I was recently tasked with clearing out a Sunday school shelf laden with teaching resources from generations past. Fated for the bin was a “display copy” of
Arthur S. Maxwell’s The Bible Story, Volume One —
common to North American doctor’s offices in the mid-60s to early-70s. I took it home, snapped a few photos of the illustrations and posted them behind the blue-and-white velvet rope.
Below is the first picture I posted. Not sure who the artist is (illustrations are only occasionally credited), but I suspect it’s
Herbert Rudeen. I captioned it, cheekily but not dishonestly, “My favourite page since I was a kid!”
|
"Whoa -- let there be Lights Out!" |
Where Rudeen is rough, almost impressionistic, fellow painter
Russell Harlan favours a velvety smoothness. Also, Harlan’s Eden clearly includes hairbrushes and safety razors.
Upon posting, a friend snarked,
“Reassuring white children that the first two humans were white.” Very true — certainly that was my POV on the matter when I was a sprat. Once the narrative leaves Eden, however, the Maxwell biblical characters take on skin-tones and garb that are roughly approximate to the ethnicities that originally produced these stories. It’s a curious juxtaposition.
|
Nor does Maxwell stint on any biblical violence. |
Perhaps the white-washing of Eden is an unconscious outcome of the story's intrinsic appeal? Certainly the Eden story is something children insert themselves into quite naturally. From the giddy joys of scampering around without a stitch of clothing, to doing something you were expressly told
not to do, to suffering the consequences — this is
every child’s origin story.
|
Including those whose skin-pigment renders them the colour of margarine. |
But the biblical narrative slides into trickier territory pretty quickly after that. Noah’s Ark — another story kids love. Put all the animals in a big wooden boat, keep them safe! But
the sons of God coupling up with the fairest of human women — how do you explain
that?
On this matter and many others, Maxwell performs a parental dodge:
It is hard to understand how such things could have happened such a short time after creation, and such a little way from all the peace and harmony of Eden. Yet it is not uncommon even today for boys and girls to be cross and unruly right after church. Some can become real little pests just as soon as a nice picnic is over. It doesn’t take long for some to forget kindness and love that they should remember forever.
Maxwell strives always to keep the
moral of the story (as he perceives it) clear, even during the Bible’s most viscerally irregular moments.
Jehovah’s smiting of Aaron’s two sons during the first sacrifices in the brand-new tabernacle, for instance, falls under the heading
“Two naughty boys.” Kids, be grateful for your spankings!
Returning to the visual contrast — though Maxwell endeavours to make the narrative relatable to his young listeners/readers, there remains a historic and aesthetic distance to bridge, to say nothing of culture. The aesthetic results are, to modern eyes, uncomfortably superficial. In effect the pictures declare,
The sandals and bathrobes and tea-towels — are we not all victims of fashion, finally?
|
Approachable, sure -- but would it kill him to try on some pants? |
We return to the opening pages of Maxwell’s tomes, to the present — in this case, 1954.
Bucolic kitsch, not that far removed from Harlan’s depiction of Eden.
Except — the “present” appears to be more integrated than our shared biblical past was. And remember —
we’re talking 1954.
|
The neighbours! |
Or perhaps I am getting ahead of myself — judging (again) by fashion, some illustrations appear to have been inserted a decade or two after the initial release of Maxwell’s
The Bible Story.
|
Skirt-lengths will vary, but the kimono transcends all eras. |
|
"Erm, that's right, little brother -- the Bible does say 'Scram!'" |
Anyway, thus began my education. From the age of five to nine I heard these stories told this particular way on a near-daily basis at home, at school and at Sunday School.
And I dug the pictures — some more than others.
|
...say, she kinda looks like our Sunday School teacher... |
17 comments:
Those illustrations feel vaguely familiar. I have a feeling I might have been exposed to that book myself in my childhood. Or at least, books of a similar style were around my house.
That "sons of God" part was always one of my favorite parts of Genesis as well. So vague, and yet so fascinating in what it was hinting at. But it was not part of my Sunday School tradition of Noah's ark either. I'm trying to remember when I first found out about it. I think it was about maybe around 8th grade.
My grade four (public school) teacher clued us into the "sons of God" business. She got a kick out of deep dives into the freakier corners of the Bible. And she didn't look anything like "Eve," btw.
I’ve had this, a title I’d never known of before, up in a tab since I read your post. Awfully, awfully tempting at that miscellaneous-rack used price, but I don’t think I’m going to get it. Don’t need the clutter around here.
I’m sure we must’ve had a copy of the Bible Stories around, but what I really remember are the Bedtime books — a set of 4. My recollection is that they were favorites, and that we asked for them by the name ‘Uncle Arthur,’ which now strikes me as a little weird.
