It is a rare occasion that a film is better than the book it is based on. The book is almost always superior. However, a book that precedes a film by the same name is typically far better than a book that is based on the film. Only rarely does a textual adaptation of a film equal it. And so it was with little eagerness or expectation that I began to read The Nativity Story, the official novelization of the forthcoming film by the same name.
The film of The Nativity Story is set to hit theaters on Friday, December 1. It is billed as a faithful retelling of the biblical story of Jesus’ birth. Of course, as with any film based on the Bible, there must be a good deal of artistic license and exploration. I hope to discuss this further after I have seen the film.
The book novelization of the film was handled by Angela Hunt, author of over one hundred books, most of which are historical or contemporary novels targeted at women. How well this book represents the film I will not be able to say until I have seen it. If it is a true adaptation I believe I will enjoy the film a great deal. I began reading this book with great skepticism but found myself enjoying it all the way until I had turned the final page. It will not win any Pulitzer Prizes, but is still well-written and enjoyable, even though it feels that perhaps it was rushed just a little bit. Hunt clearly dedicated a good deal of time to understanding Jesus’ cultural context and these details add a fascinating dimension to a story we all know so well.
Just how closely the book adheres to the biblical story is a discussion that can wait until I review the movie. Suffice it to say, for now, that many scenes and characters in the book are fictitious, invented to fill in details or to create a suitable setting for the story. Details of the personalities of the real characters are also created or adapted as necessary. The story also bows to old church traditions at times, such as in the names of the wise men Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar. These names are traditional but can be traced only to the seventh century and are unlikely to be genuine. And yet all of the biblical details are present, I believe, with the rather disappointing exception of “the angel [and] a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!’”
When considering the story of the nativity and Jesus’ early life, the majority of attention tends to be focused on Jesus and Mary with Joseph serving as only a bit player. I found it interesting that in this book Hunt devotes equal time to exploring both of Jesus’ earthly parents. While the Bible says little about Joseph, Hunt fleshes out his character into what he probably was - a principled man who dearly loved the Lord. And yet this points to a concern about this type of book. The Bible says almost nothing about Joseph and it may not be expedient for us to remember him in a way that differs from Scripture. The same may be true of Mary, Elizabeth or any of the other characters. But the beauty of a book like this is that it can easily transport us to the time and culture of the characters, allowing us to understand more about the world they lived in than we are told in the Bible.
Regardless of these misgivings, I did enjoy this book a great deal and am awaiting the movie with eager anticipation. I am more than willing to admit that my love of the subject matter may bias me, but I would have little hesitation in recommending this book and even in passing it to unsaved friends or family. It is, after all, little more than the story of Jesus’ birth with attention given to the historical setting and cultural context. The story takes no major missteps, but accurately and faithfully represents the biblical account. I hope the movie does the same.
Comments (21) »
1. Tom Chantry
November 29, 2006
3:41 PM
I must confess, your review of the book is strikingly similar to Mohler’s review of the movie: you list unbiblical deviations, then come to a positive conclusion. Just what does that mean? It seems to suggest that the details of scripture are negotiable. Is this a misreading?
2. Tim Challies
November 29, 2006
3:53 PM
“I must confess, your review of the book is strikingly similar to Mohler’s review of the movie: you list unbiblical deviations, then come to a positive conclusion. Just what does that mean? It seems to suggest that the details of scripture are negotiable. Is this a misreading?”
I read Mohler’s review yesterday so I’m sure it was rattling in my mind. I think you need to be careful with the word “deviations.” The book did not present anything that contradicted Scripture. It took some license with the details (as, indeed, we must to create a story out of the biblical framework) but did not contradict Scripture and did not, like The Passion represent a whole other Christian tradition.
3. Steven Robertson
November 29, 2006
3:57 PM
Even if the movie is rather accurate (who says miracles can’t happen today?), isn’t it still a violation of the Second Commandment?
Just as Jesus isn’t the doey blue-eyed, sandy-brown haired, bearded hippy with three squirts of ketchup across his chest hanging from the cross portrayed in all our iconography, isn’t it just as inaccurate (and in violation of the prohibition of images) to have a pasty-white, serene, chubby, haloed baby?
(Or should I just pipe down and get back to decking the halls? ;) )
4. Tim Challies
November 29, 2006
4:00 PM
“Even if the movie is rather accurate (who says miracles can’t happen today?), isn’t it still a violation of the Second Commandment?”
That is a good question and one that troubled me a fair bit when I saw The Passion. I was horrified to think that someday I might celebrate the Lord’s Supper and somehow see Jim Caviezel’s face flash through my mind. That would bother me a great deal!
