The Chosen (2021) s2e04

One of the features of The Chosen is that it often likes to start episodes in novel fashion. This time around  the episode starts with a long, wordless montage, introducing two brothers. They start as young boys and through the sequence of shots, gradually grow up to become the men. We witness one of them fall from a tree and damage his leg, which appears to have permanent consequences. We see them watch their father remarry. We watch as the younger brother (Simon) begins to seethe at Roman injustice and then leaves the family home. And then the elder brother (Jesse) leaving too to lie and wait at the Pool of Bethzatha in the desperate hope his disability will be healed. Simon, by contrast, joins the zealots. And so it is that two of the relatively minor characters from the Gospels take their shape across a wordless, yet effective and powerful 9 and a bit minutes.

Tabernacles

The context for this episode is the Feast of Tabernacles -- a Jewish festival practised then and still by Orthodox Jews today. This gives the show the chance to show Jesus as thoroughly observing and taking part in Jewish practices. Yet the wider unfamiliarity with the practice among non-Jews, means that we get quite a lot of The Chosen's typical context setting and exposition as dialogue, which is becoming slightly wearying. Matthew and Mary Magdalene -- as seemingly the least observant before -- act as audience surrogates who get to ask the questions so one of the disciples or other can explain to the people at home.

A useful comparison in this respect is the Israeli movie Ushpizin (2004), which manages to explain the essential points of the festival (also known as Succoth/Sukkot/Festival of Booths) and the motivations of its characters without it feeling laboured. It's an excellent film which should appeal to those interested in cinema and religious faith.

For what it's worth, both the healing at the pool of Bethzatha takes place in John 5:1-18, and Jesus going to Jerusalem during Sukkot is in John 7:1-24. Neither incident is mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. There is, however, some interesting conflation here, because 5:1 starts by saying that Jesus went to Jerusalem for a Jewish festival, but it doesn't say which one. It may have been Sukkot, but if so it would seem to be the previous year's because at the start of chapter 6 he's back at the Sea of Galilee, and then goes onto Capernaum and then in 7:1&2 we read that he initially said he wasn't going to go to Sukkot because some were looking to kill him. So at first look it seems that these two events are quite separate, taking place at two different festivals.

There is, however, another possibility, because while at Sukkot in Jerusalem, Jesus does end up in front of a crowd and as things turn a bit nasty, he says "I perform one work and all of you are astonished" and he goes onto defend healing someone on the Sabbath, even though no miracle has been discussed, let along described. It seems to me, then, fairly plausible that at some point these chapters were in a different order and connected somehow. We know that is plausible because John 7:53-8:11 is entirely absent in the oldest remaining manuscripts of John, and turns up in unusual place in some of the other ancient manuscripts (including in Luke's Gospel after 21:38, where, frankly it fits a lot better).

I don't know if The Chosen was looking to draw attention to these unusual aspects of the text, or if the writers just saw a good opportunity to exercise their creative licence. I suspect the latter -- which is fine -- but personally, I'm glad they did because I haven't looked this closely at these passages before.

Other tensions 

If Jesus is concerned about upsetting people in Jerusalem, he is not showing it. But one person who is, is Schmuel who has set up in one of the poorer quarters of Jerusalem to do some preaching. Meanwhile we're introduced to some Roman soldiers at a checkpoint who are standing guard while some are being crucified (for "murder" Simon is told) as well as Atticus, a member of the "cohort urbanae" ("secret police"). 

The fact that one of the soldiers knows Atticus is "secret" police is a bit of a misnomer, but he's quickly established as a ruthless character, firing the hapless soldier who lets Simon through the checkpoint without proper justification. (Simon says he is visiting family near The Antonia Fortress, but, Atticus, points out, this is a military area. Instead of intervening to stop this person who is lying about their destination / motive, Atticus, is content to observe this potential security breach and hold back.

Eventually it emerges that Simon and his colleagues are planning an attack -- a Roman magistrate has become the target for Simon to assassinate -- and Atticus nor only knows about it, but is planning to intervene at the point that is most politically expedient. There's a discussion in an alleyway with another Roman (Petronius) about it and Atticus actually delivers the line "he wants to 'cancel his reservation'" with the kind of over eyebrow-raising delivery usually reserved for Austin Powers' Dr Evil. 

There's also tension between some of the disciples. Thomas complains to Nathanael that he finds Matthew "irritating", to which Nathanael observes that they're "kind of the same person". Matthew has his own concerns -- he's seen Schmuel and knows that it means potential trouble for Jesus: Schmuel called for Jesus' arrest in Capernaum.  

The healing at the Pool of Bethzatha

Those who know John's Gospel well will know this episode is coming from that earliest montage. Jesus and his followers are staying out of town so Jesus heads to Bethzatha specifically to perform this miracle. He brings Simon (not-yet-Peter), Matthew and John. There's more clunky exposition and then when they reach the crosses at the checkpoint the music changes and Jesus seems pensive. There's a clear suggestion he's thinking about his own crucifixion which, according to this show, he already knows about. 

Jesus having foreknowledge like this is not a big surprise, it's a regular feature of the show. The Gospels are unclear about what Jesus knew and when, but in The Chosen he always seems to act with either divine, or scriptural foreknowledge. Events rarely just happen to Jesus. Any links between them and prophecies in the Hebrew Bible are never just connections made by the author of the Gospel. It's always Jesus initiating them, knowingly fulfilling the words of the prophets. The night before, for example, the group has had a long discussion about a prophecy in Zechariah (14:16) about all the nations coming to celebrate Sukkot in Jerusalem and the show seems to take it as a given that Jesus absolutely knows what its fulfilment would be.

Part of the reason I dwell on this point (which could probably be related to any episode) is because when I was younger and part of a church that took a very similar general approach to the Bible, I heard this story  used as an example of quite a different understanding of Jesus' foreknowledge. According to that speaker Jesus had been emptied of all the divine foreknowledge he had prior to his time on earth and had to rely on following specific words of knowledge he got from the Holy Spirit. 

This story was used as a classic example, because it answered one of the overall puzzles with this story: why did Jesus only heal this one guy? The place was full of people wanting healing. Why just him? To that speaker it was because that was what the Holy Spirit was doing. It gets Jesus off the charge of a lack of compassion, but only defers that question to God himself.

The Chosen has a very different answer. Moments before they arrive, the other Simon (Simon the Zealot) has just been reunited with his brother. Their reunion is emotional, but confrontational (Simon knew where Jesse was and looks down on him as compromised). It ends with Jesse reading out the goodbye letter Simon wrote all those years ago, which ends with the line "When you stand on two feet I will know Messiah has come". Simon leaves to complete his zealot assignment and it becomes clearer that this was some kind of final farewell before his potential death. 

They arrive at the pool and Jesus passes Schmuel and there's a gulp, perhaps the closest the episode comes to acknowledging Jesus' reticence about going to Jerusalem during Sukkot. The passage unfolds largely  as it does in the text (though obviously with plenty of creative decisions), but once healed Jesse goes off into the streets of Jerusalem. And there he is seen by his brother, seconds before Atticus kills Simon in the act of assassinating the magistrate. Simon stops, the exact scenario mentioned in his letter all those years ago (his brother standing on two feet) has just come to pass. Their resulting reunification is genuinely moving.

In other words, it's a double-miracle, the super-supernatural, if you will. The Chosen's answer to the question of "why does Jesus just heal that one person, out of of all those who were there?" is that in so doing Jesus was saving two lives at once, Jesse's and Simon's. 

And perhaps, ultimately, it will save Schmuel's life too. For he witnesses the miracle and is also the one who asks the man why he is unlawfully carrying his mat on the Sabbath in John 5:10  (though Jesus and the other three already seem to have broken Sabbath rules by walking more than 1km). And while is initial response is to go and report this breach of the "oral tradition", there's a longer running story in play, which I suspect may not be resolved until the final season.

Jesus, Peter, John and Matthew leave the city as dusk beds in. Simon's basking in the glow of the confrontation as well as the miracle. John, perhaps, thinking about how best to write it down. But Matthew -- who Jesus hand-picked to witness this miracle, but doesn't then include it, or much like it, in his Gospel -- still has a question about timing. Why did he not wait another 30 minutes until Sabbath was over? Jesus chooses to be enigmatic. "Sometimes you gotta stir up the water" he replies, and he walks off, towards the camera with a satisfied grin across his face.

