Talk:The Brick Bible

Content Warnings

I reverted this revision which removed the note about content warnings. The content warnings are part of the content of the pages and I believe (although I don't have a cite at this time) the author of The Brick Testament has stated they are a key part of that content (that the Bible needs nudity/violence warnings could be construed as an editorial comment on it...) I suppose that they are important to mention is my view, but I don't really see why the material was removed. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Direct links in first paragraph showing Brick Testament as controversial "lampoon"

I have reverted the first paragraph describing The Brick Testament to the Revision as of 17:12, 5 October 2006. This removes the sentence about the Brick Testament's "lampooning of biblical passages", the direct links to examples on the Brick Testament website, and the bit about blasphemy vs. irreverence.

While later in this article it may be appropriate to delve into specific examples of how The Brick Testament's illustrations of biblical passages can be controversial, it seems misguided to place such things in the first paragraph which should give a brief overall summary of what The Brick Testament is and why it is noteworthy.

68.161.96.11 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The current text claims The Brick Testament is a parody. There is nothing in the rest of the article to substantiate this claim. Indeed, the use of TBT by religious groups suggests quite the opposite. Either the article is misusing the term parody - the essential feature of parody is mockery - or there's some crucial info missing. --Pfold (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Brick Testament is a parody in form and substance. The use of it by religious groups doesn't diminish its nature as a lampoon, only that these groups find humor in the Bible itself. The Lord's prayer is a perfect example - where the angels are chasing down the wicked people with the caption "on earth as in heaven" - you have to be kidding if you don't see this as poking fun at the Bible. No other Bible is illustrated on such unflattering (and often blasphemous) terms.Brian0324 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to re-bring this up, but I was looking through it myself, and my initial feelings towards it were that it were essentially a cutesy picture-bible. As I read on, however, there are actually numerous occasions where there seems to be implied sarcasm actually mocking the messages of the bible (such as "love those who hate you" have Jews giving cake to Hitler, or "beware of false prophets" with Jesus in the pictures and "he shall be put to death" showing Jesus up on the cross). Honestly, it's quite offensive, though without a deeper look, it certainly does seem to come across as a completely innocent children's way of telling the bible. I feel that this should be included in the article. I can provide links to some of the more offensive images if needed:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/false_prophets/dt13_01.html http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_love/lk06_17p20p27.html Those two, in particular, are quite offensive in several ways. 129.107.81.12 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This strip is also fairly critical of the original text, in my eyes. SpectrumDT (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think "parody" is a fitting word. It's humorous and tounge-in-cheek, yes, but the illustrations do match the text, even though the particular interpretation is often chosen for humor. Jews offering cake to Hitler to illustrate "love those who hate you" could certainly be considered offensive, but it's not an inaccurate depiction of the quote. I'm sure there are people who'd be offended by the usage of "have sex" in place of whatever indirect parallell their preferred copy of the Bible used in place of it, but that doesn't make the phrasing incorrect or inaccurate.

The Brick Testament is not a parody, it's a humorous adaption of the Bible with some amusing touches that could be considered offensive by people who think the Bible should be taken more seriously than this. Here in Norway, we have a somewhat similiar comic striped named "Teachings of the Bible" running in a Christian newspaper, which offers cute and funny interpretations of various biblical verses. It doesn't parody, it just applies amusing interpretations to certain verses, and it's never been considered offensive in any way.

Also, what's so supposedly offensive about this?

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_love/lk06_17p20p27.html

I don't get it.

80.213.200.100 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A parody isn't always intended to offend. The example that you cite (Jesus on love) is a perfect example of Parody, though.Brian0324 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the vast, vast majority of the illustrations are completely straight. That is, if the most serious bible scholar were to illustrate the bible in Lego you'd end up with very similar images. There may be some who would say that illustrating the bible in Lego is in itself "funny", and therefore they might think it a parody. That seems an unfair stigma to place on the medium. Reading through the Brick Testament's book of Revelation and the end of the world, it's pretty hard to see it as parody. I am removing the term for now. Rotundo (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Parody" ?

I have to agree with the comments of 80.213.200.100 above. It is not a "parody". That is the wrong word to use here.

The retelling of the action is essentially straight. Yes, Smith does like to bring out any elements of sex and violence in the story (though that's not so different from any number of Hollywood adaptations of literary works). What the illustrations do sometimes do is make pointedly ironic commentary on the material -- for example emphasising the Ten Commandments were originally a list of capital crimes; the Jews applying Deut 13:10 on false prophets to Jesus; or emphasising the size of the ask to fully love ones enemy. But this is commentary, not parody.

It is not "parody" just to be unflattering. (cf Brian, above).

So I propose to remove the word "parody" from the article, and instead comment more accurately on what the work does show.

(Compare WP:NPOV tutorial#Neutral language, or the standard example which I think used to be in WP:NPOV: We don't need to say Hitler was "evil". Instead, report what the man did, and let that speak for itself.)

