Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Kabala's avatar

Not really possible to do this without spoilers -

1. I wonder if the revelation about Gaius is meant to indicate a merger of the story of Matthew 8/Luke 7 with the story of John 4. More liberal critics have often considered these potentially variants on the same story, but now that the idea has been placed in my head, it does seem (no libel meant toward an anonymous man of 2000 years ago) all too possible that they could be the same story and yet both be literally true, the boy both a servant and a son.

2. At first I thought it was powerful that the walking on the water was connected to a particular crisis of faith for Simon (almost wrote Peter, but that name has yet to be used), and overall I still did, but I disliked that Jesus and Simon talked directly about Eden during the scene. I think I would have been more powerful to stick closely to the Biblical dialogue with the family crisis as subtext instead of text.

3. Overall I find the show to be more successful in giving depth to the Biblical characters than in creating entirely new plots. I did not find the idea that Andrew and Philip had plunged a large-ish region into crisis by a brief visit to be very plausible. The scene in which three or four ethnic groups appeared one by one to voice their grievances was for me uncomfortably evocative of the fight scene in Anchorman! But the smaller miracle scenes built into this framework (and obviously the big miracle at the end) were very well-done.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts