The entire Bible is full of “creative liberties.”
Take for example only the Gospels. They follow a rough outline that is alike, but differ quite remarkably at many points. For example, the birth narratives of Jesus, found only in Matthew and Luke, are very different from each other, even to the extent of differing as to where Mary and Joseph lived at the time. In Matthew their home is clearly Bethlehem, which is why there is no manger, and why Herod orders the slaughter of the Holy Innocents two years after Jesus is born. In Luke it is equally clear that they live in Nazareth, and are in Bethlehem only for this census, or capitation tax, or whatever it was.
The reason this happens is because the gospels are not biographies of Jesus, but rather theological interpretations of Jesus, particularly his death. Once we realize that we are not dealing with history, and that we all are constantly writing our own gospels, just as the evangelists did, we discover that not only is it OK to take liberties, it is inevitable. How can you not create your own version when creating your own version is precisely the model the Bible gives us?
Mel Gibson is the most famous recent example of this. His “The Passion of Christ” is very little like any of the Gospels except in its outline of arrest, trial, torture and death. Otherwise it is a pastiche of the four Gospels plus his own piety. But it happened as well with classics like “The Ten Commandments.”
“…The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus, but rather theological interpretations of Jesus, particularly his death. Once we realize that we are not dealing with history, and that we all are constantly writing our own Gospels, just as the evangelists did, we discover that not only is it OK to take liberties, it is inevitable. ” -Rev. Bill Ellis
So Bill, are you OK with people takling liberties that fundamentally contradict, ignore or betray the example, teaching and ethos of Jesus?
Does any fidelity to Jesus come into play in matters of nonviolence, enemy love, marrtial faithfulness, worship, love of the poor etc?
“So Bill, are you OK with people taking liberties that fundamentally contradict, ignore or betray the example, teaching and ethos of Jesus?”
Interpreting ancient literature is tricky business. In the case of the Bible, it’s often tempting to take first century words and apply them literally to a completely different time, which produces a different result. Bible scholars do their best to understand the writings of the Gospels in terms of Jesus’s own time and condition as a first century Jew. What they come up with, however, is often strikingly different from the interpretation of today’s Evangelical conservatives, and is usually rejected by Evangelicals. The questions is, who is actually taking liberties, the artists, the Evangelicals, or both?
To me, any interpretation of an ancient work is difficult and is bound to contain liberties.
Let’s start by saying Bruce is right, “any interpretation of an ancient work is difficult and bound to contain liberties.” Insofar as the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars believe that Matthew looked at Mark as he wrote his gospel we can see that Bruce’s comment is not just true today, it was true then. Matthew took all sorts of “creative liberties” with Mark’s story. That said, there are better and worse adaptations, more and less faithful interpretations. Frankly, Eric, I think you just like to argue. Nothing I said suggests that I think it fine to “contradict, ignore, or betray…” anything. What I said is what is quite simple, people are going to offer their own interpretation, even when they don’t know that is what they are doing. Liberties are not only OK, they are inevitable. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the method by which the bible itself was created.
Bruce is right; “any interpretation of an ancient work is difficult and is bound to contain liberties.” Insofar as the overwhelming number of scholars believe that Matthew looked at Mark when he wrote his gospel it becomes clear that this true not just now, but was true then. Matthew took many “creative liberties” with Mark’s gospel. Frankly, Eric, I think you like to argue. Nothing I said suggests that i believe it OK to “contradict, ignore or betray” anything. That said, there are better and worse adaptations, more and less faithful interpretations of any work. But that there will be adaptations, and interpretations is not only OK, it is inevitable. To pretend otherswise is to ignore the method by which the entire Bible was produced.
Bill,
What’s funny about your statement that I like to argue, is that I purposefully rewrote my comment to avoid being more provoking. In my circles the statements you laid out would be considered deeply troublesome. I’ve taken a lot of time to understand the positions you present, but if you find no interest in responding, thats fine.
You know, one of the things that it is impossible to see in an email is tone of voice. So I can’t say that your comment “sounded” provoking, but it “looked” that way. This was my mistake. Nevertheless I didn’t suggest that it was OK to take the sort of liberties I thought you were suggesting I might be just fine wtih. I am aware that the positions I present are deeply troubling to lots of Christians. But the further I go into the Bible the more convinced I become that this isn’t history, and it isn’t science. The truth of scripture is conveyed through the kinds of literature they had then, which is myth, saga, epic, and so forth. Doesn’t make it “less” true, and certainly not false in any sense. And it isn’t their fault if we mistake the kind of writing they did for the kind of writing we do.
My initial thoughts after reading your comments were centered around the teachings of Jesus about peace and nonviolence. I guess when I read your statements they seem to put very important ethical and social teaching into the ‘take it or leave it” bin and I find that to be very difficult to believe.
The question was whether or not creative liberties OK for Bible films, and I say they not only are, they are inevitable as well. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all took creative liberties with the tradition they had been handed. We as Christians have been taking creative liberties ever since. That is all I am saying. I am convinced that Jesus was completely non-violent, that he refused to fight violence with violence, and that he clearly instructed his followers in that way of life. The Jesus I would depict would therefore be that way. Others are not so sure about that, as evidenced by the fact that 1,200 years later Pope Innocent III had the largest army in Europe. Who is right about what God wants? I think I am.