In any case, this is a discussion for the movie review, not the book! :)
And hey, maybe in the book they just use a doll like in all the nativity plays I’ve ever seen…
5. Steve
November 29, 2006
4:21 PM
I think that my main problem with things like this - “this”, being Nativity or stories involving Mary and Joseph - our society tends to want to up play Mary as more than she was. Attributing to her powers or righteousness that far exceeds that of other Godly men or women.
That, and with their artistic license, they always put the “wise men” as standing around the manger, when in reality they didn’t show up until almost two years later.
I know the second detail is kind of nit picking Hollywood, but the issue of Mary, sort of grates on my nerves. I haven’t had the opportunity, yet, to read the book…so, maybe for once they didn’t do this…but if it sticks as closely to scripture as possible for Hollywood, then I think I too will look forward to seeing the movie.
6. Steve
November 29, 2006
4:26 PM
Tim, I think I would be more worried that my mind might flash “terrorist” when I see Jesus face…sheesh….:)
7. Tim Challies
November 29, 2006
4:45 PM
“I think that my main problem with things like this - “this”, being Nativity or stories involving Mary and Joseph - our society tends to want to up play Mary as more than she was. Attributing to her powers or righteousness that far exceeds that of other Godly men or women.”
I was pleasantly surprised to see that this did not happen in the book. There was only one part that seemed to tend that way at all (Joseph at first refused to allow “the mother of my Lord” to wash his feet). But the book concludes with an epilogue about Mary having other children, showing that this is a Protestant rather than Catholic interpretation of her.
“That, and with their artistic license, they always put the “wise men” as standing around the manger, when in reality they didn’t show up until almost two years later.”
That is disputed. In the book they show up right away (and in the movie, obviously), but there is some dispute about whether they showed up right away (i.e. they saw the star and set out) or if they foresaw through some kind of revelation that Jesus would be born and set out to find Him before His birth.
8. Joel
November 29, 2006
4:57 PM
“the angel [and] a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!’”
That’s a lot closer to the Douay-Rheims translation fo the passage, which says ” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.” Having grown up with the KJV’s “Goodwill to men,” I find the cadence of this one a little strange.
I was horrified to think that someday I might celebrate the Lord’s Supper and somehow see Jim Caviezel’s face flash through my mind. That would bother me a great deal!
Bother YOU? At least you only have to consume Him symbolically! Now I’m going to have nightmares about the priest saying “The Body of Jim!”
9. Tom Chantry
November 29, 2006
4:57 PM
“Deviations” may not have been the most accurate word, then, but surely adding to Scripture is its own problem. You say, “It took some license with the details (as, indeed, we must to create a story out of the biblical framework) …” Why must a story be created? And if we are going to need to add details in order to create a story, does that not call the very process of story-creation into question?
10. Steve
November 29, 2006
5:44 PM
Tim,
Yeah, its a bit shady as to when the wise men showed up. Many use the distance they had to travel and so and so forth…I find the refernce to the fact that they were living in a house by the time of their arrival significant, but heck…with no more reference than that…it could have been the next day, two weeks or two years….
Just not really any knowing.
11. Tim Challies
November 29, 2006
9:00 PM
Steve - The house thing is interesting, but then you have to explain why Joseph and Mary were still in Bethlehem two years after Jesus’ birth, don’t you?
“”Deviations” may not have been the most accurate word, then, but surely adding to Scripture is its own problem. You say, “It took some license with the details (as, indeed, we must to create a story out of the biblical framework) …” Why must a story be created? And if we are going to need to add details in order to create a story, does that not call the very process of story-creation into question?”
Again, this is a tough question to answer. But if we used only what the Bible presents, we would not have a whole lot to work with. If we want to dramatize anything that happened in the Bible, no matter whether it involves Jesus or not, we need to fill in some details. As long as these are done with a view to accuracy and realism, I don’t object on the whole.
12. Tom Chantry
November 29, 2006
10:19 PM
Better be careful; you’re making a pretty convincing argument against the use of drama to convey Bible truth! : )
13. Peter Bogert
November 30, 2006
9:42 AM
Filling in the gaps to tell a story is hardly adding to the Bible. We know that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem. While the Bible does not tell us the mode of transportation, is it that much of a “deviation” to envision, given the information available about the times and culture, to suppose that they took a horse, donkey or camel? When we read that the baby was laid in a manger, is it a wrongful departure from Scripture to try to describe what that might have looked like, felt like, etc?
14. Steven Robertson
November 30, 2006
10:14 AM
Isn’t the extraneous stuff about Mary and Joseph and the journey to Bethlehem kinda like the Apocrypha? That is, not explicitly biblical, but some of it may be helpful (while some of it is flat out wrong)?
Obviously the intent of the Evangelists wasn’t to satisfy our curiosity about the finer (and ultimately irrelevant) details, so they purposely (and divinely) omitted them.