Jheald (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the descriptive term "parody" is not accurate for this work. While there are a very small number of humorous illustrations, nearly all of the illustrations are straight representations of the Bible's text. Just because someone might find the image of Lego figures burning in hell amusing does _not_ make it a parody. Until someone can point to significant portions of the work where the illustrations are not reasonably straight representations of the Bible's text, I am removing the word. Rotundo (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

20070422 ;; article content and balance

Recently an editor undid modifications to this article that were done to improve its neutrality and accuracy. This action seems inappropriate and an explanation is requested. Specifically, the following items are contested and require a supporting rationale:

• The project is set apart from other illustrated versions of the Bible

What other illustrated versions of the Bible?

Set apart in what way? According to whom?

Is there a neutral, verifiable, reliable source to support this claim?

• ...have become popular both among some religious believers who appreciate its whimsicality and among non-Christians who view ...

(which references http://www.thebricktestament.com/churches/index.html)

The cite used to support this comes from the product vendor, how does this not violate WP:COI and WP:SPS?

The cite is *clearly* an advertisement and a request for monetary support, it is not even appropriate as a link, let alone substantiation

The cite mentions zero about "appreciating whimsicality" or customer motivations, and even if it did, those would be "product endorsements" ... inherently unencyclopedic

• Example excerpt from Brick Testament removed from the article

Why was this excerpt removed when it is *directly relevant* to the subject matter of the article and the (unsubstantiated) claims of the original author's "purpose" for promoting this work?

Either the "purpose" section is irrelevant and should be removed from the article, or a substantive basis for evaluating this purpose is required for balance.

As it stands now the article contains nothing but bald unsubstantiated claims attributed to the author of this work, even though the work itself contains content that sheds additional light on these claims

Please address these issues with an explanation or by correcting them in the article. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 03:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with dr.ef.tymac that the article, as is, does not have good cites. I suspect that much of the material in the article COULD be cited from media publications, but it at this time is not. The article's claims about the nature of the work are views that are commonly held in the fan community, at least... but as it stands it needs work. I do not agree with the "unencyclopedic topic" tagging, though. The book has been published in enough different languages, and has a high enough amazon rank, to be notable, and there has been controversy around it that is citable, and verifiable, so it's a suitable topic. ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everyone so far is in agreement that the article itself does not suffer as "unencyclopedic" ... but the subsection about Smith's stated purpose in publishing this work appears to have problems. Can anyone name a *single* category of Wikipedia articles where unattributed claims by the author regarding the "purpose" behind writing a work is considered standard treatment? These seem to be precisely the kinds of claims that necessitate secondary sources under WP:OR. dr.ef.tymac 09:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I missed that the unencyclopedic tag was on just that section, sorry. I agree with you that the author's claims, by themselves, are not good sources. However even the sources currently given do give sufficient material to construct a purpose section, if someone were to go through the sources looking for things and pulled them together... the SJMN source for example has things like the quote from Kendall Cameron Jr. that get to the issue. But as it stands the article is deficient, and to fix it would be significant work. Note that this SJMN source is no longer available on line for free but (as a LEGO hobbyist active in the community at that time) I remember when the article first came out, and the image Brendan has on his site of the article is an accurate representation of what was published and was available online at the time. I'd go ahead and remove the entire section unless you wanted to be the one that gave it the work to correct it. ++Lar: t/c 10:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit the whole notion of an "author's purpose for this work" section seems out of step with convention. If it were a political manifesto, that might be different, but it's difficult to imagine how this kind of thing can be "fixed" for this kind of work. If someone else knows how to resolve this, that's good, but until then I think it best to just comment out the relevant section and add the other incremental fixes necessary for the article. dr.ef.tymac 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. ++Lar: t/c 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I removed your example, because it had nothing to do with the purpose of "increase people's knowledge of the Bible". The "commentary" clearly is for some other purpose, i.e. to entertain, to make fun of the bible, to irritate people, etc. It is the illustrations and actual bible quotes that are meant to "increase people's knowledge of the Bible". An appropriate example would be to compare an actual bible quote Smith uses to the King James bible and several other bible versions. — Reinyday, 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, I am not aware of any WP policy that allows us to offer any form of independent interpretation of the purpose of Smith's commentary, or even whether there is/was a "purpose." Which parts of the commentary are riducule, which parts are comedic, which parts are didactic, which parts are sincere attempts to correctly interpret? All? None? I don't know how one can give answers to these questions without violating WP:OR ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material"). If there is a cite to a reliable secondary source to back this up then that's one thing, but absent that, this kind of first-hand analysis by you and me clearly seems out of bounds for the article. Anyway, you deleted that section so this is just to clarify some of the concerns. See also the issues with "author's purpose" above. dr.ef.tymac 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• To address other issues, I deleted the "purpose" section. A link to a source is absolutely legitamate. Of course we can use TBT's information on its widespread use in churches, just like you could use the New York Times' statistics on its circulation to discuss its popularity. The citation was only for church use. Are you actually asking for a citation for atheists who like the books/website? Then it would be a matter of selecting from many blogs and personal sites, which doesn't seem particularly useful. What's with the dubious tag? You doubt that atheists like TBT? I'm unclear on what correction you could want. — Reinyday, 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Popularity problem: The issue is pretty straightforward and I think an easy fix is available. The problem is, any claim of "Y is popular among X" automatically raises concerns for: 1) accuracy; 2) self-promotion; and 3) neutrality. It's a factual assertion about both the demographic cohort "X" and its (strictly) favorable opinion of "Y".