The other discover this post has led me to is that this was all Adventist publishing product. We weren’t connected with that denomination in any conscious way, and I still know little enough about them (though they’re headquartered in the same suburban MD area, roughly, where I’ve spent most of my life). It was maybe ten years ago that I first read Mark Noll’s discussion of Ronald Numbers’ work on Adventist extraordinary influence by way of the ‘scientific creationists’ — influence that has certainly had impact on my life. My parents, enthusiastic for literalism and young-earth-ism from encounter with it in early marriage until today, would’ve looked — along with a lot of others, I guess, imagining themselves on the path of return to authentic religion— for something in the kids’ books way that was aligned in view. Makes sense that the Adventists were ready to meet the demand.
The 7DA angle to the Young Earth movement was news to me. Nor was I aware as a child of "Uncle Arthur's" denominational affiliation. But it does account somewhat for his rather lengthy speculative meditation on what a bliss -- and utterly chaste affair ("Uncle Arthur" was no John Milton) -- Eden must have been.
Notions that the world came into being more or less according to James Ussher’s chronology and that our world, in a different sense, ended right about the summer of 1968 do go very prettily hand in hand (in a late-20th-century garden, you might say, far from Eden).
Fifty years ago we had "the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius." Today we have "The Great Awokening." So much to sort through, so little time -- and who will illustrate our Bible Stories?
Oh boy, yeah. Wow. (Am I sweating all of a sudden?)
How about Toni Fejzula and James Harren, for starters?
Until I see the Eden roughs, I'm withholding my vote. :D
Alright, can’t argue with that. haha
incidentally …
When TC Boyle's The Road To Wellville came out in paperback Penguin Canada marketed a "cornflakes" version in a tight slipcase/box. I bought that and eventually read it. Boyle's easy to read, even when the scene he describes degenerates into jolly misanthropy. Or maybe especially so. That's probably when I lost the breakfast cereal habit. What Kellog and Post and their bunch got up to in Battle Creek MI was unquestionably unhinged.
Hey, how did I get to be 'anonymous'?
I was trying to remember the name of one of the Bible Story artists and found this blog. It is surreal to read the views of the works and their art here. My great uncle is Russell Harlan. I have adored his painting style all my life. Sadly, I never got to meet him as he had passed before I was born. The famous Eve In the yellow roses was a painting of a friend of his, and her hand is that of his wife’s. My dad has the original of that one.
All that aside, I would love to see these whitewashed depictions redone. The stories are told in a way that is wonderful for children, and they need proper imagery to accompany them, lovely and iconic as the original art has become. Who knows if it will ever happen? Our world hardly takes notice anymore.
Sarah thank you so much for dropping by and leaving a comment!
Maxwell's undertaking was remarkably ambitious, and I do not think anyone who's come after him has accomplished anything close to what he did. If we add to this the fact that he commissioned these artworks at a time when much of his audience held suspect artistic expression of any kind whatsoever we see better the generous scope of his vision.
I can recall encountering in the late 70s one of the gospels being illustrated by (former) underground comix artist Rick Griffin. Griffin's style was, of course, very cartoony but also uniquely his own. It must have left quite the impression on the Christian publishing industry because that is the direction subsequent illustrated Bible stories for children have taken ever since. I think you're right. Conveying these difficult stories to children is a challenge that is largely ignored at present -- and never mind rendering them artistically, in a way that engages with the complexity. Well ... unless you're up for Robert Crumb's Genesis -- which, although utterly faithful to the text, I would not recommend children read.
Not sure who you are, but your comments sound ignorant and garbagy. You said you haven't joined a 12 step program, but however many steps it takes for you to recover from whatever it is you suffer from.
My mom read these to me when I was a kid, and the volume gave me a really good frame of reference for the biblical narrative. I was looking to find the illustrations online, possibly to purchase, and frame some for her as a Christmas present.
And then I run across someone like you, giving the volume a middle finger. I bet you fancy yourself some kind of atheist/neo Darwinian evolutionist recovering from your rigid past. Deep in your mind, however, it's unlikely you truly believe that. When you look in the mirror and see 40 trillion cells all working together in unity, and each cell with up to 100 million molecular machines working inside of them, each akin to a miniature New York City, it's very doubtful you truly believe anything other than a divine source. No one honestly does. Especially not an idea based on less than 100 random mutations per generation working in a genome of 2 billion base pairs thru successive generations, that would need to account for the coding of proteins, large 3 dimensional structures which can be up to tens of thousands of codes thick (I'll give you a hint, it's a mathematical impossibility). You have more molecular machines in the tip of one of your fingers than all of the machines created by human kind throughout all of history. And our body's DNA unraveled and connected would reach all the way to the sun and back, stretch all the way to Pluto, and then wrap around it's self around Pluto's orbit.
But go ahead and take a mocking tone towards the God of the universe. Every breath is a gift. I would suggest not wasting your breath mocking what you know is true.
I certainly don't think of myself as an atheist, and I have prayed for you! I hope that heaps coals of fire on your head!
Hey, I couldn't help but notice you are "anonymous"! I hope I answered your questions!
I see you've read your Josh McDowell! That's good! I think he's very important!
Post a Comment