The Chosen (2021) s2e03

The third episode of The Chosen's season 2 is simply called "Matthew 4:24" which is one of those little verses that just casually mentions Jesus performing mass healings and exorcisms "and they brought to him all who were afflicted...". It sets up an interesting premise for the episode. I'm starting to get now that The Chosen is at least as interested in the disciples as it is in Jesus, and this season in particular, might be even more interested in them than in him. 

So this time around Jesus is off screen for almost the entire episode. The group have arrived in a new place and those who are "afflicted" have sought him out to try and be healed. Jesus seems to have some kind of booth and there's a rather orderly queue. There are large numbers getting healed, "over 50", at least according to Matthew's counting, "not including lepers...". "He's scary good" one of the other disciples explains. But we're not actually seeing Jesus performing miracles, instead we're following round the disciples and watching their reaction.

Philip the "Teacher"

The episode starts by continuing where episode 2 left off, which in this instalment starts with Philip teaching Matthew about the Torah. "Sometimes you have to believe first" says Philip to Matthew who is still trying to understand the mechanics of it all while simultaneously demonstrating his apparent ability to memorise sentences having only heard them once.¹ Philip doesn't seem particularly amazed that Matthew can do this. It's the kind of detail that appeals to those who hold the Bible is inerrant: if Matthew had an unusually good ability to recall words having only heard them once then that lends a deeper credibility to the reliability of his words. If this was unremarkable in his world then the same applies for the other Gospels. But it's unclear whether the recollection that it's sometimes claimed first century Jews could perform on scripture (the oral culture = heightened recollection) applies to every day conversations rather than particular, key texts.

I'm curious as to where the writers would land in terms of the Synoptic problem. Does Matthew's advanced ability to memorise things mean they buy into Matthaean priority? Or do they (like the majority) ascribe to Markan priority but perhaps see his social awkwardness as also suggesting he would be less likely to write the kind of narrative that would engage a broader audience, but then once he had Mark to work off he was able to expand it with the bits he has memorised and written down. Incidentally, when his memory is so good and his available space/materials for writing so limited, what, exactly, is he writing down? 

Anyway, the first verse they start with is Psalm 139:8 ("If I go up to Heaven you are there...", a slight variation on the actual wording which has "heavens". But right away Matthew is uncomfortable with the poetic language, and asking questions. I like this. They're the kind of questions I might like to ask, or would wish I had asked retrospectively. 

Philip, who despite having only joined the group in the last episode, has almost supplanted Jesus' role as the teacher now. There's a power dynamic (a wisdom dynamic) between him and Matthew, or between him and Mary Magdalene, even though they have been following Jesus longer than him. Will Philip get brought down a peg or two in future episodes, or is the implication that because he knows more about God (from John)  he has important knowledge to pass on? If so it only makes the next exchange even more curious...

Philip: "There's nowhere you can go -- no height you can climb to in your intellectual mind; no depths you can reach in your soul -- where God is not with you. Do you get it?

Matthew: I think so. 

Philip: No amount of learning can bring you closer to God or make you more or less precious to him. He's always right here, right now. With you. For you. 

Matthew: I don't feel it.

Philip: The feeling doesn't always come first sometime you have to believe first.

Matthew: Believing a thing does not make it true.

Philip: Ah, that is wisdom, but these are not just any words they are David's, and scripture

Matthew: How do you know if David was only talking about himself and not everyone else? He did say 'If I ascend' not if people ascend.

Philip: It almost sounds like you don't want it to be true.

I feel I could probably write quite a lot on that passage which, perhaps because I feel I've been on the wrong end of conversations such as this too many times, rubs me up the wrong way. One thing I've often encountered in certain Christian circles is this sort of wisdom vs intellectualism paradox. Wisdom is always considered a good thing. It's often associated with knowledge. Intellectual understanding, though, is also often akin to knowledge, but there's also this sense that it's at best insufficient, and at its worst dangerous. Matthew here isn't even being intellectual, he's just asking reasonable questions.

Right from the start, though, things are stacked against him. The passage is poetic and so could be taken in various ways. Philip though starts it off with a sort of jibe about the intellectual mind and follows it up with the line about learning. But if this is true then why is he in a position to teach Matthew. After all Matthew followed Jesus on his first encounter with Jesus. Philip met Jesus when he was hanging out with John, but didn't immediately follow him. I'm not saying that puts Matthew ahead of Philip, but it does make me question why Philip is so comfortable becoming this wise stand-in for Jesus ahead of all the others who have been following Jesus for longer. 

Then we move onto feelings. Matthew doesn't feel God is close to him. But feelings, too, are insufficient. Both it and knowledge have to be subjugated to belief. But if neither of those are valid, what is the basis for this belief? In Matthew's case he at least has experience of Jesus, but given this exchange has (I was going to say one eye, but...) both eyes on the 21st century audience at home then. What experience do we have if it's not coming from feelings or from understanding? Why should one accept one series of beliefs (e.g. evangelical Christianity over, say Zoroastrianism? 

Matthew points out that believing can also be faulty, and Philip responds by explaining that this is "scripture". But what is it about scripture that means we can (as is implied) automatically trust it? Feeling? Knowledge? Ironically, it's Matthew's own precise, forensic desire for the truth which is being used to shore up the automatic believability of the Bible against the very people in the audience who are most likely to ask similar kinds of questions.

And then there's that final line "you don't want it to be true". Some level of intellectual discussion can be tolerated, celebrated even, but too much then it gets shut down. The only explanation is that you don't want it to be true. It's not just that you have different kinds of "learning styles", or  that the arguments don't add up. Pretty soon Philip has moved from open discussion to shutting Matthew down.

The conversation ends with Philip passing on a couple of tips to help Matthew understand it. "Meditate on it for a few days and come back to me...Try writing it down several times. There's something about writing it down that makes it go a long way". There's two things here, firstly that Philip's made no attempt to answer a very reasonable, and indeed important, question. Secondly, this tip feels like it's more for the people at home than for a first century traveller. I suppose Philip could be thinking of a wax tablet, or even sand, but any writing method was a laborious and somewhat exclusive process. The idea that it was established as a learning technique seems phoney to me.

Messianic expectations

Meanwhile the disciples are discussing the pros and cons. They all seem to be in agreement that Jesus is the messiah even though he goes against their expectations of that term (and I don't recall him claiming that title for himself yet, at least in front of the disciples, but perhaps I'm wrong about that). Some are still after fame, big James in particular wonders what he would have thought if someone would have told him as in his younger days that he would be following the messiah. As a child he "trained every day with a wooden sword" and imagined killing Romans with the messiah. He hadn't expected that they would be spending their time standing around while the messiah healed people.

For Thomas, it's clearly a military concept as well. And when Mary, who has few expectations about the messiah asks "Why is it you expect a warrior?" Thomas cites a lengthy part of Zechariah 14 to justify a military messiah. Philip seeks to lengthen out the time span for these expectations others cite later Jewish sources about how Jerusalem needs to be holy first.

Little James's "malady"

The discussion dissolves as Jesus' followers head off in various directions just as Little James arrives leaving just him and Thomas alone for a more intimate discussion. He worries that the crowds are only following Jesus because he's been healing them "I don't know how many of them would believe in him if he wasn't healing them." 

This leads Thomas to probe about James' own disability (though James helpfully volunteers his answer before Thomas can quite find an appropriate term for disability). James tells him that it's "A form of paralysis. It's caused problems since birth". 

It's noticeable that while the full 12 disciples are yet to join up there are now two amongst their growing number who might be considered in today's terms as having some form of disability². (The other I'm thinking of is Matthew who Dallas Jenkins identified even before the first episode aired as someone with Asperger’s.³ Jenkins went on to say that it's something that he's "had experience with personally".⁴

It's worth pointing out that the actor playing James, Jordan Walker Ross, has cerebral palsy and scoliosis. I don't know at what point the decision was made to incorporate Ross's experience into that of Little James. I'd like to think that they cast him on the basis of his ability as an actor and then wrote James' "malady" into the script. If so it's certainly a decision that comes to fruition in the conversation that follows. 

Thomas (in a slightly doubting Thomas fashion) asks 

Thomas: So then...why hasn't he healed you.How do you watch all these healings today? Does it bother you?

James: Fair questions. I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about all of this. I mean, I suppose one big thing is that I haven't asked. 

Thomas: Why not? 

James: I don't know.

Thomas: If I had your, er, struggle and I was watching what was happening today, I'd demand it

James: I don't know if I should. It just doesn't feel right.

In contrast to the conversation quoted in the previous section, this feels like a real conversation, because it doesn't feel like a point is being made to the audience, or at least if there is a point it's that Jesus healing people is a complex issue. James continues worried that if he tells Jesus about his partial paralysis Jesus might treat him differently. I do wonder if the lack of resolution at the end of this conversation also reflects the actors own feelings about it as well as that of the writing and directing team. They'd like to have a nice pat answer as to why not everyone is healed and they know sometimes it's because people don't ask, but they also know that when people do it doesn't always happen. And they also know that sometimes people don't feel comfortable seeking prayer for these things.

Camera-work

As the episode progresses it becomes clear that this episode is going to take place mainly on the one set, back at camp and around the campfire. But more than that I start to realise that the one shot I'm watching, which has been moving to adjust as various characters come and go, is extremely long. Indeed, when I go back and check, I realise it's a 13½ minute shot which starts immediately after the opening credits, incorporating all of the conversations above. And it's a roving, weaving, fluid style which moves from group shots to intimate close-ups, often detaching from one conversation to latch onto another.

I won't breakdown the whole thing, but after the conversations above the shot (now capturing the discussion between James and Thomas) shifts from a close-up of James, as he reveals these deep feelings about his disability; to an intimate two shot with Thomas, as Thomas affirms him; to a moving motion, capturing  the back of the two of them as they get up to join a larger group that Mother Mary has just joined; to then encircling the group, which enhances that sense of Mary being welcomed into the group; to another close-up on Philip; and then on Mary; and only ends when she walks off to prepare some food (at 14m51s).

It's pretty masterful, actually. Tightly choreographed, smooth, and linking all the goings on behind the scenes of Jesus' day of healing into a whole piece. It gives a sense of that business, but also the progression of time. The light seems to shift radically as the shot takes place. Was that clever artificial lighting, great timing, Kubrick-like persistence over a series of evenings, or just a good dose of fortune? Sadly most of the Q&As with the filmmakers have little time for such questions.

Mary and Joseph

Just before the end of that shot Mary makes an interesting comment on hearing her son has been seeing people all day (following a long walk). "He's always been a worker. He gets that from his father. [long pause] Both of them I suppose." I'm tempted to make a flippant comment about Jesus being a workaholic, or about his movement's long hours culture, but it's an interesting line, even though I'm not sure it lines.

It's actually the forerunner for further insights into Jesus's father which Mary will reveal later as the group unwinds around the campfire. Initially it starts within a conversation the others are having about money. When Mary interjects "I've never had much money my whole life and I've been happy" and you can't help wondering about the magi's gold, but the conversation goes in a different direction.

Eventually though the conversation comes back round and Mary admits to having been worried about making mistakes when Jesus was younger. Mary Magdalene asks her "How did you feel when it happened?" and the group presses for the story. Mary starts with a nice couple of insights into the feelings she experienced behind those famous verses we find in the Gospels, before admitting "I don't know if I'm ready to give all the details, maybe some other time". But she opens back up again expressing her surprise at the human elements of motherhood when she'd wondered if it might be "completely different". Again I'll quote the extended passage

When Joseph handed him to me it was like nothing I expected. It was like everything I'd heard about having a baby but I thought this would be completely different. [Peter asks "what do you mean"] I had to clean him off. He was covered in... I will be polite. He needed to be cleaned. And he was and cold and he was crying and he needed my help. My help. A teenager from Nazareth. It actually made me think for just one moment. "Is this really the Son of God?" Joseph told me later he briefly thought the same thing, but we knew he was. I don't know what I expected but he was crying and he needed me and I wondered how long that would last. He doesn't need me anymore..."

It's an interesting moment, both moving, but also just allowing the viewer to recalibrate a little. Jesus has been performing al these miracles, but it's reminder the viewer of his humanity and vulnerability as well. And then Mary says, almost off-hand "After Joseph passed". The idea of Joseph having died during Jesus lifetime is is not something in the Gospels but it's long been understood from his absence in the main part of the story.⁵ 

Mary is vulnerable too. She's proud of her son and excited to see what he will do, but admit to missing him and that he no longer needs her, "...as a mum, it makes me a little sad sometimes". 

Tensions emerge

The camp-fire chat runs for the remainder of the show. Mary makes her excuses and goes off to sort out the dishes, leaving the disciples to chat a bit about their pasts too. Embolded, perhaps, by Mother Mary's revelations, Mary Magdalene's explains a little of her backstory, about the death of parents when she was young, how she left "everything" and tried to stop being a Jew. She continues "Worse things happened...Most of it is a blur". This continues the show's tendency to hint at the tradition that she was a prostitute, but without explicitly stating it.⁶

Mary feels at a disadvantage to the male disciples, but they confess that they don't know as much as she thinks. Except that is, apparently, for Big James. He modestly tries to pass it off, but John doubles down: "You could recite half of Torah if you had to". Obviously this is exaggeration to prove a point in discussion not a literal statement of truth, but still the implication suggests something that would be quite extraordinary for a peasant fisherman in reality. Even being able to read or write would be rare and while there's some evidence to support transmission of information orally among the elite classes,⁷ we don't really know the extent to which it percolated down to the lower classes. Again it suits the series' apologetic aims to present some of the early church as knowing the Jewish scriptures really well  

 The conversation then veers into talking about the extent to which they maintain Jewish practice or rather the ways in which the various disciples broke the rules. "I tried pork once" one offers perhaps torn between his shame and the sense of one-upmanship that is beginning to emerge between them. Things turn more serious and they reflect on the difficulties and challenges of their identity. "I've come to love being Jewish" Thomas says to nods of approval. 

And then Simon picks on Matthew. "And what about you?..Has it been difficult for you all this time?" John tries to settle things down, but when Matthew asks him what he wants him to do Andrew joins in "An apology" and it goes on. John points out how Simon nearly put them in trouble with the Romans. Thomas turns the attention back on to Matthew. Simon gets to his feet, ranting now. Big James stands to square up to him. And then, suddenly, there's the soft sound of weary footsteps traipsing into camp. Jesus has finally completed his very long day's labour. He has finally got to the end of the queue. There's no jokes just a would be Messiah, to emotionally exhausted to give more than the most basic of greetings.

It's not just that Jesus is exhausted, but that it strikes such a contrast with all the conversations that have gone before, from the more obvious (Peter's bitter confrontation of Matthew), through the more mundane such as Big James recalling his own exhaustion at having to follow Sabbath rules, even through to the more spiritual and compassionate sounding such as Mother Mary's sense of loss that she no longer feels Jesus needs her. And all the time they have been chatting, he has been exhausting himself, being that good observant Jew (healing lepers but separately), that true follower, that person that does the caring for others. And now he is there, exhausted. He's a Jesus who still needs his feet cleaning and his Mum to look after him. And I find myself crying because my eldest just turned 18 and we're going through a similar thing to Mary. He's so grown up now, he needs me less and less. And yet he's still, occasionally, vulnerable. "What would I do without you Eema?" says Jesus as the credits roll. And I wonder if I'll hear a similar sentiment ever again.

=======================

1. This appears to relate to the decision to portray Matthew as being on the autism spectrum, which I discuss below (3).

2. I've been listening to an interview with Dr Isaac Soon (who is also worth following on Twitter) on the "Data over Dogma" podcast, who explains, among an array of interesting points, that what we consider disability is a "cultural construct".

3. Cited by Peter T. Chattaway in 2019 in "The Chosen — Ethnic And Neurological Diversity In The Story Of Jesus" from an interview for a restricted-access article in Christianity Today "Jesus’ Life Chosen for Two Very Different TV Series" (2019). The term "Asperger's" is now generally not used these days (something where the momentum may have shifted even since then) due to both medical knowledge viewing it as more correctly as part of the broader autism spectrum and Dr. Asperger's involvement with the Nazi regime.

4. Josh Shepherd (2019) "Jesus’ Life Chosen for Two Very Different TV Series" in Christianity Today March 29. Available online - https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/march-web-only/jesus-his-life-history-chosen-tv-series-vidangel.html 

5. There is a counter narrative, namely that Joseph didn't really exist which goes right back to him being named as Jesus ben Pantera in the Babylonian Talmud, but this series isn't likely to go there.

