Good Friday, 12noon, Channel 7 was a documentary by John Dickson, The Christ Files.
It’s supposed to be a historical exploration of the facts behind the stories about Jesus.
I didn’t get home in time to watch it so I searched for a review of it. I’d hoped to find something thought out, critical (positive or negative, just have an opinion), perhaps a report on how different people reacted to it.
Instead I found a review in SMH. In case you can’t be bothered to link over there:
Sydney historian, theologian and former Anglican minister John Dickson hosts this documentary about the evidence for the existence of Jesus. Timed for Good Friday, and clearly inspired by the host’s urge to rebut popular heresy promoted by The Da Vinci Code, The Christ Files is pitched as a neutral, academic exercise to see what is known about Christ as a historical figure.
Dickson flits between seven countries, visiting universities, churches and rare manuscript libraries, interviewing cobwebbed old theologians and ancient historians to a funky lifestyle program soundtrack. It’s like Getaway: Christianity.
It starts out well but moves from outlining historical references to Jesus to selectively interpreting them in support of founding Christian myths. The conclusions Dickson draws will come as no surprise to the Anglican diocese or Dickson’s own Centre for Public Christianity.
That might be the lamest review I’ve ever read. You wouldn’t even need to watch the documentary to write something like that. Reading between the lines it seems to say “It’s okay, but I don’t like it because he’s a Sydney Anglican… I’d never say it out loud though.”
I’m sure it’s a very educational show, but the title is just so off putting. Like it’s the Law and Order of religion or something like that LOL
I commented on your mom’s post too but I’m sure you’ll see that. Thanks so much for sharing!:)
Haha, yeah I guess it does sound a bit like that. In a way they might have meant it – it’s meant to be a sort of academic/analytical way of looking at things.
Funny, as an outsider, I interpreted that review as “it was okay until they decided to conclude that there was something to this Jesus after all. We can’t take THAT seriously, now can we?”
We all believe (or not believe) what we want or what fits into our own agenda, don’t we?
Yes, reading between the lines in that review could go either way. The reason I took my stance was because he didn’t give any examples of anything. He could have named a conclusion and given an alternate conclusion, but didn’t and I haven’t seen the doco to know any better. I can’t say that I think I have an agenda, but my thoughts were tainted by the event I recounted in my previous post.