The Chosen: Last Supper - Part 1 [s5e01] (2025)

Image Credit: 5&2 Studios. See all my The Chosen posts here.

The arrival of The Chosen: Last Supper in cinemas will mean different things to different people. On the one hand there are the fans of the show, who have followed Jesus, his followers, and indeed his enemies, through four seasons and a couple of Christmas specials. Many have watched those episodes multiple times and the chance to see their favourite show on the big screen is something for which they’ve been waiting for quite some time. It’s almost a celebration of what the show has achieved. Or validation, having started all those years ago as a relatively unknown, crowd-funded venture now pulling up a chair to the table in the high temple of entertainment.

Yet its arrival in cinemas also puts it into a different bracket. To others, it’s just a film. Among its audience of enthusiastic Christians, there will be those who have no idea about The Chosen. They might be there as invited friends. Or as those who’ve heard the hype and are interested to see what is drawing in 250 million viewers. Or they might be fans of historical cinema, curious atheists, or simply people who are bored with nothing better to do. What might The Chosen mean to them?

I’m fascinated by this juxtaposition, because attracting that latter group seems to be, at least in part, the aim of the show's creators. Yes, given the show was being filmed anyway, it will also raise some money; money which Dallas Jenkins – The Chosen’s showrunner – has always been clear, will be ploughed back into making the remaining two seasons (and perhaps, beyond it, other entries in The Chosen universe). But Jenkins has always been equally clear about his evangelical beliefs and his desire to spread the message of Jesus. As I’ve heard him say more than once “I believe that if you can see Jesus through the eyes of those that actually met him you can be changed and impacted in the same way they were”.¹

So I want to look at the film from two angles, how does this cinematic presentation work as part of the show, and how does it work as a stand alone experience for people who are unfamiliar with the show and might only have a passing familiarity with the Gospels? I’m conscious of potential spoilers, but given the source material is nearly 2000 years old I’ll happily discuss things in the New Testament, as well as obvious things from the publicity, but I’ll exclude things from the world of the show that might spoil the experience for fans – particularly in the UK we still have another two weeks to go before it arrives in cinemas.

In this article I’ll start with the question of how The Chosen: Last Supper works as part of the show.I’ll return to that second question in a later post.

At the end of season 4 Jesus and his followers have just arrived outside Jerusalem with the scene set for Palm Sunday, but that’s not quite where the series starts. If you’ve been curious, like I was, as to how “The Last Supper” made sense as a title when the Last Supper was scheduled to be the last event covered by the series then the answer is 'flashforwards'. 

Both episodes that make up “part 1” (effectively s5e01 and s5e02) start at the Last Supper. Jesus and his disciples sit in the upper room. He quotes at some length from the account in John’s Gospel and its lengthy speech by Jesus. The layout of the table at the Last Supper in Jesus movies is much discussed, from those seeking to echo Leonardo’s favourite painting, to those seeking to subvert it, such as Nicholas Ray’s Y-shaped table in King of Kings (1961).

Jenkins himself got the ball rolling on this one, way back in July, proudly posting the show’s composition in the midst of the furore around the Olympics Opening Ceremony. It’s been reignited by the show’s arrival in cinemas, people liking it /disliking it for its similarity / dissimilarity from (and let's remind ourselves) an old painting based, at best, on earlier carvings of this scene. Anyway, I’m keener on this composition than I was at first. It both nods to the tradition / iconographic but also works on a practical level (for a large group eating together, but still wanting to chat) and also a cinematic one allowing Jesus to be the centre and unencumbered by people in the way. Also the lighting here is beautiful and getting lighting this low to work is a significant challenge from a technical point of view. 

The use of the flashes forwards at the start of both episodes (and possibly each episode in the series) is a brilliant way to solve a number of issues the series might have had. The most obvious of which is that Jesus’ speech in John is very long, in places quite dense and obscure, and frankly a bit boring. Presented in linear fashion, it doesn’t make for good cinema, as anyone who has sat through it in 2003’s The Gospel of John can testify. By breaking it up and using each segment as a way into the episode it not only makes the speech digestible, but makes it more relevant. There are probably those who will hate it for precisely those reasons, but there we go.