6. Kevin Keating highlights the mention of "The Red Quarter" and indications that Mary was raped by a Roman solidier as indications of this in "Mary Magdalene in The Chosen (Adapting Biblical Characters)" at The Bible Artist, May 30th 2020. Available online: https://www.thebibleartist.com/post/mary-magdalene-in-the-chosen-adapting-biblical-characters

7. David Carr (2010) "Torah on the Heart: Literary Jewish Textuality Within Its Ancient Near Eastern Context" in Oral Tradition, 25/1. p.17-40. Available online: https://journal.oraltradition.org/wp-content/uploads/files/articles/25i/04_25.1.pdf

The Chosen (2021) s2e02

After a fairly eventful first episode of the new series, this one feels like a return to the world-building that sets The Chosen apart from other on-screen depictions of Jesus. This is not unfamiliar for the series being similar to the earlier episodes of season 1. Here, the episode essentially takes place on the road between their unknown encampment and Caesarea Philippi (although the pronunciation of Caesarea Philippi  is fairly unusual). 

We also get introduced to two more disciples, which actually is fairly rare the series so far. When we first meet Jesus, he already has a few that disciples in tow or at least is friends with them, Peter, Big James etc. and we're introduced to Mary joining the group. Then at the end of the first season we get the climax of Matthew's conversion narrative. Other than that, though, relatively few of the 12 have a joined (perhaps Thomas?). 

In some ways, then, it's interesting to see two new disciples joining in the one episode, although in both the Bible and the episode there's a sense that they come as a pair. 

Nathaniel

The first one we encounter is Nathaniel and he is introduced in the style that's quite common for the Chosen. The first scene features a new location and new members of the cast. We learn a little bit about this person's backstory, and their motivations, before cutting then to scenes of the disciples or of Jesus (or both). Then gradually the new cast member comes into the orbit of the established group and eventually becomes part of the movement (if not the disciples).

And so it is with Nathaniel. We meet him as an architect with great ambitions, but facing prejudice both for being Jewish, and also because of his level of education. When one of his building projects fails (perhaps because of this prejudice) he is left emotionally broken and out of a job. Those who know their Bible well but we'll recognise the name Nathaniel and so not not be surprised when sooner or later he appears under a tree weighing up his future. 

Here, just to make sure no-one misses it, Nathaniel ends by crying out "Do you see me? Do You See Me?". Of course God does, which means at the end of the episode Jesus is able to say to him "I saw you under the fig tree" -- a strong suggestion that Jesus and God are one the same. The story-line is brought to an unintentionally amusing conclusion when Nathaniel utters something, as if deliberately quoting the screenplay of The Matrix, "He is the one".

Philip

The other new character we meet here is Philip and his introduction is very different from the pattern outlined above. Philip seems to come across Peter and the other disciples as they're wandering through the countryside. He himself seems very familiar with them, leaving them befuddled as to how he is so familiar with them, when they have only just met. 

It quickly transpires, though, that not only does he know Andrew, but he has also been a disciple of John the Baptist for the last two years. We also discover that he knows Nathaniel fairly well, although the two have very different personalities: whereas Nathaniel is aware of his own hubris, there's an implication that perhaps he has been a little arrogant, and that he is not particularly comfortable around people. 

In contrast, Philip is incredibly personable and has much higher confidence than his architect friend. He rubs Peter, and perhaps some of the other disciples, up the wrong way a little, but certainly endears himself to some of the more fringe members of the group with whom he seems to take time to connect, valuing and emphasising their importance to Jesus' movement. In some ways I'm rather with Peter, though I appreciate Philip's concern for those on the margins, and the way that he is already acting as the social glue that holds Jesus' movement together. 

John the Baptist and Herod

It's interesting too that we learn quite a bit about the series' John the Baptist from this encounter. As the show started long after Jesus' baptism, we mainly have encountered John through the other disciples's comments, particularly Peter who (as is pointed out to Philip) Peter calls John "crazy John". Here we also have Jesus refer to him as his cousin and clarify that they are more or less the same age. These are details that many biblical scholars question. For many, the thought is that John was older and in some ways Jesus was initially a follower, part of his movement, before choosing his own path. The tying of the two of them together as part of the same family, according to this theory, is the familial details we find in Luke's Gospel are later inventions. 

I'm not sure that Jesus being a disciple of John's, prior to beginning his own ministry, rules out the possibility that the two are not related. It's certainly not implausible that two people with similar genes end up having a similar set of skills and ending up in the public eye, despite having separate careers. We wouldn't assume that if Luke had not mentioned it, but given that he does, I'm not sure there's much of a case for overturning it.

It does seem, though, that John is still alive and so perhaps we might meet him before he meets his untimely fate.

We also get a little bit more information about Herod. This comes as the group approach their destination at the end of the episode, Caesarea Philippi. We're told that John criticised Herod for his killing sons and swapping wives. It's interesting to see the mention of 'killing sons' as this is not found in scripture, but it's something we know from other sources such as Josephus. Again I wonder if we will get to meet Herod at any point before Jesus' trial.

Jewish context

Perhaps it's just some of the discussions that I've been involved in online and the comments that the director Dallas Jenkins has made himself, but it became far clearer in this episode (to me at least) the extent to which the show is keen to emphasise Jesus' Jewish heritage: the use of the word rabbi (which has been involved in since the start) felt like it was is being used more frequently here. Philip applies it to John for example. 

Secondly, there's a lot of discussion about " Hebrew School", particularly between Philip and Matthew. Matthew we learn was so good at maths he dropped out of Hebrew language classes to focus on Maths alone. The point is made -- and I'm not really sure what historical basis there is for this -- that all the male disciples, more or less, have been to Hebrew School.

This is perhaps why nearly all of them are able to join in with a recitation of a relatively obscure passage in Ezekiel (39:9-10a). Perhaps this passage is better known amongst the Jewish community now, or there is some evidence that it had great significance at the time, but it's not one that is in a lot of people's consciousness. So the fact that so many other disciples are able to recite it, in such unison, is either further proof of what good Jews they are, or a suggestion that they know most of the Hebrew Bible as well as this, or perhaps both. 

I'm open to being correct about this, but it feels like a stretch. I don't know that there's much evidence that the average peasant labourer / fishermen would have enjoyed this level of education. Most of their time would have been spent learning the family trade and then starting to work in said business from a young age. Nevertheless, the point is also made that women such as Mary would not have had such an opportunity.

I've mentioned here before about James Crossley's line about many portrayals of Jesus showing him as "Jewish, but not that Jewish" and this feels like perhaps another example. (We also get, for example, Jesus or the disciples, making derogatory comments about organised religion which apparently Jesus doesn't "do". 

Peter

There were a couple of other things that grabbed my attention as well, both of which take place on the road as part of a conversation between Peter (who we're still calling Simon) and Jesus. The first is Peter and his concern that as the number of followers grows, there is a lot of duplication of effort and perhaps a lack of leadership. 

It's a really interesting way of raising this part of Simon's personality, because it's clear to the audience that Simon is jostling for position and wanting to get himself appointed to a special leadership position over the others. Jesus though is not playing the game and handles things expertly. 

Firstly, he doesn't call Peter out on his rather transparent bid for power, but instead speaks to the longer term potential of the movement. Then, when the appropriate moment arrives, Peter's special skills will come to the fore. This is clearly a nod towards him becoming the 'leader' of the early church, and it's interesting that what both men are envisaging seems relatively hierarchical. Certainly it will appeal more to those within Catholicism than those within movements such as the quakers. And this forms an interesting counterpoint to the comments earlier about Jesus' dislike of religion. Put perhaps I'm reading too much into that.

This conversation does feel like it comes slightly out of left field, however. Peter has never really struck me as the 'system's analyst' guy, which seems to be the role he is playing here. Y es there's a level of calculating self-promotion, which fits with his character elsewhere, and it's good that the show doesn't just portray him as transparently portraying self-promotion, but I also wonder where the streak will go. Will there be any further moments in the show where these skills are in some way brought out or is this just part of the foundations and these to be laid for that later conversation that we all know is coming.

In any case having spoken to Peter's potential rather than criticised his flaws Jesus dashes off. It's time for him to push the cart carrying their belongings. Big James has been doing it emphasising the strongly physical nature of the task, which is further highlighted by the other disciples initial unwillingness to relieve him. But now Jesus is actively wanting to take on the task, he reminds his followers of his past career as a labourer and the physicality of that task. It's also a nod to the kind of servant leadership typicl of a man who will later, presumably, wash his own disciples' feet. Interestingly though we don't see Jesus pushing the cart, I'm left wondering why that is. It's probably just one of those things, but perhaps there will be more to it...

The Chosen (2021) s2e08

I have been working through The Chosen very slowly, but in order, mainly because I'm trying to write up the episodes as I go. However, as I was running a Jesus in film course last weekend, I wanted to have a look at the way it deals with the Sermon on the Mount so I jumped ahead. So it makes some sort of sense to write some initial impressions now, even if I have more to say when I worked my way through the rest of the episodes in season 2.

Writing the sermon

The first point of note is that Jesus and Matthew are now heading off into the hills on writing retreats. I don't know if there's been any build up to this in the previous episodes, but it soon becomes clear here that they are working together on Jesus' big speech – the Sermon on the Mount – which will take place imminently. 

On the one hand I really like this approach. As much as I love the scene from The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) where Jesus spontaneously bursts into a brilliant rendition of Luke's Sermon on the Plain, I do feel precious few Jesus films have ever really stopped to consider the process behind the formation of these words which seems like a major omission for an artistic process that seeks to reflect on Jesus' life. 

For what it's worth I find a lot of the scholarship around this fairly lacking as well. On the one hand more conservative scholars argue reasons why it was perfectly possible for Matthew to capture flawlessly the very words Jesus spoke. On the other hand, the more liberal-minded have historically argued Matthew and Luke have a common source which both shape to their particular purposes and that the Sermon is just a composite of bits of Jesus' teaching.

I'm not opposed to the essence of those theories, but they don't seem very connected to the likely realities of Jesus' ministry. If we take for granted that he had 3 years of itinerant ministry, then that is a lot of time spent speaking in public. Perhaps he never said the same thing more than once and we have only a tiny fraction of his message. But it's long seemed more likely to me that he would have re-used the same speeches again and again, recontextualising them for a new setting and honing them as he went along, much like travelling preachers and stand-up comics do today.

Secondly, and I do recognise that I've already headed into a major detour here, it's often said that the Sermon on the Mount was just a Matthean literary device to paint Jesus as a sort of Moses figure. Certainly there are plenty of touches of that in Matthew's Gospel, but it's also certainly possible that Jesus saw that angle himself and so decided to do some sort of prophetic action like this himself. After all the basic premise of the feeding of the 5000 was that all these people had followed Jesus to a remote location. The miracle itself naturally attracts scepticism, but I'm not sure that diminishes the likelihood of the preaching event in the first place. And if (on this occasion) people had traipsed up a mountain to hear him preach then it makes sense to think it might be a lengthy sermon just to make it worthwhile for the people who have given up so much time to come to hear him. A quick whizz through the Beatitudes would barely seem worth the effort. Far better to whip out the greatest hits. So while it seems to me unlikely that we have a transcript of Jesus' words that day, it doesn't seem implausible to me that Jesus did do a talk on a mountain and that the text we have is no a million miles away from what he might have said.

Anyway, I like the idea that Jesus worked on his words, his presentation, his imagery away from the crowd. Perhaps it's my introvert side, or the side of me that occasionally agonises over word choices (before then splurging out something ill-formed and misspelt a few moments later). So I like the way the series shows this, even though there's also something rather Sam Seaborne and President Bartlett-like about the whole thing. 

Dramatically it's also a great way to put the beatitudes in fresh context and make the audience look at it in a new way. It draws attention to them in a way that would be difficult in a more formal setting, but it also shows how their highly structured format is something of a set-piece.

Jesus: Live!

If the writing of the beatitudes opens the episode, then it's the moments leading up to the sermon that end not only the episode but also the series as a whole. I have to say that the way that Dallas Jenkins and his team have portrayed the sermon is quite unlike anything I've ever seen before, or even pictured it.

 

Broadly speaking, I like being surprised like this, even if I dislike the filmmakers' specific interpretation. Because who's to say I'm right? And what does the filmmaker see that I do not? How do they make me look at things in which I haven't. It seems contrary to expectations, but sometimes the ones you react most strongly against are the ones you most need to see.

And here I do dislike the overall set up. This isn't how I imagined things. The whole thing feels like Jesus is about to play at a big festival. This starts early on with the disciples handing out (hand-made) flyers and nailing up posters. (I've never seen any disciple or any other follower of Jesus telling people to come, or doing anything to help them find this big event. They all just turn up by magic, don't they?)

When we arrive at the mount itself the first thing we see is Jesus, back to the camera practising (which I like having wondered about it before), but as the scene unfolds it emerges that we are in a huge backstage area. We're shown the crowd arriving occasionally, but their cut off from the disciples and other followers milling about behind this long curtain. Jesus' preparation is interrupted by some discussion about what he will wear – a rather stereotypical way of enabling the woman to contribute. It takes four of them and even them they can't decide among themselves until one delivers the casting vote and a rather awkward-looking blue sash is employed for the occasion.

 

All in all though this is the most big-church, evangelical the show has felt yet. It's almost showbiz, certainly there's a sense of hype and anticipation. Eventually Peter comes up to Jesus and tells him it's time (which feels particularly odd). Jesus moves in slow-motion past his followers' grinning encouraging faces, parts the curtain and steps out into the crowd.

My gut feel, then, is that I like this. It feels commercial and hyped, but it does make me think. You see whether or not I think the Sermon on the Mount was a one off, one of a series of events, or just a literary device to bring a block of his teaching together while comparing him to Moses, I've never really considered that this might have been a big deal for Jesus. I'm very happy with the idea of a human Jesus, but rarely thought about his nerves, his need to prepare, his desire to execute the details well. The possibility that he considered his labouring over the details as important to his success as his miracles.

Moreover as someone who used to work organising church events, analysing the details, thinking about things from every angle and doing all I can to ensure things are as right as they can be, I'd never thought about the Sermon on the Mount – or any of Jesus' preaching in those terms. For someone whose always been keen to stress Jesus' humanity, I realise I've allowed the religious pattina to remain around how he delivered his teaching. It's not that I favour the Greatest Story Ever Told approach where he stands on a hill everyone remaining completely still as he reads the words out in unexcited fashion. Quite the contrary. I like the more passionate, more ad-libbed portrayals of, say, Dennis Potter's Son of Man (1969). But this relies on a whole assumption that Jesus was the kind of brilliant orator that could deliver a brilliant piece of oratory, just from some half-formed ideas he had in his mind. 

 

I realise too that I've previously left the disciples out of the picture. Yes I've thought about the people at the back only hearing "blessed are the cheesemakers", but not thought about those close to Jesus on such a monumental occasion. The glow of being close to something remarkable like this, the desire to want to play a meaningful part.

I'm still not saying this is how I think these events happened. But they have really made me think about the limitations of my own assumptions and my own blindspots and challenged me about my thinking.

Series finale

Just as Jesus steps through the curtain (so close to the camera that the lens distorts his features – the closest The Chosen has come yet to Poor Things) – the camera fades to black and it's the end of not only the episode, but the entire season. It's something the filmmakers seem quite pleased with. Sometime after the release of season 3 they released a video called "The sermon so big it took 2 different seasons to tell it..." showing the end of the second series and the start of season 3.

 

Again this is an interesting decision artistically speaking. Season finales tend to fall into one of two camps: cliff-hangers or neat conclusions (though some attempt both). Putting the break moment before the first words of the Sermon on the Mount is certainly an unusual choice for a cliff-hanger – although, I suppose, options are limited given it's an adaptation of 1st century texts. And given the start of the episode, we certainly know what his first words are going to be once Jesus opens his mouth. I don't imagine people binge-watching the programme will delay going to bed on account of it.

 

On the other hand, there are clearly a few story lines that are reaching completion here (and a few more would perhaps be more apparent if I'd chosen to review this episode in order) but the tying up of threads from the season in general doesn't seem to be a huge concern.

 

Instead, then, this series break seems to suggest that this point in Jesus' life is particularly notable. It marks a sea change. In Matthew's Gospel (the only one to contain *the* Sermon on the Mount) only four of 28 chapters have elapsed by this point. But for The Chosen that curtain Jesus steps through marks a transition. Perhaps (and again I need to watch the rest of season 2) this is the point in which he goes from being a successful local preacher to being a nationally recognised figure, of having set his manifesto out on a big stage. The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) contains a similar moment to this, though at a different point in Jesus' ministry: the raising of Lazarus. It's there that we get a sense Jesus has crossed a threshold and we see him literally being pulled towards the grave.

Judas

The other major transition in this episode is that we finally meet Judas Iscariot. The show actually does a great job of catching the audience unawares with this. We meet Judas and a colleague as anonymous new characters at the start of the episode. This gives us a great introduction to the character, so we get to know him and like him as a person before his name is revealed as a twist in the latter moments of the episode. Because, of course, everyone knows Judas, and his reputation is unlikely to be the kind of thing the series tampers with too greatly. Why would they? It's a story arc to rival that of Darth Vader's.

At the same time this Judas has already been involved in shady dealings and shows signs of being easily led. He and his colleague are in the process of exploiting a poor landowner getting him to sell part of his land for significantly less than it's true worth. They have their sales patter worked out so their poverty stricken mark is happy with the deal, but they don't reveal it's true worth. Maybe that's his own fault. No laws seem to have been broken even if it's ethically grey. But somehow, in Judas' mind at least, this has crossed a line. He's no longer happy with what he and his colleague have done. Despite the incomparable wealth he has now realised, something is gnawing at his soul. By the end of the episode he's left his partner (in not-quite crime) and join Jesus' followers.

 

Shorn of the burden of his reputation, these brief few scenes reveal so much about this interpretation of Judas. Firstly that he is a man with some form of conscience. There are only hints as to what ethically-murky operations he may have been involved in in the past, but he has a conscience and realises how important right-living is to him. He's a good guy (at least in his own mind) and when he finds himself having ended up in more morally suspect waters he sets a new course.

 

However, it also reveals that this Judas is easily led astray. He and his colleague may not have lied, but their whole schtick is rehearsed and based on using deception to their advantage. Indeed, just like what (we assume) will happen later in the show, Judas has found himself in a situation where someone leads him to morally compromise himself, someone else suffers greatly as a result and when Judas realises this, he's consumed with remorse. Here, he seems to lack foresight about where certain actions will lead him ethically speaking.

 

Following on from that, the third thing it reveals is that here, Judas' moral weakness is most exposed when there's money involved. This has a complicated history. All four Gospels have Judas being given money for betraying Jesus, and this is something that intensifies as we move from Mark to John. Mark simply records that the chief priests promised to give him money. Matthew introduces the idea that it was for 30 pieces of silver (absent also in Luke) and both include a (different) story about Judas' death, though Luke's occurs at he start of the Book of Acts. John really ramps things up. Having already introduced Judas as "a devil" (6:70) in 12:1-8 we again get the story of the woman anointing Jesus (see my analysis of the multiple significant variations in this story here) only this time the only disciple grumbling that the nard wasn't sold so the money could be given to the poor is specifically identified as Judas and it's revealed that he only said this "because he was a thief" (and so wanted to steal some of that theoretically donated money). These verses then become the soil from which grows the antisemitic stereotypes about Jews and money which have led to so much persecution at the hands of Christians in the past.

 

So while I like the idea of showing Judas as someone who is attracted to goodness while also being easily led into morally compromising himself, I do wish they'd chosen an scenario that wasn't money related. And I hope that when the betrayal happens, Judas' motivation is going to take into account the tragic history of how these verses have been interpreted in the past. I'm encouraged, at least, by my initial impression that Judas doesn't seem obviously more 'coded' as Jewish than the other disciples (as other Jesus films have done). Perhaps I'll return to that as the series develops.

The Chosen (2021) s2e01

I was hoping, as I sat down to watch this episode, that it might be the kind that I could watch, find a couple of interesting things to say and then dash off a few quick words, content to be moving towards the new season while it still might be fresh. But alas, no. It turns out that this is one of those episodes about which there really is lots to say, partly down to my own quirky interests, partly down to things that I have read fans of the chosen writing about (shout out to anyone from any of The Chosen Facebook forums I've been visiting recently).

Writing the Gospels

The episode starts with a number of the leading characters seated and speaking directly to camera. Indeed the first few shots here have an almost documentary vox pops feel about them, like Peter, or Mary Magdalene are experts being consulted by a enquiring, neutral mind. But eventually the shots edge out and we realise they're speaking to a person, not just a camera, who is writing things down, rather than video recording them.

It's clear that, these shots are set several years after we last left these characters. Peter's beard is a little greyer, as is Thomas' hair and there's talk about them missing Jesus, even while they are still preaching his message. Moreover, the actor playing Big James has changed completely (OK, we've already told that's just a casting change) and one or two of the characters are now displaying large beards.

One particularly comical such new beard is being sported by Matthew. Matthew relays his details with typically meticulous. "It doesn't need to be precise" interrupts his interrogator. "Why wouldn't it need to be precise...mine will be precise" he says and while at first it seems he simply just means the account that he's giving then and there, to this as yet unseen character, the implication is that he is actually thinking of the Gospel that he has already begun planning. Next up is Mary, whom the interviewer calls "mother" and our growing suspicions are confirmed. It's John, researching his Gospel.

Then the dialogues begin to flow, in typically Chosen-esque fashion, dripping in traditional belief into contemporary dialogue. John explains he's "not in a hurry to write a whole book", but that he just wants "to get the eye witness stories now. While we're together." "Isn't Matthew going to write something?" Mary counters. "He's only writing about what he saw and about what Jesus told him directly, but I was there for things that Matthew doesn't know about. I was in his inmost circle. He loved me."

"I prefer to treasure the things in my heart" Mary says recalling Luke 2:19. "You know that if you tried to write every single thing he did, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." "Hmm" says John "a disclaimer. That's good. I'm going to say that... If I do not write these things down they will be lost to history." (see John 21:25)

This all feels like a certain line has been drawn in the sand. Up to this point the focus has been on the person of Jesus – even if that aim has been furthered by inventing an entire scene, or even a whole episode. This sequence, though, feels like the first time the series has really tried to assert an evangelical apologetic on its audience. The reliability of the Gospels is being bolstered by presenting them as eye-witness accounts from two of his closest followers. 

Admittedly this is the traditional view and probably the one that it most common among regular churchgoers. Yet the evidence for it is fairly flimsy. Matthew may have been an eye-witness, but far from the impression given here, he relied on Mark's Gospel for the majority of his account. Neither book identifies their author.Yet there's a certain romance to the idea of Matthew having "left everything behind him except one thing – his pen" [1] and John enigmatically referring to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as he wrote his Gospel. It plays well in sermons and in the imagination. Indeed variations on these traditions show up in numerous Jesus films and the occasional other New Testament story as well.

What I do find unusual, though, is that often people who otherwise tend to favour a sola scriptura approach so readily abandon that position when it comes to the authorship of the Gospels. Suddenly what a few early church fathers say about the Gospels' authors seems to outweigh the internal evidence of the texts themselves.

But I digress. While this opening sequence is a little heavy-handed, it's done with the series' trademark humour and in-jokes for those who know the text well, and it's certainly an interesting way to start the new season.

Sons of Thunder

Of course, the introduction with John is not just a device to kick off the whole series, but also an introduction to the episode – titled Thunder – which will give a particular focus to John and his brother James. Indeed it's clear from the opening sequence that it takes place in 44AD, shortly after James' death. "Mother" Mary expresses her concern for John telling him he "needs to mourn big James" and so the sequence forms something of a coda to James' life following Jesus. 

The change in actor (after Behrad Tarazi left to star in Legends of Tomorrow) is a little unfortunate at this point, but it does, at least, form a good way for us to get acquainted with Abe Bueno-Jallad in the role and for him to establish himself in the role.

But the initial focus here is John (George Xanthis). The conversation suggests that even though James is about to learn an important lesson in humility, even by 44AD he still sees himself as more important than the others. Of course, on the one hand this aligns with the Gospel of John's use of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and the typical association of that figure with John son of Zebedee. What really interested me, though, is the way that Mary challenges this as objective truth. When John says "I was in his inmost circle. He loved me." she counters with "he loved all of you. You just feel the need to talk about it more often".

