A.D.: The Bible Continues

We were really excited to get this series, but midway through the second disk, we are actually debating whether or not to continue. There's no way we'll allow our sensitive son to watch this while he's a child. We know that violence and horrific conditions were reality under Roman rule, but what struck me most was that the message of the Gospel as preached by Jesus and later by his disciples was cut short and left a person longing to hear more, while the violence was never in short supply. The violence was constant, gratuitous, and not healthy for anyone to have in their mind and heart. I get that perhaps they were trying to prevent a "been there, done that" experience that can happen when one has grown up in a church pew and read the Bible their whole lives, but there is a fine line between portraying the story in a vivid way and being able to do it in a way that fulfills the admonition of Philippians 4:8. There were also issues with some of the historical details that could have been better. Overall, as a parent, this is not something I'd ever want my child to watch, and as an adult, I'm not sure I should continue to watch it. And after reading a review about sex and a rape shown, I'm really wondering. It's possible to portray the truth without putting images that are ultimately unhealthy and evil in a person's mind. This movie fails in that department, and I'm disappointed that the Plugged In review we read failed to really outline what we'd see. As Christians, I don't think this movie is one I can recommend to another Christian. And when considering it as a way to share Jesus with those who don't know Him, I'm not sure this is a great tool for that either.

No to the other commenter, Trajan did not succeed Tiberius, Caligula did. The series' message is very powerful and moving as is the soundtrack. The acting, costumes and prop reconstruction seems very well done, there is a lot of action and it's very entertaining. Sex is not portrayed but there are some very violent scenes. It would be better for those in their late teens and older. At first it generally follows the Biblical events' sequence with some deviations such as in sequence but it adheres less to the correct sequence as the season progresses. Best to read Acts at the same time. But it is amazing at bringing to life a sense of the biblical era and aspects of daily life are portrayed well. However, Mary Magdalene and Peter's daughter are portrayed in a too modern Western way for accuracy, such as, the daughter's mouthing off to her father and his allowing it, which is nonsense. A number of liberties are taken with the historical information as, well as some biased and faulty interpretations of historical people's characters, as with Pilate, Caiphas and Agrippa I. For instance, Caiphas was presented perhaps a little too sympathetically and Pilate too harshly. I agree that his presentation was too one-dimensional. It was, also too extreme. He made judgement errors but may not have been so deliberately cruel. Rome made much effort to respect Judaean religious laws although Pilate was less adept at this. Agrippa I was proficient at intrigue but was never portrayed by ancient sources as promiscuous/licentious or lecherous. He is described by Josephus as having had a good relationship with his wife. Tiberius never wanted to put Agrippa to death and Agrippa seems to have wielded much more power over Pilate than the reverse, since he might be part of the reason at least that Pilate was recalled to Rome and possibly exiled. He also had Antipas exiled. Tiberius and Caligula never visited Judaea. Agrippa was king of a larger kingdom of Herod the Great, and Pilate and Antipas had been exiled by the time Peter was imprisoned and escaped. It was Agrippa as king who imprisoned him. Agrippa's political policy involved serious adherence to Judaism while in Jerusalem. By this time as, well, Caligula and then Claudius had already succeeded Tiberius. Early in Claudius' reign, Agrippa moved permanently to Judaea. I agree that the second part of the series is very historically flawed. I don't see why this is necessary: it would have been more effective for it to adhere to at least most of the facts. There is much debate as to Caligula's true nature since the sources available are based on Claudius' smear campaign after the former's assassination. To disagree with another comment: Trajan was not a Julio-Claudian and he ruled several decades later. Caligula most definitely did succeed Tiberius. The historical accuracy worsens in the last few episodes. As, well, Caligula's statue was, never taken to Jerusalem. It was the Syrian governor Petronius and Agrippa I, back in Rome with Caligula, who persuaded Caligula to rescind his order, which was, finally completely cancelled with Caligula's death. Pilate had nothing to do with it. The actual history is much more dramatic than the episode. I fail to understand why the series avoided this, although it would have needed a couple more actors and a Roman setting. I'd give it 3.5 rather than 4 stars for the historical and historical characterizational flaws. That might be why the series was discontinued which is too bad. The series is otherwise very dramatic and entertaining all the same. If it is, revived or something similar is created, adhering to historicity would make a world of difference.