When this particular flash-forward comes to an end we are back outside the walls of Jerusalem again with Jesus sat astride a donkey heading towards Jerusalem. But before they get too close they are stopped by three Pharisees, one of whom is Yussif still sitting on the fence and nervous about publicly supporting Jesus.² They warn Jesus about entering into Jerusalem in that way and about their concerns about how the Romans will respond to it.

This again ties in with the much underappreciated verse Luke 13:32 where the Pharisees warn Jesus his life is in danger. I do think this is a critical scene, because, aside from Yussif there are now reasonable portrayals of Pharisees who are not frothing at the mouth because of his blasphemy. They disagree with him perhaps, but reasonably, and they certainly don’t want Rome to harm him. I was interested to come across a recent quote from Jenkins that says “Jesus was actually probably a Pharisee”.³ While that’s certainly contestable it’s increasingly one of the frames I approach the gospel stories through. What if this was all inter-family debate? I do wonder if Jenkins has shifted to this position as the series has progressed.

Jesus and the disciples carry on, unperturbed. The triumphal entry is also quite interesting, because the crowds welcoming Jesus are big, but not that big. “Over a million people are here” someone says later on. Josephus, somewhat prone to exaggeration, recalls there being 3 million in Jerusalem for the Passover in 66 AD (Wars, book II, 14:3) so that’s not unreasonable. There’s nothing like that many here, more like the 5000 we saw in series 3. Later someone comments that this is “double the number of pilgrims” there were last year, with the implication being that this increase is due to the news about Jesus.

The scene also seems to tip its hat to Jesus Christ Superstar (1973). It’s one of the few moments I recall the show using distorted electric guitars on the soundtrack, and here they have that relatively early distortion effect that was popular in the early 1970s. Moreover, part way through this moment, we also see Jesus’ mood change suddenly from relaxed and smiley to a bit more serious and perhaps concerned, something that also happens during this moment in Superstar.

Once inside, with the sounds of the crowd shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David” ringing in their ears, Jesus and his disciples eventually make their way in front of the clouds and we get one moment (that I shan’t spoil) that I can only really recall happening in one other Jesus film before, and even then it might have been narrated rather than shown more literally and discussed as happens here. The sets inside Jerusalem, particularly the huge one for the outer courts of the temple are really impressive. I can’t attest to their accuracy, but regardless it's an impressive feat.

As ever with The Chosen what is happening with Jesus and his disciples is only part of the story and here we’re treated to a meeting between Pontius Pilate and Joseph ben Caiaphas. There’s a deal of pageantry and ceremony to their meeting. Caiaphas is there to collect his ceremonial robes which he is only allowed access to on special occasions, and Pilate loves to taunt him, but he also knows the rules that the high priest lives by. Whether this school-bully type relationship is a fair equivalent of the power dynamics we can’t really be sure. Certainly Pilate had the power and what influence Caiaphas had (“... to the extent I have any control” he says at one point) derived to a significant extent from the position he had been given by Pilate’s predecessor. 

The other significant event to happen in the first section/episode here is that Jesus heads out during the evening undercover to sample the mood of the crowds. It’s nice to see a mix of ethnicities among the extras here, Acts of the Apostles after all lists a whole range of nationalities who were present in Jerusalem for Pentecost. 

Jesus is enjoying the festival atmosphere, he even gets dragged into dancing at one point. There’s something that rings true in Jesus getting distracted and caught up in someone else’s happiness for a moment and his joyful soul bubbling up. But then his shawl falls off his head and suddenly everyone recognises him and the moment is gone. 

Personally, I find Jesus’ response then a little weird. Returning to their accommodation for the week he asks Zebedee to take his mother back to Lazarus’ house. He doesn’t want her around for the next few days while he goes through what he needs to. But then he takes out the bridle that Joseph gave him in s3e03 – an heirloom that had been passed down since the exodus – and starts to fashion bits of it and fix them onto a whip he seems to have specifically brought with him.

Frankly, I was already finding the publicity’s fascination with this whip a little odd. It’s something only mentioned in John’s account of Jesus turning over tables in the temple, not in the synoptics. Yet it seemed to be one of the most prominent elements in the build up to the show with some seemingly getting quite excited at the prospect.⁴ The screen time devoted to this scene and its prominence (immediately before closing credits at the end of episode 1) just seem a little over-emphasised, as if they relish the idea of Jesus’ violence a little too much.

The turning of the tables scene itself occurs at the end of the second ‘episode’ and, again, it seems over-focused on the whip (not to mention Jesus’ exemplary whipping skills). Aside from his opening speech at the start of the 'episode', Jesus barely appears in this episode. That’s not something uncommon for the show, but again it raises a few questions. What was Jesus up to? Has he been pondering this action all day? Why wasn’t he making the most of his last day with the disciples? And in a clever way, it draws attention to the fact that there is so much the Gospels that we just don’t know, even in the most important week of Jesus’ life there are significant gaps. I’m reminded of that C.S.Lewis quote from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe “He’s not a tame lion you know”.

However, Jesus’ motives for his attack are made a little clearer by what some of his followers encounter during the day. Some of Jesus’ gentile followers who we have got know over the series now want to make sacrifices and so they try to exchange money and buy animals for a sacrifice. The disciples make it clear there is an extensive markup and that proves to be the case. That said, Tamar meets a fellow African store-holder who lets her have the animals she needs for free.

There are other potential triggers for Jesus’ actions. Zebedee and John try to bring their oil to the inner parts of the temple and in doing so they meet Malchus. Those who know the Gospels will recognise his name as the servant of the high priest who gets his ear cut-off in the Garden of Gethsemane. Again, he’s one of the characters who rarely gets a back story, and again The Chosen does a great job of crafting him as a three-dimensional person. John can’t accompany his father into the inner section of the temple buildings, due to him not being sufficiently pure (the implication being he’s had a nocturnal emission) and neither can Malchus, so the two men bond while they wait. From this, his sense of humour and the way he’s dressed more similarly to the disciples (and us) than the Pharisees and priests it does seem like he will eventually become a believer. The fact that he’s named in the Gospels perhaps also suggests that, but I wish the costuming didn’t suggest good Jews and bad Jews in this fashion. There are exceptions in The Chosen, Yussif wears a Pharisees headgear, but even then it’s only some of the time and he has the least imposing head gear of any person in religious dress in the show. 

Still, the question for me remains as to why Jesus acts in quite such an extreme way. For me the reasons the show presents us with, particularly these episodes don’t quite add up. The overcharging is bad, but is it that bad that it brings about such a violent swing in personality? Is Jesus even that concerned with the temple system? And are those who are invested in it doing that much more than following what has always been their people’s custom relating back to what’s revealed in the Hebrew Bible?

I’m aware of the theological answers that are often given to those questions, and that many historians consider this was the action of Jesus that got him killed. My question, though, is whether the show does enough to really explain its protagonist's drastic change of mood? The kind, loving patient, gentle (if also determined, focused and steely) persona developed in the previous four seasons is turned over so suddenly. And the whip, passed on from father to son going all the way back to the time of Moses, as if destined to be used for this? Yes, John's text has Jesus say “zeal for your house consumes me” but the show doesn’t really give enough motive, other than, I guess its own supersessionism. Perhaps the producers' also see something of themselves here, a desire to pop up in Hollywood's temple and tip over a few tables themselves.

There are a few other problems with these two episode, many of which are traits of The Chosen as a whole: the occasional burst of expository-laden dialogue; the idea that people really far away can still hear what you’re saying; the disciples having a hugely impressive ability to interpret any minor inflection of something Jesus does that relates to previously obscure bits of the Hebrew Bible, but miss the most obvious elements of what Jesus says.⁵ But it feels like the way show has built up this moment of confrontation, but not really explained it through character and drama is a significant flaw. Perhaps parts two and three may backfill some of these spaces.

For fans of the show, though, even if this bothers them, few will be put off. The show has been consistent enough to merit giving it the benefit of the doubt.⁶ And there is plenty to appreciate in this part of the saga, including the opportunity to see those sets, those crowds on the big screen and consistently good performances. In terms of the series as a whole, things are left at an interesting juncture. There’s quite a lot of Jesus’ words still to get through, including the Olivet discourse; the odd fig-tree to curse; the people’s reaction to Jesus’ actions in the temple; and of course Judas’ betrayal. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the season balances these various elements from here.

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

1 - “Why THE CHOSEN was Created and How God Made It Possible” Praise on TBN -Matt Crouch YouTube Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecaT5_As1Gs

2 - This seems to be Joseph of Arimathea, which may have been confirmed in season 4, but I’ve not yet seen it.

3 -  Rich Tenorio, “Just in time for Passover, Jesus biopic ‘The Chosen’ premieres Season 5 in US cinemas” Times of Israel 28/03/2025 - https://www.timesofisrael.com/just-in-time-for-passover-jesus-biopic-the-chosen-premieres-season-5-in-us-cinemas/#:~:text=“Jesus was actually probably a Pharisee

4 - See for example this post and the responses to it - https://www.facebook.com/InsideTheChosen/photos/its-a-bit-more-like-chopped-or-hells-kitchen-than-chefs-kiss-but-yes-jesus-is-fe/1199537415072006/ 

5 - To be clear, the latter is a key element of Mark and to a slightly lesser extent the other synoptics, and to a certain extent John too, but it’s the way someone always catches the subtle things that Jesus does, even when they don’t really fit the specifics of the context when you look at them carefully that has eventually become a little jarring.

6 - As mentioned above I’ll cover how those less familiar with The Chosen might react in a separate post. 

The Chosen (2021) s2e07

Reckoning, the penultimate episode of The Chosen's second season opens, unusually on a close up of a wanted poster nailed to a wall. There's no image, just some text, written in a non-Roman, non-Greek alphabet (I think it's Aramaic, but I lack the expertise to rule out Hebrew) accompanied by a subtitled translation: "...Jesus of Nazareth sought for questioning". As if to firmly complete the Western-genre conventions, someone tears the poster off the wall and we cut to the inside of the building. It's Atticus. And we're finally going to find out a bit more about who he is.

Inside Atticus quickly gains an audience with Quintus and reveals he is a "Cohortes Urbanae", the Roman police force, essentially. Quite what he is doing this far from Rome is unclear, but I guess Rome didn't have an FBI and the Cohortes Urbanae is probably the nearest thing.

The last episode took the series' portrayal of the Pharisee to a deeper level revealing some of the different approaches and key discussions that lie behind than the two-dimensional image most Jesus films give us of the Pharisees. In this episode, the focus is going to be more on deepening our understanding of the Romans.

Preparing the Sermon on the Mount

Meanwhile, though Jesus is already planning the Sermon on the Mount and in more ways than one. Not only does he need to work out what he's going to say – and I really like the fact that at the end of the episode he gets Matthew involved in helping him craft his message – but there's a lot of attention to the practical details as well: publicity, location and "a security plan. Jesus knows this is going to be big: "This will define our whole ministry".

In honesty, I'm not sure what to make of this portrayal of the Sermon on the Mount. I'm impressed by its originality and practicality for sure. In Jesus films the Sermon tends to just happen. There are some key exceptions. Nick Ray's King of Kings (1961) has a similar, if lower scale approach as The Chosen, which I'll cover in my look at the opening episode of series three, but here there is a sense that the Sermon has been announced and word is spreading and it's becoming an event that people plan for: The authorities know about it and Lucius turns up on their behalf, as do some Jewish leaders. But in other films, it's either more spontaneous, especially Roberto Rossellini's Il messia (1975) -- where Jesus is walking along encounters and earthmound climbs up and delivers the Beatitudes to a relatively small crowd -- or Scorsese's Sermon on the Plain in Last Temptation of Christ (1988); or, most commonly, we just see the Sermon delivered as a set piece but with no sense of how it came to be. It has just dropped into existence miraculously because this is the Bible.

There's one other notable take, which I've mentioned before (as Tatum and others have before me). It's that of Pier Paolo Pasolini who – acknowledging the scholarly idea that the Sermon is really just a composite of bits of teaching Jesus delivered on various different occasions – shoots the words with a close-up of Jesus but with changing times of day, forms of weather, clothing etc. I'd argue that's not the only way to read the scene. On a practical level it seems to me Jesus only delivered each bit of material once and so Pasolini could also be showing how Jesus spoke the same core message at numerous times and in numerous locations. Anyway, feel free to read more of my thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount in Film where I take a look at how it's shown in the major Jesus movies.

So The Chosen's idea that this was a significant event with significant logistical challenges is an interesting innovation, and it picks up on something I'm increasingly noticing, The Chosen's portrayal of Jesus as a manager. At the end of my piece on s2e05 I mentioned how Jesus seems to slip almost effortlessly into "a delegating leader type role" and we see more of this here. Indeed there's even a scene which has the feel of a daily huddle / team catch up as Jesus gets a quick progress report from some of the disciples and delegates a few more tasks out to the others. 

I also can't help wondering in these scenes if they reflect the way that Dallas Jenkins operates as showrunner. It's often pointed out that when we see films, or parts of films, about artists working in other mediums (painters, writers, theatre directors) that these are really a stand in for cinema and the film is as much about filmmaking or being a director. This feels like The Chosen as got to this. Jesus' big production is one some level reflecting the filmmaking process. No wonder he seeks time with his writer ahead of filming delivering the Sermon.

...while avoiding trouble

If the disciples have a lot to do so ensure the Sermon on the Mount happens, they also have other things on their minds. There are, of course, the usual gripes that come about when adults spend a lot of time in close proximity, something that The Chosen generally does a good job of portraying, especially given the hints in the texts and behind the texts that there tensions. But even with Mary returning to the fold, and everyone having had something to eat some are feeling the pressure.

In particular, Andrew is struggling. He's concerned that the conflict in Wadi Qelt (see previous episode) is indicative of the kind of trouble Jesus and the disciples might run into with other authorities. He's clearly still angry that Mary's unexpected absence caused them to be hungry which then led to them picking and eating grain and being reported by the synagogue's leaders.

But more than being hangry, he seems unnerved by the news that John the Baptist has been arrested. Andrew had previously been one of John's followers and worries that Jesus too might be on the verge of being arrested.

This leads to a fascinating conversation between him and his brother Simon, which might even be one of the best in the whole series (though it's split across two scenes). When Simon suggests "Jesus knows how to handle himself", Andrew counters "You know what they're doing to John. We can't let them do that to Jesus...let's not make a scene everywhere we go". In so doing he unwittingly takes on the role of Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar (1973).

Jesus in chains

Andrew's worst fears are soon realised. Atticus catches up with Gaius and his cohort en route to arrest Jesus and bring him to Quintus for questioning. When they find Jesus the arrest is handled in an oddly gentlemanly fashion. Jesus is allowed to say goodbye to his Eema, even before the Sons of Thunder have surrendered their weapons, and Jesus is able to reassure his followers telling them "Don't be afraid" as he is arrested. There's an almost supernatural calm about him, which seems to prevent any of the more hot-blooded contingent in the scene to be calm too. It's arguably Jesus' best "Jedi" mind trick yet.

Nevertheless, once he's been taken away in chains, with a healthy nod to The Passion of the Christ, the disciples don't stay reassured for long. Andrew particularly seems to blame Mary Magdalene for being "selfish" and telling her to her face "You might be responsible!". Eventually Matthew, breaks out of his usual shy demeanour to defend her. (I'm told real Chosen fans have coined the power couple name Martthew, though some see more potential for Thaddalene)

If Jesus' arrest is rather cordial then his "interrogation" by Quintus verges on being positively jovial. Quintus, who even at the best of times taps into that camp-Roman ruler trope, here threatens to go the full King Herod from Jesus Christ Superstar but settles for an awkward metaphor-dressed-as-a-warning about fish and bones. Their interaction does give Jesus some of his best lines. One notable example comes at the end of their conversation. Quintus asks Jesus to stop "meddling", but Jesus demurs, saying that he can't promise not to. Quintus calmly threatens "Then I cannot promise you won't stop breathing" Jesus holds his ground "Well, it sounds like we're clear on what we can and cannot promise."

I must admit I feel a little bothered about how the Romans are portrayed relative to the Jewish authorities at this point. Quintus is camp, to the extent that he feels slightly out of place here. Gaius is possibly the gentlest Roman to have walked the Earth seemingly neither strong enough, aggressive enough or smart enough to have survived many battles let alone made it to a senior rank. It's hard to believe that men like these have conquered most of the known world, and given it a reputation for being vicious. The disciples might be scared of them, or at least what they represent, but they seem weak, if pleasant enough once you get to know them.

Atticus is the only one of the three who seems credible and while the suggestion is that he would have no compunction about dispatching an enemy to the Elysian Fields, he's also portrayed as being open-minded, wise and insightful. My hunch is that in the end he will become a follower of Jesus

This contrasts quite strongly with Jesus' more hot-blooded Jewish opponents, particularly the Pharisees. They don't seem to be reasonable. They also seem to have a power, and seem to rule over their people by fear. Andrew seems to fear they will get Rome or Herod's men to do their bidding for them if need be. It's true that in this episode the more lower level Roman soldiers do put them in their place a bit. 

Now in series one Shmuel's former rabbi Nicodemus did seem to embody some of these characteristics, but in some senses I'm not sure how much that really counts. Not only has he been out of the picture more or less in this series, but also, we all know that he ultimately becomes some sort of follower of Jesus. But the way things are heading, I get the feeling that we're going to be seeing angry, strong, passionate Jews bullying the weak Romans into executing Jesus. I hope I'm wrong. 

Incidentally, two little side notes at this point. Firstly, it was interesting to see Jesus specifically deny that he's been to the (far?) east, presumably this is to quash the stories of Jesus spending his teen years in India. Secondly amongst the good lines we do get Jesus saying "that's a little reductive" at one point, which is one of those phrases that just feels too modern to be at home here.

A Pharisee warning

While we see a lot of Roman activity in this episode, there is quite a lot going on with Jesus' Jewish opponents as well. This is another episode that doesn't cover much ground biblically speaking, but is building characters and the broader narrative. Shmuel is in town as well and now is determined to find more evidence of Jesus healing on the Sabbath. He calls in at the house of an old friend Yussif who we met in series 1. Yussif's got slightly less forceful head-gear.

 (I know that's a weird thing to say, but I reckon that if you line up the Pharisees in order of the height / elaborateness of their head gear, you'd find it mirrors the strength of their opposition to Jesus. In many Jesus films the visual coding of the costumes is that the more "Jewish" they are in the way they dress, the more likely they are to be responsible for Jesus' death, which seems like a very subtle, probably unconscious, equating of Jewishness with Christ-killing)

Anyway, I was surprised to learn from a recent interview that when Dallas Jenkins originally conceived of Yussif he hadn't thought to make him Joseph of Arimathea, but here we definitely see a more open approach from him and Nicodemus is also his rabbi so that kind of fits too. Shmuel decides to try and find Tamar (from s1e6) who has been witnessing before sizeable crowds with her formerly disabled friend to tell people about Jesus. Shmuel hopes she can confirm he healed a leper on the Sabbath.

But Andrew and Philip get there first and take Tamat and her friend aside to beg them to stop, lest they put Jesus in danger. Shmuel arrives just as the crowd is starting to disperse, but happens to meet the priest and the Pharisee from Wadi Kelt who tell them about Jesus healing on the Sabbath there and calling himself the "Son of Man" (s2e6).

Meanwhile as Andrew and Tamar are talking Yussif arrives and further stoking Andrew's paranoia, warns he and Philip that Jesus is in danger. This is a crucial, but sadly often overlooked verse from Luke 13:31, where the Pharisees warn Jesus he is in danger. This is evidence the popular idea that the Pharisees hated Jesus and were responsible for having him killed. If they wanted that why warn him. Sadly, though, it's absent from almost every Jesus film. Even here it's only one Pharisee, and a proto-Christian at that. Still I'm glad they included this part, though I'd love to see a more fulsome warning later on as well.

