On the Colbert Report last night, there was a guest appearance of Dag Soderberg from Sweden who created a new book called The Bible Illuminated: The Book, New Testament. Now this isn't really a 'book' but rather a magazine. Now, there are definitely aspects of this book that you wouldn't expect to be there. For example, the cover definitely does not seem to refer to religion or sacredness at all. As Stephen Colbert said, "It has a super, kinda disturbing, sexy picture on the cover... like a glossy magazine, like a Cosmo, a Glamour, or something like that." I happen to agree with him. After all, doesn't the bible advocate the opposite type of ideas? In response, Soderberg said that the bible is one of the most referenced books in the world and that this transfromation is moving the bible from being on the bookshelves to being on the coffee table. As he puts it, the bible will bring about 'discussions.'
The actual content of the book is also different from what is expected. Along with the scriptures, there are pictures of famous people, from Muhammad Ali to Angelina Joli, that were chosen to be in this bible due to the results of a survey of Swedish teenagers about the icons of the modern world. When Angelina Joli was brought up, Colbert commented on her appearance because she can be viewed as being seductive. However, Soderberg stated that it only matters that she did things that helped the world. This really seems like it's commercializing religion. Later into the show, Colbert even makes a joke about product placement and getting a picture of Jesus with an iphone. Although it is being treated as a joke now, couldn't this cause a huge controversy?
Thoughts? (Here's a link to the entire episode. The discussion occurs about 11 minutes in. http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=229643)
Mary Quien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
There is a very fine line between humour and offensiveness, especially with religion. I doubt that anyone would greatly appreciate pictures of modern celebrities scattered throughout their Holy Books/Scriptures. Angelina may be a humanitarian, but since when is she an equivalent of someone in the Bible? I understand that we all have different opinions on the matter (obviously), but that doesn't give us the right to possibly insult the beliefs of others.
I understand Soderberg's desire to form a warrant between the Bibles and its readers through its approachable appearance. Yet won't an increase in discussion lead to the same questions we've been dealing with for years? (The same questions for which we are unable to agree on one answer!) I guess I just don't see the point in the whole notion, but who am I to judge?
(Sam Maliha)
I definitely agree with Sam: there is a very fine line. I think the line divides offensiveness from the necessity of a warrant. My point is, some would be offended by the "modernization" of the Bible, while others might be more inclined to crack it open. There is a fine line between whether this is a good thing or a bad thing (and it's all relative). There would definitely negative aspects and positive aspects to both situations, but I what strikes me is those who were chosen to represent this Book. On the one hand, they might be "good" people, but do they reflect the values that the Bible puts forth? I am not trying to imply anything in asking this question because, honestly, I have no idea who these people are. But for those of you familiar with these people, are they people one might consider representative of the Bible's values, and would they consider themselves Christians?
Emily T.
This sort of reminds me Madame Tussad's waxwork creation that depicted the Beckhams as Joseph and Mary in the classic Nativity Scene. The Vatican was outraged, people protested, and others sat back to watch the show.
It's the same thing here - the Bible isn't truly meant for discussion. Religion is simply too divisive of an issue for "conversation over coffee". After all, you're always warned of the topics that should never be brought up in a conversation: religion, politics, sex, and money. That's not to say that religion is a banned topic, of course. However, the way Soderberg depicts the "future" is far too casual in its handling of such a delicate issue. Yes, we can talk about religion/the Bible in a historical or literary fashion while barely getting by.. But the situation that is being brought up seems to be too much change, too fast, and too soon.
So, I'm just going to disagree for the sake of it and go ahead and defend this new and "improved" Bible.
Hasn't religion already been commercialized? We have Santa in his red suit and his 7 (9? whatever) magical reindeer that fly through the sky on Christmas Eve. But no one has protested (much, at least) about the occult forces that give Santa's reindeer the ability to fly or the fact that Santa's BMI is far too high and has promoted obesity in young children.
Also, it does draw attention to the religion of Christianity. In my personal experience, the first time I was introduced to Catholicism was through a series of comic books at my piano teacher's house. I didn't really question why it was in comic book form rather than in an all-text adult version, but kids are drawn in by pictures and whatever else appeals to them.
The Bible has been revised a couple times. We have the Latin Vulgate Bible, the Green Bible, and now this Cosmo-esque Bible. Are we just picking on this version for lacking ideological purity or real religious intent just because it is more exaggerated?
Well, to me, this new Bible doesn't necessarily seem to be an example of commercialization than one of modernization.
The idea of the book is probably to make it more familiar and interesting to modern readers, but without losing the Bible's timeless lessons and messages. Needless to say, this task is difficult. It also brings up the question: Should we modernize something merely so that people today can understand it more easily? Perhaps people today are just too lazy if they refuse to read the ancient interpretations?
And of course, it's inevitable that at least some of the message is altered slightly by including modern icons such as Jolie and Ali. Those two figures alone bring forth a plethora of images and ideas that may or may not match with those of the Bible.
Well, it's an interesting experiment at least.
-Eric W
Post a Comment