Just as the opening sequence charts the end of the sons of thunder, so its closing scenes show us how (The Chosen) the brothers got their nickname. Jesus and his followers are still in Samaria after the closing scenes of season one. Photina (the woman the well from John 4) has told the whole village about her encounter with Jesus, so he is spending a few days meeting people, preaching to crowds and evading the disciples attempts to keep tracks on him. 

Nevertheless, this is Samaria and the episode repeatedly reminds us that Jews and Samaritans hate each other. There are racial tensions, xenophobic grumbling and minor conflicts all culminating in a scene where Samaritans, throw stones, verbally abuse and spit at Jesus, James and John. Enraged, the sons of Zebedee tell Jesus that their abusers "deserve to have bolts of lightning rain down and incinerate them... fire from the heavens".

Instead Jesus turns his 'fire' on James and John, rebuking them surprisingly harshly for their outburst. "...because a few people, from a region you don't like, were mean to you. That they're not worthy? What? You're so much better? You're more worthy? Well let me tell you something, you're not!". The two hang their heads in shame and apologise. 

There's a brief silence and then finally Jesus breaks the tension with humour. "You wanted to use the power of God to bring down fire to burn these people up?" He puts his arms around them, jokes again and says "that's what I'm going to call you from now on. James and John, the sons of thunder".

Humour

This is far from the only moment of humour in this episode. Indeed when I recently asked a group of The Chosen's fans what their favourite moments of humour from this series were, two of the most frequently cited moments came from this very episode.

It starts early on with those interviews. Part way through Andrew's recollection about first encountering Jesus, the frame extends a little as Peter clarifies that when Andrew says "John" he means "crazy John" (i.e. John the Baptist). Later we see James and John ploughing a field and one of them does an impression of Jesus (The only other time I can recall this is G.W. Bailey's character in Roger Young's 1999 Jesus).

There's already some humour in the disciples interactions with each other, particularly the bickering with one another and the jostling for position as to who is the greatest

But the two incidents that were repeatedly cited were both things Jesus says. The first takes place just after Jesus has praised James and John for how well they have ploughed the field. It turns out the field is owned by Melech, an impoverished Samaritan friend of Photina. Jesus turns up with his friends and some food and invites himself to dinner.

The conversation continues and Melech eventually confesses to having beaten up a Jew on the road to Samaria. As Melech's account continues it becomes apparent that his story is part of the Parable of the  Good Samaritan. He was one of the men who robbed the story's victim on the road. Personally even in my most conservative days I've never really thought of the parable as a true story. To me it's a fable, a story with a point. So it's strange to see it literalised with actual robbers. Moreover Jesus is able to reassure a guilt-laden Melech (who is literally and emotionally broken by the incident) that the man did not die. "I promise you. He did not die". The link between Melech's physical and emotional problems is emphasised further when Melech wakes up the next day to find his leg  has been healed.

I'm in two minds about the use of the Good Samaritan story here. On the one hand it seems a bit of a waste to have one of Jesus' best-known miracles reduced to being reportage. Over the centuries, the story's inspired a multitude of selfless acts of kindness and compassion and the absence of this aspect of it seems a bit of a waste. Yet, on the other hand I like the way Dallas Jenkins and his co-writers Ryan Swanson and Tyler Thompson have found a new angle on the parable by telling it from the thieves' perspective. Interestingly Jesus ends up by tying it in with another parable, that of the lost sheep – a story he has already drawn out with a crowd earlier in the day.

Anyway, less than a minute after Melech's confession has finished Jesus and the disciples get up to leave before it gets to late and Jesus says in deadpan fashion "We never know what sort of men may lay in wait along the side of the road". Then there's a pause. Melech looks crestfallen momentarily onlky for Jesus to crack a smile and asks "Too soon?"

The second of these scenes occurs in the scene that immediately follows as Jesus and his followers arrive at Photina's house. Welcoming them in, Photina's faux-curmudgeonly husband informs them "One of the rooms is haunted, by my dead grandmother". "Ooh" says Jesus, with a hint of excitement. "I'll take that one!" It's one of those lines that I'm sure some of the show's opponents criticise, but again it's in line with the show's decision to portray Jesus as both the joker of the pack and its leader – a difficult path to tread.

Thomas and his Father-in-law

Another subplot in this episode involves Thomas, his fiancée/wife (Ramah) and his (would be?) father in law Kafni. Thomas was not with the disciples when they left for Samaria, indeed we have not seen him since season 1 episode 5 where he was the caterer for the Wedding at Cana. However, he's now decided – at last – that he does want to follow Jesus and so he, Ramah and Kafni head off to find Jesus in a remote spot in Samaria.

As with Thomas' previous appearance, again we're treated with more telegraphing of his forthcoming and infamous doubt. This time Thomas is caught in indecision about his route. It does seem a bit one-dimensional, but I suppose there is a precedent for this in John's Gospel. There Thomas only opens his mouth three times and on each occasion he seems to put his foot in it.

Aside from the best -known example we also get John 11:16 where Thomas (bravely) blurts out to his friends "Let us also go, that we may die with him" moments after Jesus has explained (admittedly confusingly) that he's not at risk of getting stoned. Then, three chapters later, he's at it again in John 14:4, completely failing to spot a metaphor when Jesus uses one. (Given my comments about this episode's use of the Good Samaritan, he's perhaps in good company).

In the three other Gospels Thomas is just one of the unremarkable disciples who make up the numbers. It's only in John that we find him presented as a foolish doubter. This has led some scholars to suggest that this is because the author of John's Gospel is trying to stem the growth of the brand of Christianity that gave us the Gospel of Thomas and so includes these episodes to cast doubt on their key apostle. I only mention this because, in a way, the series perhaps intends to do this too. Those occasional moments when it slips into poorly concealed apologetics (such as the opening sequence, here) all remind us that The Chosen is not intended as simply entertainment, but that, like John 20:31 is created to persuade people to follow Jesus.

Having said all that, this episode does bring us Kafni (Thomas' father-in-law, of sorts), here highly concerned who is daughter is choosing to follow. There's two things I particularly liked about Kafni's scenes here, and this is the only episode in which he features.

The first occurs as he, Ramah and Thomas arrive in Samaria Jesus welcomes and suggest they stay the night so he and Kafni can talk in the morning. When Kafni agrees Jesus thanks him, grins and puts a hand on his shoulder. It's just a brief moment but as Jesus does this, Kani just gives a side eye down to Jesus' hand on his shoulder.

I guess like this because Jesus has already praised Kafni for doing his due diligence about who his daughter drops everything to follow. So Kafni's more reserved nature is legitimised as a good part of his character. Moreover, Jesus is just a bit over-familiar here. I'm fascinated as to what led to this reaction being included. Perhaps I'm just over-analysing it (he says 2½ thousand words into a single episode...) but it seems just a tiny bit against the grain. 

But what I particularly like is that while Kafni has two reasonable, rational discussions with Jesus, he ultimately doesn't decide to follow him. That might seem a small thing, but Jesus films (and creative adaptations of the Gospels in general) have almost unanimously failed to give us neutral Jewish characters. In most Bible movies Jewish characters either become followers of Jesus, or they are close-minded, blinded by religion and become his opponents. Yet Judea and Galilee were full of such characters. 5000 men (plus women and children) may have been fed that day, but only 120 gathered even after he had been resurrected. 

That portrayal of the Jewish people who didn't decide to follow Jesus being portrayed as being driven by hatred or other irrational motives have over the centuries, led to antisemitism, particularly given that its these same characters who later become responsible for having Jesus killed. If you're not aware of how church history is riddled with examples of Jewish people being cast as Christ killers and attacked for it, you should really read up on it. 

So this is exactly the kind of scene that it's really good to see The Chosen include. Kafni is not a future Christian, but he's also not blinded by hate. He's just a diligent father who, for various reasons, hangs onto his own religion rather than deciding to follow Jesus.

Final Points

The final section of this film finds Jesus and his followers arriving at the Samaritan place of worship, following the invitation from the village's religious leader. We see the men and women moving to separate sides of the "synagogue" which apparently – and contrary to popular belief – there isn't really much evidence for, certainly not within Jewish synagogues.

Anyway the final moments of that opening sequence are now about to come to fruition. There John ends the sequence musing with Mary about how to begin his account. He wants to go back beyond Abraham, perhaps even further than Adam, but he's not sure which. And then Jesus stands up and reads from Genesis (one of the books that various Jewish groups and Samaritans agreed was scripture) and the account of creation.

As he does so the scenes flick between John smiling / crying as he begins to realise that Jesus is part of the Godhead and the future John who realises this is how he should start his own narrative. And as Jesus reads out bits from Genesis 1 we see the John from 44BC narrating  the opening from John 1. It's completely ahistorical, in multiple sense, but it's a deft way to tie up the episode and bring the first entry in the new season to an emotional climax.

============

1 - Barclay, William (1956) The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 1, Edinburgh: St Andrew's Press. Fully revise, third edition (2001), p.6.

30 Million Hours Watching The Chosen

Netflix just released its annual viewing statistics for the first time. This is naturally very interesting for stats geeks like me, and naturally it wasn't long until I started seeing the figures for various biblical productions.

Most strikingly, 2023 saw 30.9 million hours spent watching The Chosen on Netflix, 27.6 million in English, with a further 3 million hours spent viewing the series in Spanish. It's perhaps not surprising that Dallas Jenkins' crowdfunded series, which has been running since 2019, was the highest placed biblical show on the list. 

The English and Spanish versions are counted separately meaning that the The Chosen's 27.6 million hours viewed puts it in Netflix's 728th position for 2023, but given there are 18,215 productions in the dataset, this is a good performance. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2014) did slightly better, coming in 653rd based on 29.5 million hours – fewer than The Chosen's overall total but higher than the English language version alone.

Other Bible movies and shows fared less well. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the lowly 1,800,000 hours spent watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (6259th). I'm not sure whether this shows that the film is far less popular overseas than it is in the UK, or that fewer of its traditional fan-base are watching it than before due to it playing the trans character for laughs, or perhaps both. Paul the Apostle of Christ (2018) had 200,000 hours, leaving it at 12,061st place and Davis's Mary Magdalene came in 16,337th and Youssef Chahine's The Emigrant came in at 17,457th despite both gaining 100,000 hours viewed. 

If Netflix repeat this exercise it'll be interesting to see how The Chosen performs next year, given its fourth series is being released on February 1st. I'm not sure if it will appear on the platform from that date, or whether it will take a little longer.

The Chosen (2019) s1e08

In many ways, it felt like episode 7 of The Chosen's opening season was the climax to its various story arcs, so the decision not to end there seems like a curious one. It's true that one of those arcs – that of Nicodemus – moves on a step further in this episode. We leave him hiding round a street corner crying because he cannot follow Jesus to Jerusalem. Yet neither of the main two story lines in this episode are primarily about major characters. One revolves around the healing of Peter's Mother-in-law (Mark 1:29-31) who has featured before, as has Peter's wife, but they've mainly functioned as filling in Peter's back-story as significant characters in their own right. Secondly, there's the woman of Samaria who, is an entirely new character as this is the first time we've really seen Jesus moving beyond Galilee.

And perhaps this last point is why this series ends where it does. It's not driven so much by story arcs and characters, as the breaks in the text, which, I suppose, say something about Jesus' story arc. His ministry is about to extend beyond it's initial Galilean base and begin a new phase. This is an interesting decision in terms of its use of the gospels. The three Synoptics only have Jesus go to Jerusalem once (as an adult); John has three visits. The writers are harmonising here and it makes me wonder how this structure will continue in future seasons. 

It's curious too that we see Quintus making a decree banning religious gatherings and saying Jesus is sought for questioning. Is this merely coincidental timing and Jesus is unaware he is wanted. Or is Jesus' move south supposed to be motivated by fear?

It's also noticeable how both of the major story lines in this episode revolve around women, and this has been one of the strengths of this series – though I don't know whether this derives from a theological conviction or the need to appeal to a wider base. In addition to the Samaritan and Peter's mother-in-law, we've already seen a lot of emphasis on Mary Magdalene and Jesus' mother Mary, which might be expected but in the former case is certainly sooner than might be expected. Plus we've also seen a fictional character, Tamar, framing and almost overshadowing the story of the man healed from being paralysed (ep.6), as well as the most prominent child in children-only episode (3) being female.

Given Peter's mother-in-law is healed then I'm curious as to why the filmmakers decided not to have Peter's wife join them on their travels. There's no scriptural precedent for this of course. After all we only really know Peter even has a wife because we're told he has a mother-in-law. But it does show Magdalene making the trip, seemingly as the only woman. There's some precedent for Magdalene being present – in Luke 8:1-3, she is named as being on one of Jesus' preaching tours – but in The Chosen she seems to be the only woman, as opposed to the "many other women" (8:3) Luke mentions (on a separate occasion). Is the difference that Peter's wife is married and so the filmmakers consider her 'rightful' place to be at home? If so what about Joanna, whose husband Chuza still appears to be on the scene.

The main biblical incident in this episode, though, is Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well (here called Photina following Eastern Orthodox tradition). The fictionalised backstory to this one starts from the opening scene which heads back to (an oddly specific) 1152 BC and a conversation Jacob has with a local named Yassib. Yassib thinks he knows that it is impossible for Jacob (and his 12 sons) to dig a well as the water circumnavigates their land. He also thinks its strange that Jacob is relying on promises made to his ancestors (and, by implication that Jacob's ancestors relying on promises to him would be equally odd). Of course, in mere seconds Yassib is proved wrong. Water miraculously springs up through the ground seconds later.

This is a bit odd for a number of reasons. Firstly because the Hebrew Bible has no mention of Jacob's Well. This is something that is only found in the New Testament and subsequent traditions. There's no reason to assume that Jacob's well has any link to the patriarch of the latter part of Genesis, not least because the NT writers still seem broadly happy to operate under the cultural assumptions that Samaritans are bad and untrustworthy.

Furthermore, it's hard to tell what the point of this scene actually is. If it's that Jacob's god is different in that he expects you to wait generations for him to come through on his promises, then the (almost instantaneous) miraculous (?) provision of water, rather seems to undermine Jacob's argument. Perhaps it simply serves as a reminder that, like the Jews, Samaritans also owed at least part of their inheritance to Jacob (or Israel as he is also known in Genesis) and that Jesus' ministry is for all of Jacob's 'sons', not just the descendants of his son Judah. I also noticed that when we jump back to the incident in the Gospels, it's dated as 26AD, thirty years after the latest date usually given for the end of Herod the Great's reign (this was also the date given in s1e3).

There's further filling in the gaps later on as well, namely around Photina's current and previous relationships (which in John has Jesus summarise as "you have had five husbands and the man you are living with is not your husband). I've heard various takes on this over the years. It's often read that this is a woman of low morals, but even she is valued by Jesus - a fleshed out portrait of Jesus' reputation for consorting with sinners. Another view points out that marriage was not really something women were active partners in. Your first marriage was dictated to by your family, and if your first husband divorced you (which he could do relatively easily according to some traditions) then society gave you no way of supporting yourself other than by finding another husband. This view casts the woman as a tragic figure, forced to move from one dead/fickle husband to another by patriarchal society.

The fleshing out of Photina here chooses neither approach, but incorporates a hint of both. An early conversation with her fifth (still living, still not divorced) husband. She is trying to divorce him, as she now lives with another, but he won't because she is his "property" and he doesn't "part lightly with his possessions". He wants her to return, but also recognises that some of his predecessors have mistreated her in divorcing her when each "gets bored" and that she married him for "stability". In other words this is a more complex and nuanced scenario than either of those presented above, and while it's not necessarily logical, I kind of like it, because life, and marriage, is rarely logical either. Later Photina is shunned by a street vendor, though even in that conversation there's a suggestion that while he can't be seen to associate with her, he's not entirely unsympathetic to her plight.

We also get a bit of further exposition of the relationship between Jews and Samaritans and the fact that Jesus seems to go out of his way to talk to this woman. There's mention of some of the reasons for the animosity between the two peoples. Initially, the conversation itself holds fairly closely to the text of John 4, but then Jesus goes beyond knowing about the five husbands and the one to giving a detailed breakdown of her first relationships. He also explains that he "came to Samaria just to meet you" and tells her that he has not revealed to the public that he is the messiah. 

Finally the disciples return, there's the conversation about his food being doing God's will before the series ends on a more general note with Jesus saying "it's been a long time of sowing but the fields are ripe for harvest".

I haven't decided yet whether to post a few reflections on season 1 as a whole next, or move onto season 2. Watch this space I guess.