Extending your analogy, let's stipulate for sake of discussion that TBT's credibility rating indeed matches that of the New York Times(!)

Which seem balanced and authoritative to you?:

• The New York Times is increasingly popular among women for it's compelling, emotionally taut photojournalism ... and among men for it's incisive and erudite editorial style; OR
• The New York Times is increasingly popular (proved by its skyrocketing circulation). The competition's circulation is increasing also, but that's just because people use them for toilet paper; OR
• The New York Times has a daily circulation of X units in American households, and Y units in households worldwide; OR EVEN
• The New York Times has XY units circulation, and is commonly the subject of discussion on such and such women's blog and this and that men's web forum; OR EVEN
• The NYT is ranked Z among newspapers and is routinely discussed in blogs and web forums.

Moreover, although any of these formulations might indeed appear in the NYT, not all of them would be appropriate substantiation for an encyclopedia article. This is true even despite its general level of credibility. Considering that TBT's credibility rating is in fact not that of the NYT (who would seriously dispute this?), along with the fact that the link provided says absolutely nothing about relative ranking, sales, or anything that can be independently fact-checked by outsiders, but *does* include ads for books and paypal donation links (precisely where one would expect puffery and 'testimonials'), it seems pretty clear-cut that closer scrutiny is not only called-for, but it is essential if this WP article is to be taken seriously. dr.ef.tymac 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

About the white hair-piece

Uhm, theres a minor error in the article... Lego did manufacture a white male hair piece as part of a space-theme. Just thought that ought to be changed, maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.194.45 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any info on Peeron [1] , although I find it was produced in the similar colors "OldGray" and "Tan". The only true white hair I could find was "female pigtails", although it's not very God-like: [2] . In which alleged set would this hairpiece be found? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Contraversial statements

I think the article should make clear that The Brick Testament frequently contains statements of a contraversial sociopolitical nature that is critical of numerous religious institutions and beliefs.

The same is true of the Bible itself of course, but not in the same context. Some of the images and remarks are overtly hostile to sincere believers in Christianity. I understand that there are problems with calling it a "parody" but the way the article stands now suggests that it is a straight adaptation and that's just not the case. Compare and contrast the article "The Man Born to be King" which was a straight adaptation in essence, is filled with references to the adaptation's contraversial nature, despite the fact that it was much tamer than some of the things The Brick Testament has done/said. Just because we can't call it a "parody" doesn't mean Wikipedia should assist in presenting it deceptively as a straight, ideologiaclly neutral adaptation when it's not. The contraversial sociopolitical stuff is part of the story here. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. One can debate whether explicit illustrations of explicit stories are being faithful to the original source or are meant to mock. But there are also places where the Brick Testament inserts things that are not in the original text at all, such as this interlude involving group sex in a story that doesn't contain any sex at all in the Biblical story: [3]. So when Wikipedia states that the Brick Bible is a project "in which Bible stories are illustrated using still photographs", that's simply false -- just as if it were stated that The Last Temptation of Christ is a film version of the Gospel of Matthew.

Wikipedia editors are free to prefer the Bible over the Brick Bible, or vice-versa, but we should not be claiming that the latter is an illustrated version of the former. None of the caveats or clarifications presently in this article indicate the actual nature of the BB. Moreover, it would be good to find a reliable source which characterizes the slant of the editorial additions, since that slant is obvious to any viewer who chooses to look [4]. Suggestions? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Active?

Is the project actually still active? It seems the site hasn't updated since 2015 despite saying "more to come", doesn't seem like the author's published anything about it since then either (though she has worked on other Lego retellings but I don't know how much those would count as part of this). --Jessietail (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential rename to "The Brick Bible"

The newer website for this project goes under the title "The Brick Bible" because "When Elbe Spurling began working with Skyhorse Publishing on a series of print books, they were released under the slightly modified name The Brick Bible. The success of the print books eventually caused The Brick Bible to be the more recognized name for the project" (source here). Since that is not only the name of the current website, but also the name used by the books, should the article title not be updated to reflect that? Packer1028 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)