“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
The first episode covers the early life of Jesus, acknowledging that he was a real person
I had fairly low expectations going into this film. This film was made by PBS Frontline, a journalistic arm of PBS. Since Will Lyman is the exclusive narrator for PBS Frontline, he was the one chosen to narrate this film. But there actually isn’t much narration, good or bad, to speak of in this film. It’s mostly a discussion among scholars, with the narration used for little more than transitions from one interview clip to the next. They also cut to footage from the Holy Land – which is beautifully photographed here, incidentally. The scholars interviewed here are nice enough people, and manage to avoid being confrontational in their comments. Some of the scholars are Jews or Christians, but most of them are a little skeptical about Christianity – and, in many cases, about “religion” more generally. They paint the Gospel accounts as being a little “contradictory,” relying on some fairly careless readings of the text to do so. They also read too much into certain information, like how Jesus asked to be baptized by John the Baptist. In this example, they interpret this to mean that Jesus was a “follower” of John, and considered the Baptist to be “superior” to Himself. I’m not sure how they managed to read these things into the text, but so goes the argument. It seems to be rather slipshod scholarship, actually, which is unsupported by the text. I’m all right with getting these people on the record, and hearing from them in this film. And, in fairness, some of their arguments are mainstream – although some of them are a little more “creative.” But these people come across as a little too confident in their conclusions. Furthermore, they seem to imply that their opinions are backed by “scholarly consensus,” when this film is actually relying on just a handful of scholars, and giving them great weight.
The second episode covers (and exaggerates) conflicts in the early church
In fairness, they do a reasonably good job of examining the historical context of the Savior’s life, and showing the places where these things happened. Indeed, this kind of thing is part of what makes this film watchable, despite its speculative style. But, when it comes to interpretation, they seem to be extrapolating a bit beyond the evidence here. The presenters are interesting and personally likeable, even though their arguments tend to be a little lacking in evidence. By contrast, the evidence for Jesus being a real historical person is compelling enough that even they do not really dispute it. That being said, I agree with them that little is known about His mortal life and ministry. Rather, their strategy is to try to cast doubt upon the claims to His Messiahship (by Him or others), and to portray His Messiahship as the invention of a later century. This whole enterprise is rather dubious, to say the least. Extra-scriptural sources for first-century Christianity are relatively few, and their readings into them can be a little problematic – as are their readings of the New Testament itself. The second episode, as is common among nonbelievers, makes much (some would say too much) of conflicts in the early church. For example, they paint Peter and Paul as being a little antagonistic towards each other – a common refrain from this particular crowd. At times, their arguments are clear, even if not very convincing. But, at other times, I’m not even clear on what they’re trying to say, or why. Regardless, this episode ends with a discussion of the First Jewish Revolt against Roman rule in 70 AD.
Reconstruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem
The third episode covers the writing of the four Gospels, with some contradictory claims
The third episode resumes their discussion of this same Jewish Revolt, and then talks about the writing of the four Gospels. They essentially paint the Gospels as having been written long after the fact, perhaps around AD 100 in the case of John (or so they argue here). They further argue that the Gospels were written by four people who were “wholly unconnected” with each other (to paraphrase what they said), with each author writing to a different audience for a different purpose. Again, they seem far too confident in their analysis of motivations, relying on some fairly careless readings of the text to make their arguments. Like other nonbelievers, they argue that the Gospels contradict each other at times. But, at other times, they argue that their accounts are actually “too similar,” with the exact same Greek translations of the Aramaic sayings of Jesus. They seem to argue that if the accounts are different, then they must be “contradictory” and “irreconcilable.” But if the accounts are too similar, they also argue, then this must be evidence of some kind of “plagiarism” – perhaps from a third source that is sometimes called “Q.” It would seem that the purpose of science is to devise some kind of test, where one result would support their own point of view, and one result would support the opposite point of view. Thus, if they cannot even conceive of an outcome that “supports” Christianity and disproves their own point of view, then they have ceased to do science. A theory that cannot be “proven false,” in the view of those holding it, is thus unscientific – rather strange, for a group of people that would probably claim to be “scientific.” They also argue that the Gospel of Mark did not originally include an account of Jesus’s death and resurrection, and that its last chapter was tacked on later – a claim that would seem to be unsubstantiated. Regardless, this third episode then ends with a discussion of the Bar Kokhba Revolt of the second century. They are on somewhat stronger ground as they discuss the effects of this revolt.
Entrance to a cave used by the Bar Kokhba rebels
The fourth and final episode goes through the advent of Constantine in the fourth century
The last episode is about Christianity from its second and third centuries to the advent of Constantine in the fourth century. Again, they are on somewhat stronger ground here, since there is more information available about these later centuries. Thus, I found very little to disagree with in this episode. They talk about the martyrdom of early Christians, including the well-known martyrdom of a woman named Perpetua. They make the argument that relatively few Christians were martyred in the second century, although they acknowledge that this became more common in the third century – when Christians became a stronger political force. With both parts of this analysis, most Christians would agree. Most of the early persecution was at the local level, although there was at least one Roman emperor who instituted empire-wide persecutions. But Constantine won the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, and then converted to Christianity around the time that he became the next emperor. Like many others, they argue that Constantine was an improbable Christian hero, because he had once been an anti-Christian pagan. But, then, Paul was an improbable Christian hero, too, because he had executed many members of the early church. Conversions of any kind, in any direction, will necessarily have elements of irony to them. They also talk about the decisions about which books to canonize into the Christian Bible, and which things to reject. For example, they mention the Gospel of Thomas, an Apocryphal book that comes from the Gnostic tradition. They also mention its discovery at Nag Hammadi, one of the most important Biblical discoveries to come before the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in the late 1940s). They also discuss early Christian art from the catacombs, and what it tells us about the early conceptions of Jesus. Much of this is familiar ground, since it has been covered in other documentaries – including the BBC’s “The Dark Ages: An Age of Light.” Even with this later material, I found the coverage of “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine” to be of far greater quality. And “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine” is worlds ahead of “From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians,” when covering the mortal life of Jesus, and His early apostles.
Constantine, the first Roman emperor to become a Christian
Conclusion: An entertaining film, but rather slipshod on the scholarship
I’m not sure why they chose a journalistic group like PBS Frontline to make this documentary, but the music and cinematography of this film are nonetheless great. And the scholars were interesting, even when I had some significant reservations about their arguments. I was all right with hearing them, even when we disagreed. This film definitely succeeds on an entertainment level, but is much more problematic on an informational level. In fairness, I have no doubt that these talking heads are real scholars, but there are many other real scholars who disagree with them, and who are much more comfortable with the New Testament accounts. Ultimately, I found many of their arguments to be rather silly, betraying a slipshod scholarship that seems to find whatever it wants to find. Thus, I have trouble recommending this film to anyone who just wants the truth. I’d watch it only if you just want some good entertainment, or would like to hear an outsider’s perspective on Christianity.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment