Thus, in ``The Story of Ruth'' we have Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz and sets that are meticulously authentic. But except for a vague adherence to the basic storyline -- i.e., that Ruth remained with Naomi and finally wound up with Boaz -- the film version has little to do with the Bible.

And in the new ``King of Kings'' the plot involves intrigues and twists and turns that cannot be traced to the Gospels.

Earlier this month Edward R. Murrow, director of the United States Information Agency, came to Hollywood and had dinner with more than 100 leaders of the motion picture industry.

He talked about unauthentic storylines too. He intimated that they weren't doing the country much good in the Cold War. And to an industry that prides itself on authenticity, he urged greater realism.

``in many corners of the globe,'' he said, ``the major source of impressions about this country are in the movies they meet. Would we want a future-day Gibbon or Macaulay recounting the saga of America with movies as his prime source of knowledge? Yet for much of the globe, Hollywood is just that -- prime, if not sole, source of knowledge. If a man totally ignorant of America were to judge our land and its civilization based on Hollywood alone, what conclusions do you think he might come to?