It may be helpful to imagine what those details were for the sake of providing historical context (especially for a 21st century Westerner like myself), so long as we don’t miss the forest of the gospel for the trees of minute, extraneous details.
15. pilgrim
November 30, 2006
11:27 AM
My main concern is that they not miss the big picture, and main point to the nativity stories.
The Incarnation. John 1:14 is in some ways the best “Christmas” verse. “The Word became flesh & dwelt among us.” God came to us to save His people. I’m sure that won’t be blaring from the movie—but if it’s in there in some shape or form—then amen. Hopefully it rises above the “cute baby Jesus” tendency so many “popular” tellings of the nativity sink to.
Hoopefully.
16. Joel
November 30, 2006
8:09 PM
I’ve seen several reviews of the film refer to the Virgin Birth as the Immaculate Conception. Annoying.
Which brings up a question: Tim, how did the book handle the questions that are, well, matters of Cathodox tradition? Her preservation from sin and perpetual virginity? Was there any mention of her actually committing sin or exercising conjugal relations, or was it left open to interpretation by simply not mentioning it?
17. Tim Challies
December 1, 2006
6:24 AM
“Which brings up a question: Tim, how did the book handle the questions that are, well, matters of Cathodox tradition? Her preservation from sin and perpetual virginity? Was there any mention of her actually committing sin or exercising conjugal relations, or was it left open to interpretation by simply not mentioning it?”
I can’t think of any place where she sinned, but I also can’t think of a place where the book suggested that she would never have sinned. And certainly the author did not believe in her perpetual virginity. Joseph states that he will not take his privilege as a husband (or some phrase like that) until after the baby is born and then in the epilogue they discuss Joseph and Mary’s other children.
18. Brian at voiceofthesheep
December 1, 2006
8:39 AM
if we used only what the Bible presents, we would not have a whole lot to work with. If we want to dramatize anything that happened in the Bible, no matter whether it involves Jesus or not, we need to fill in some details.
Sorry to disagree with you, Tim, but this is simply not true…especially when it comes to the narratives of the Bible.
The Second Commandment issue aside for now, a great example of a movie proving that extra details do NOT have to be added is the Gospel of John film that came out a few years ago. It is a word-for-word rendering of the entire gospel of John from the Good News Translation, with nothing added or taken away.
It can be done.
19. Tim Challies
December 2, 2006
7:53 PM
“The Second Commandment issue aside for now, a great example of a movie proving that extra details do NOT have to be added is the Gospel of John film that came out a few years ago. It is a word-for-word rendering of the entire gospel of John from the Good News Translation, with nothing added or taken away.”
Sure it has information added. It shows scenes and takes liberty with other details. The words may not have changed, but there were plenty of other details added.
20. Brian at voiceofthesheep
December 3, 2006
8:05 AM
“Sure it has information added. It shows scenes and takes liberty with other details. The words may not have changed, but there were plenty of other details added.”
I think you know what I meant. The content of the message has not been altered in that film (unlike The Nativity). What details does it (Gospel of John film) “take liberty” with that is pertinent to the content of the message?
Unlike the content of The Nativity (book or movie), you won’t find anything in the content of The Gospel of John film that veers from the content of what is found in the text of Scripture.
To suggest that one MUST add to Scripture to make it complete when it is dramatized, as you stated earlier, indicates you are talking about content. I don’t think anyone would take issue with you about it if you were referring to minor details that would set a scene…the problem is The Nativity leaves out some of Scripture and then adds in some of its own content that is not found in the Bible.
Thanks for the post…it made me think about this issue of dramatizing Scripture again.
21. Matthew
December 4, 2006
11:45 PM
I’m new here, so please forgive me if I am out of turn…
Brian at VoiceoftheSheep,
Dramatization is little more than interpretation. If in interpretation we are not given the option of using alternative language, but instead must use only the words of the text itself, we have in fact explained nothing.
When you interpret and then explicate a given text of Scripture, do you limit yourself to the words of the text, or use additional words to communicate the principles found therein? The addition of words on your part is not tantamount to adding words to Scripture, unless you claim that your words are in fact inspired.
The Gospel of John, it seems to me, is not trying to accomplish the same thing that the Nativity Story is trying to accomplish. Therefore, comparing them doesn’t really shed any light on the issue. The Gospel of John successfully dramatized Scripture without adding any words (at least to the English text upon which it was based). However, it made no attempt to explain that text. The Nativity Story attempts to help us understand the text. It does this by bringing cultural and historical (though extrabiblical) detail to bear. Every seminary student is taught to do the same thing through the study of the historical and cultural context of the text when engaging in interpretation.
As long as we avoid assigning divine inspiration to the movie/book and subject it to the same scrutiny that we would any other interpretation of Scripture, it would seem there is little to fear.
In the spirit of iron sharpening iron, what say you?
Matt