History Channel’s The Bible makes the leap from Old Testament to New Testament times. The fast-forward is appropriate to the feeling one has as one turns the page from Malachi’s prophecy in the Old to the gospel of Matthew in the New. What happened? Circumstances have changed dramatically. We enter the world dominated by Rome. Yes, the producers choose to illustrate the desecration of the Temple in an extra-biblical way (my readers may be able to help me find the source for this, if it exists beyond the producers’ imaginations). And yes, the emphasis is again on

Continuing our examination of the History Channel’s five-part series The Bible, the third episode that aired last night offered highs and lows, and overall I was disappointed. Serious factual errors marred the Exile narrative, and after studying 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Jeremiah and Daniel again today I have finally sorted out the problems. I understand the difficult choices that must be made in order to condense the story, but the episode entitled “Hope” gave wrong information. So, in order to equip my friends hoping to use the material for a Sunday school class, I offer my comments and corrections. The