Sparks Commentary: A review of “Peter & Paul and the Christian Revolution” (PBS Empires)

“Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cæsar.”

– The New Testament, “The Acts of the Apostles,” Chapter 26, Verse 32 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

This documentary gets some things right, and some things wrong. It's not exactly a hatchet job on the Christian religion, but one gets the impression that it's made by nonbelievers, and that its opinion of Christianity is somewhat lukewarm at best.

The problems of learning about belief systems only from outsiders …

It does have some great re-enactments, and the visual style depicted here matches that of films made by Christian filmmakers. The two sides actually seem to agree somewhat about what this period probably looked like. But when it comes to the issue of how early Christian history developed, these differences of belief start to become noticeable. I don't mind hearing from nonbelievers about Christian history, of course; but it seems that someone would not really understand a particular belief system, merely by listening to people on the outside. If I wanted to hear about atheist beliefs, for example, I would listen to someone who was an atheist, to hear an inside perspective on their philosophies. Their religious friends might offer food for thought, and one could debate about whether their perspectives were valid or not. But I wouldn't get much insight into the atheist mindset, without listening to the opinions of the atheists themselves. Conversely, atheists are not very likely to get much accurate insight into the Christian mindset merely by listening to their non-Christian friends. The non-Christian crowd might offer food for thought, and one could debate about whether these perspectives were valid or not. But without an inside view to supplement these things, their understanding of this value system is somewhat limited on this account.

St. Paul giving the “Areopagus” sermon in Athens

Differences of opinion regarding the historicity of Jesus (and the reasons for Paul's success)

Nonetheless, some areas of agreement are readily apparent here. For example, Paul the Apostle is considered a historical person – and a historically important person – even by many non-Christians today (including the agnostic scientist Carl Sagan). Some would dispute whether Jesus was a real person, as it turns out, but virtually no one alive today (or then) would dispute that Paul was a real person who was historically important. And about the question of the historicity of Jesus: Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God is a separate issue from whether or not He was a real person, and I will not try to settle either of these questions here. But suffice it to say in passing here that there is little doubt that He once walked the earth, and that even many non-Christians have acknowledged that He was a real person (even if they would dispute whether He was the Son of God). The question of Paul's existence is even less disputed, as it turns out, and the producers of this film would obviously agree with me that Paul existed. Rather than question his existence, their strategy is instead to attribute his successes to charm and personality – which I actually agree was (at least partially) true. The filmmakers would deny any “divine intervention” on Paul's behalf, of course, which believing Christians would assert to be the other part of the explanation. As a believing Christian myself, I obviously fall into the latter camp; but I have genuine respect for the people who believe otherwise. More to the point, I enjoyed hearing their viewpoints in this documentary, even when I did not agree with them (although I sometimes did).

Jesus Christ

Should Christianity be called “Paulism”? (The right of groups to choose their own names)

Some of the talking heads interviewed here make an interesting commentary on Christianity. “We can imagine Christianity without Christ,” they say, “but we can't imagine it without Paul” (and I paraphrase them only slightly). In other words, Paul had more to do with Christianity's success in their minds than anyone else (including Jesus). Some have said that his religion should be called “Paulism,” rather than “Christianity.” The New Testament indicates that Paul would have disagreed with this assessment, but that is their argument. This enters a complicated debate about what exactly it means to be a “Christian,” which is debated both from within Christianity, and between Christians and their non-Christian neighbors. Obviously, Christians disagree among themselves about the meaning of this term; and atheists disagree even more. But that does not really discredit the general use of the term in any particular context. To illustrate this, let's leave the realm of religion for a moment, and use an example from race and ethnicity. If Black Americans want to be known as “African Americans” (among other respectful names), then why should we presume to tell them that an alternative name is “better” than theirs? Why should we presume to tell them, for example, that we know better than they do about what their name should be? That is a matter to be decided amongst themselves, and in the way that they see fit. They may or may not always agree among themselves about the exact terminology that they want others to use (or the definitions of these terminology), but this does not mean that the outside views are “superior” in these matters. Outside views are usually somewhat irrelevant here.

Paul writing his Epistles

The biggest problem with this documentary is that it overplays conflicts between the Apostles

But let's leave the linguistic controversies for a moment, and focus on something more substantial. The documentary covers the conflicts between the Apostles at this time, and tries to increase the drama by playing this up. Undoubtedly, there were conflicts; but this documentary seems to exaggerate their extent. It sometimes makes the Apostles sound like rival factions with competing visions, with little or no unifying force. Undoubtedly, there were some controversies within the early Christian church about various doctrines; and the fact that Paul had to write the Pauline Epistles at this time testifies to this. (Otherwise, it would seem, he would never have had to clarify church doctrine in the way that he did in those Epistles – as anyone who has read these Epistles knows.) Nonetheless, the controversies were not quite as great as the later controversies of other centuries. More to the point, a reading of the New Testament seems to show that the unity among the Apostles was much greater than is being portrayed here. One of the biggest issues in the early church was whether or not to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, rather than limit their preaching to fellow ethnic Jews. The Judaism that gave birth to Christianity had long been something of an ethnic religion at this time, which was associated mainly with one particular people (a “chosen people,” in the words of the Book of Daniel). On this issue, Paul was among the first advocates of broadening their missionary work to the Gentiles, and breaking these precedents from previous centuries. It is true that there was indeed some resistance to this idea from the other Apostles (at least at first); but I think that this documentary overplays this resistance somewhat, and makes Paul seem unwilling to submit to the church hierarchy of his time. Paul sacrificed his life for the Christian Church. Thus, one would find this particular claim somewhat hard to believe.

The beheading of St. Paul

The better film on the early Christian church is “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine”

For these reasons, I enjoyed this film, but did not find it very satisfying. If you want to see a documentary about the early Christian church, I recommend “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine” (also shown on PBS). I thought the latter documentary was a much more satisfying film, and would recommend it to others as well. It is six hours long (longer than this film's two hours), and two of those hours were dedicated to the Apostles – the same amount of time, roughly, that this film spends on them. Moreover, if a person watches “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine,” they would probably get a better idea of what Christianity is all about than they would by watching this film. I don't actually know if the host of “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine” is a believing Christian or not, but the documentary seems like a film that could have been made by a believing Christian. It also gives some coverage of Jesus Himself, and even some coverage of a few post-Biblical events. I link to my review of it here.