Tomorrow evening sees the commemncement of a 4-part series on the Nativity, being screened by the BBC. This mini-series, by Eastenders writer, Tony Jordan, has been widely flagged up as a modern, but accurate, take on the original record. From what I have heard and read thus far, I beg to differ as to the second of those adjectives!
I have posted the following on an online forum, but add it to this blog in order to give it a wider audience!
Having listened to Mr Jordan being interviewed on the Sunday programme on BBC Radio 4, this morning, I have already written to point out that the research that he claimed to have done has been woefully inadequate. An article in today's Sunday Express newspaper merely emphasises why the gentleman writes scripts for Eastenders, and not academic articles!
Permit me to put him (and any readers who may be foolish enough to take his word on matters about which, by his own confession, he knew very little before writing the forthcoming programmes) right on some of his mistakes and misconceptions (no pun intended!).
1. The suggestion that Joseph would have verbally abused the young Mary (more likely to have been 12-13 years old, in accordance with the contemporary culture) is flatly contradicted by the internal evidence of the Gospel record: "This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. Joseph, her fiancé, was a good man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement quietly.
As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. 'Joseph, son of David,' the angel said, 'do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the Child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a Son, and you are to name Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.' ... When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. But he did not have sexual relations with her until her Son was born. And Joseph named Him Jesus." (Matt 1:18-25; NLT).
2. “I think it perfectly believable that Joseph should get angry with his betrothed and only agree to take her with him to Bethlehem when she risks being stoned by angry neighbours." Mr Jordan is entitled to 'think' whatever he wishes, but the fact is that Joseph would have been expected to take his wife with him for the census, especially when she was heavily pregnant so that both she and the child that was due to be born could be counted.
3. I did like Mr Jordan's reported protestation that “Personally, I believe in the immaculate conception ..." Did his extensive research not throw up the fact that the immaculate conception is a doctrine of the Church of Rome that states that, in order for Mary to have been the mother of the Saviour, she herself had to be born sinless? It has nothing to do with the virginal conception of Jesus and, in fact, has no Biblical basis whatsoever!
4. One final point (although I could go on!). Mr Jordan states that "... those who wrote the gospels were doing so from a distance of 200 years." At least, this morning, he only allowed a gap of 100-150 years! However, he might have done a little bit more research and discovered, for example, the existence of the Magdalen Fragments. These are three pieces of papyrus containing parts of Matthew 26, and they are held, as far as I know, in Magdalen College, Oxford. They have been dated as from before 60AD - considerably earlier than Mr Jordan's conclusion! There is, of course, a great deal more evidence for the early writing of the whole of the New Testament.
No comments:
Post a Comment