The Bible on Television, 2009

Battles B. C. (history)

a Review by

Garry D. Nation

Strictly speaking, Battles B. C. on the History cable network (formerly “The History Channel”) is not about the Bible.  However, the program, produced by David Padrusch, is derived from the 2005 series Bible Battles (also produced and directed by Padrusch), and connects with some of its content.  Bible Battles was built around the work of Richard A. Gabriel, a military historian and author of The Military History of Ancient Israel (Praeger 2003) and numerous other scholarly works and textbooks on ancient warfare.  Gabriel’s concept is to analyze the biblical text from a military point of view rather than a religious one.

The biblical subject matter in Battles B. C. has been reduced to Moses, Joshua, and David, while being expanded to include Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander, Pharaoh Ramses II, and the Greeks at the battle of Marathon.  What makes this series distinctive is its “graphic novel” approach to dramatizing the action in the style of the motion picture The 300 (but with a lower budget).

The visual result certainly tends to attract the interest, especially of the younger viewer.  There is a lot of bare-chested beefcake, and highly stylized choreography of hand-to-hand combat.  (The favorite move in all segments is the 2-handed jugular backslash.)  It’s all depicted against computer-generated backgrounds that sometimes look startlingly realistic, and other times not so much.

Though visually attractive, the authenticity of these dramatizations suffers from the outset.  In the very first episode, for example Hannibal and his father Hamilcar Barca, descendants of Phoenicians (as were all the Carthaginian people), are depicted as black, Zulu-like warriors.  Why?  Because Carthage was in Africa and all Africans must be black?  Moreover they fight naked from the waist up, wearing no other armor than their pumped-up muscles.  For a documentary it amounts to pure sensationalism; it’s a lot of matinee fun, and not at all serious.

The actual content, however, though presented at the layman’s level, is based on serious scholarship and is genuinely interesting.  Richard Gabriel is back with his signature thesis that ancient and biblical battles were fought with the same military considerations as those fought today.  Gabriel has an engaging, conversational style of storytelling that I enjoy watching (I would love to sit in on his classroom lectures).  Supported by anthropology professor Mark Schwartz (to whom the producer has given credit for the series’ concept) and others, Gabriel takes a fresh look at an old subject and comes up with vivid descriptions of things most people have little knowledge or appreciation of.

It is not an entirely new approach, but the perspective is unusual, especially for the biblical battles.  Applying his considerable knowledge of warfare both ancient and modern, Gabriel has analyzed the strategic thinking and tactical brilliance of the military campaigns described in the Bible.  In the Bible Battles series he applied this analysis not only to the commanders named above, but also to Abraham, Gideon, Deborah and Barak, and Saul. 

The grouping of biblical figures with other ancient commanders in Battles B. C. does not diminish their significance.  If anything, it enhances their stature through association and comparison with other great military leaders within a common context.  Gabriel, who for years taught at the U. S. Army War College, believes that their generalship should not be dismissed because they are known primarily as religious figures. (Using the same reasoning, Gabriel has also written of the military exploits of Mohammed.)

The episode “Moses: Death Chase” puts its focus on the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Heb.: Yam Suf, a.k.a. “Red Sea”) as a risky but strategically brilliant night maneuver by an army of combat-hardened mercenaries to foil the Egyptian chariot corps.  “Joshua: Epic Slaughter” relates the conquest of Canaan in all its gory outcome, with special attention given to the battle of Jericho in which (the hosts say) it was not the walls that tumbled down, but the Canaanite will to fight.  An equal emphasis is placed on the battle of the Aijalon Valley, where Joshua led his troops in a difficult forced night march to outflank and defeat a superior force.

The title “David: Giant Slayer” is somewhat misleading.  One might think that the central topic is David vs. Goliath, but that is only a segment of the episode.  That segment does take pains—and rightly so—to debunk some of the mythology associated with that story, such as that David was a only a little shepherd boy when he stood against the giant (he was, according to the Bible, a capable young man of military service age, who had already served on Saul’s personal staff).  On the other hand, the producers also give more time to David’s lesser-known but important campaigns, including the prolonged and bloody civil war against Saul’s son Ishbaal, and also the Ammonite war that provides the backdrop for David’s sinful tryst with Bathsheba.

