Okay, so I’m perhaps being a little hyperbolic here. The show does encapsulate some biblical scenes with an amazing pathos, but there’s so much filler that just didn’t need to be there, one gets the feeling it only exists for the sake of padding out an eight-episode season. And, worst of all for me, it’s glaringly historically inaccurate without any need to be.
The Bible account of David’s pre-kingship life (which you can read in 1 and 2 Samuel) is well worth a quality depiction on the small screen. The story contains a rich cast of characters, with significant personality traits just waiting to be brought to life. And considering the runaway success of The Chosen (more on that later), it was only a matter of time before a big-budget production would attempt to put David on television. But far from the way The Chosen uses the medium to tell the story of Jesus, House of David uses David’s story to make a television show.
the problems with adaptation
It is expected that adaptations of the Bible story would include made-up scenes to better illustrate some aspects that non-Bible readers may not understand from context, or to clarify elements of the cultural setting that modern readers may not pick up on. The Chosen does this (much to the chagrin of some who prefer that Bible retellings not add to the Word of God), and the scenes provide speculative context for why Jesus might have said what He said, and how the disciples would have understood it. In my opinion, the added scenes and dialogue in The Chosen aim to make the Biblical passages on screen more vivid in their meaning to the viewer.
Far from the way The Chosen uses the medium to tell the story of Jesus, House of David uses David’s story to make a television show
House of David, in my opinion, does not do this. As a viewer, I got the distinct impression that scenes were added for no other reason than to heighten drama and pad the run-time. The simple fact of the matter is that there is not enough material in the Bible to fill one eight-episode season—if the intent is to only focus on God’s rejection of Saul to David’s battle with Goliath.
In addition, the intention of the showrunners seems to have been to make a drama first and foremost—a Judeo-Christian Game of Thrones, if you will. As a result, the emphasis seems to be on interpersonal drama, rather than God’s story and His guiding hand through the unfolding events.
Characters are invented from whole cloth, then killed off to raise the stakes. Fictional backstories are given to characters to provide motivation and emotional investment, in a manner inconsistent with their Biblical depiction. Bible characters with smaller roles play expanded parts, which would be okay if the expanded part they played wasn’t wildly inconsistent with the facts as they stand. For example, Doeg the Edomite is depicted as being an alchemist, dissector of both animal and human cadavers, and a torturer—all a bit much to draw from his title of “keeper of Saul’s herds” (1 Samuel 21:7).
Scenes are invented to provide context and colour to Saul’s madness; one scene provides context for David later having a javelin thrown at him (spoilers for anyone who hasn’t read the Bible story). This scene is forgivable; it shows how dangerous Saul was, in a manner consistent with the Bible.
Another scene has a budding romance threatened to be cut short because of an arranged marriage, only for the whole thing to be cancelled at the last second because of Saul’s paranoia. This is an example of making drama out of unrelated things, and in a manner inconsistent with culture at the time (Genesis 19:26).
The depiction of the Amalekites is one of being cannibal savages; this decision was made based on a possible interpretation of their name meaning “blood lickers”
I take particular exception to the depiction of the Amalekites. The depiction of the Amalekites is one of being cannibal savages; this decision was made based on a possible interpretation of their name meaning “blood lickers”, which could just as easily mean that they ate their meat differently from Israelites or that blood was a part of their diet (a not-uncommon occurrence for pastoral societies, which the Amalekites most likely were).
However, the entire nation was depicted to wear body paint and practice ritual scarification in a manner more consistent with modern tribes rather than the culture of the time. This is, of course, shorthand to depict the barbarism of the Amalekites to an audience that would not be familiar with why they were so detestable—but it is a lazy way of doing it.
So much for the story. Now it’s time for me to rant about historically inaccurate costumes.
um, actually, that armour isn’t historically accurate
The problem with trying to historically depict the time in which David lived—or, indeed, any time in ancient history—is simply our lack of primary information. Trying to write a history of the ancient world is like trying to put a puzzle together without a picture on the box or even 60 per cent of the pieces, and then being expected to draw the rest of the puzzle in the gaps. A costuming designer can be forgiven for using a later attested clothing style where no contemporary examples exist for the time they are trying to depict. The problem arises when there is plentiful evidence that is ignored.
The armour is the most egregious problem. Numerous characters are depicted as wearing soft leather breastplates, rather than the metal scale mail that would be more accurate. Soft leather is useless as armour. Hard leather armour did exist, but it took on an appearance and function far more like plate armour and was only used in the Middle Ages.
In addition, some characters are costumed with belts with Roman legionary-style leather strip aprons—this only existed for about 150 years or so starting from 50 AD onwards as a legionary’s fashion statement. Practically, the loose-hanging leather strips would have been more a hindrance than a protection.
The other glaring problem, both biblically and historically, is that the Israelite army is depicted as having (and riding) horses. Biblically, Solomon is noted as the first monarch to own horses, so Saul’s army having access to them is inconsistent with the Biblical record.
Historically, even Solomon’s horses were used exclusively to pull chariots. Horses being ridden by themselves seems to be something that occurred 200 years after Saul’s reign; the first Biblical evidence for horse riders is in 2 Kings 7:13,14. In addition, for the time that Saul is king, it made no sense for the Israelite army to use horses, because horse warfare was far less effective in the hill country that made up the Israelite territory (Judges 1:19).
And the worst part about it is that all this information is easily available in the first few results of a Google search. Costuming doesn’t make or break a story, but it does provide big clues as to the creators’ intentions. The poor costuming and prop decisions here speak to an attitude that historical or biblical faithfulness is secondary to telling the story that they want to tell—and I can’t say I wasn’t warned, as the opening blurb explicitly says that they took liberties.
And that really sums up how I feel about House of David. Everything in that show is a resource, a tool to tell an exciting story about the boy who would be king. The Bible is a source document, rather than a way to access the Source. History is set dressing, rather than a tool to clarify uncertain or uncomfortable aspects of the story. Even God’s will is treated as no more than a catalyst for human character development or, worse yet, as plot armour.
The story of David is about a man after God’s own heart, but sadly this House of David doesn’t seem to understand what God’s heart is.