I personally enjoy this kind of discussion of strategy and tactics in the battles of the Bible, along with the vivid recreation of the details—even if the onscreen re-enactments tend to go over the top with special effects and choreographed martial arts.  I also appreciate the serious consideration of the Bible as a historical source, and the affirmation of its stories as a verifiable account of real events.  By using knowledge gained from archeology and by cross-referencing recorded history from extra-biblical sources, Gabriel, Schwartz, et al, vividly and effectively describe the human experience of these violent episodes.

What is particularly useful about this kind of commentary is that it corrects those who tend to over-devotionalize the text of Scripture.  When the Bible says that God gave the victory to Joshua, it doesn’t mean effortlessly and bloodlessly.  The biblical story is not a fairytale, but is anchored in space and time, comprising real events in the complex context of human conflict.

I enjoy this program and find it useful and stimulating.  Unfortunately I cannot give it an unqualified recommendation, especially for those who might want to use it for a personal or group Bible study.  My problem with it is not that the Bible-based segments do not take a religious point of view.  In fact, that is one of the reasons I like Battles B. C. (see my statements above).  But whatever endorsement I may give for this series must come with two serious caveats.

First, the participants use much speculation to fill in the gaps of the biblical/historical record.  That is not a problem in itself, because inductive guessing is part of this kind of historical reconstruction.  The problem is that all the speculation is presented confidently as established fact, whereas much of what is stated is highly debatable (and is vigorously debated among scholars).  To those who do not have a background in the study of history or access to resources of biblical and historical scholarship, the best I can say is: take everything you hear with a grain of salt.  Some of the information they give is solid and some is not, but the hosts do not make any distinction between the one and the other.

For example, almost all the discussion of the wars of Moses hinges on the identification of the Hebrews with the mysterious Habiru, and then further to specify that their role in Egypt was as mercenaries for Pharaoh.  It is an interesting hypothesis for which there is some plausible evidence, but it is far from being the conclusively established interpretation of the Exodus.  Even if the thesis is upheld, it is only a part of the story and raises as many questions as it answers.  This kind of hyped presentation may make the series more entertaining and even persuasive to some, but it diminishes the credibility, seriousness, and integrity of the scholarship.

The second and more serious problem is that the producers, writers, and authorities behind this series seem to go out of their way to reinterpret the Bible in order to fit their scenario.  The non-biblical battles do not seem to be subjected to such radical reinterpretations.  Sometimes the result is transparently sensational—as when David is said to be more like a Mafia don than a general or king.  That’s a superficial thing.

More troubling is the way the participants re-write the Bible stories to fit their scenarios.  In part this is the result of an anti-supernatural bias (e.g., the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night are not signs from the Lord, but signals to army divisions).  But it also constitutes an arbitrary deconstruction of the biblical text for no more apparent reason than to make it say what the participants want it to say.  They assert that the biblical account has been cleaned up for public religious consumption and political propaganda purposes, but they don’t prove it.

The humanistic re-reading of the Bible is not new, and in its present form goes back to the Enlightenment when Reimarus first attempted to reinterpret the miracles of Jesus as naturally explainable events.

This way of thinking is a two-edged sword, however.  To follow through on it the scholar must first take the biblical account seriously as a reliable historical document.  This premise sets apart the outlook of Battles B. C. from the stark skepticism of the biblical minimalists, who regard the Bible stories as fictions unless conclusively proven otherwise.  (Those are the scholars who do not even believe that Moses and David were real people, let alone worthy of study for their military achievements.) 

However, if one accepts that the Bible relates real events, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to change the plain reading of the text, or who would challenge the veracity of a Biblical account that is one’s only source for information.  Sometimes the series participants try to find reinterpretations within the text of Scripture (with mixed success, I think), while other times they seem to invent their own rationale for a novel reading of the story.  Sometimes they pose thought-provoking points and illuminating new insights.  Other times, however, it just appears that they are changing the Bible to make it fit their thesis, and that only muddies the waters.  Do they think the Bible is accurate or not?  It’s not entirely clear what their method is.

Battles B. C. has helped me better conceptualize how the wars of the ancient world, and particularly of the biblical world, were fought.  It is informative, thought provoking, and fun to watch.  Does its humanistic perspective offer a better frame of reference for interpreting the Bible than faith?  If the Bible were not true and reliable, then the producers of this program would have no story to tell.

Maybe a little revisionist history is good for the soul.  Check it out for yourself if you want to find out.

http://www.history.com/minisites/battles-bc