The Lord's Prayer

Finally Jesus returns to the disciples and preparation can again begin in earnest for the Sermon on the Mount. And it's here we get another of the classic set pieces of Jesus films, and obviously church practice: The Lord's Prayer. In Matthew's Gospel, however, it sits relatively quietly in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:9-15). I'm kind of intrigued as to how it became such a central part of the traditional church service, as evidenced even in the first century after Jesus' death in the Didache.

Different Jesus films have different ways of handling the formal way in which this prayer appears in much Christian worship. In some films, such as The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), the scene is portrayed formally as well. Jesus speaks each line and the assembled crowds repeat each in turn. Other movies take the opposite approach, if very informal, paraphrased, and spoken out as if it's off the cuff, almost. 

Here we get a question as per the Gospels, but Jesus' answer is more as a model of the kind of things to pray about than a formal set prayer. It's a halfway house perhaps between the others. The structure is important, but the wording less so.

But perhaps what's most interesting about it is that it trails off halfway through. I'm fascinated by this. One the one hand this is more or less the only biblical episode in the whole 43 minute running time. This isn't a curtailment that was required for reasons of time. I guess it's a quirky dismantling of what is typically a set piece in onscreen portrayals of the Gospels. Like the Gospels it's one thing among the countless others that Jesus said.

On another hand though it seems to draw on the assumption that everyone knows this prayer. And perhaps, given that the show is largely watched by Christians, they do. It's just a clever way to evoke something and to leave the Christians to fill in the rest in their heads. Yet the show is meant to be introducing those who aren't believers to discover Jesus, so this maybe leaves them scratching their heads a bit. It's not really my concern, but it's a bit odd in that sense.

So I can't decide how I feel about that. I feel some days I might argue for it's bold creativity and interesting way with dealing with a potential cliché, other I might grumble a little. And maybe I like it for leaving me unsure what I think about it as well.

For anyone who can't wait for my write up of the next episiode, you don't have to! I wrote it a while back when I was prepping a Jesus films course, so you can read it here now.

The Chosen (2021) s2e06

Following Mary's disappearance at the end of the last episode, we're concerned to find out what has happened to her. But those binge watching in the hope of a quick resolution will have to wait: the pre-credits sequence, as is often the case, takes us back into the even-further-past, to recreate an incident whose importance will resonate later in the episode.

Ahimalech

This time it's back to Nob in 1008 BC and the events of 1 Sam 21:1-9. Here David and his men, hungry and on the run from King Saul, beg the priests of nob for food and Ahimelech allows them to have the holy bread. It's an incident that has been adapted for the screen before, most memorably in the Richard Gere film King David (1985), but is often left out. Indeed it might just be an obscure verse in the Hebrew Bible, but for the fact that Jesus quotes (or rather misquotes) the incident in Mark 2:23-27 where he calls the priest Abiathar (the name of Ahimelech's son who later joins David). Both Matthew (12:1-8) and Luke (6:1-5) repeat the story but omit the error.

There are various ways to explain this apparent problem: Perhaps Abiathar was the high priest and Ahimelech just the one who gave David the bread. Or perhaps Abiathar is a scribal error, or an error by Mark. Or that Jesus, as a human, could have a temporary lapse in memory and still be God.  In The Chosen's version of this story the priest is called Ahimelech, but refers to his son who is apparently called Abiathar. And, when (predictably) Jesus references this incident later in the episode, he calls the priest Ahimalech.

There's another interesting wrinkle in this story too: the fact that David appears to lie when he claims he is on a special mission from "the king". In The Chosen's version of this story Ahimalech (as he is called here) calls David out on this point "it's my understanding you and the king are not on friendly terms", but David clarifies his meaning: "I've been sent on a mission from the king" (glancing upwards to imply God). 

This changes the nature of the interaction. In Samuel, Ahimelech doesn't seem to know about the problems between David and Saul. It's a reasonable request, David promises his men "have kept themselves from women" so Ahimelech lets him have the bread and Goliath's sword. There's a sense of shock, then, in the following chapter when Saul finds out and has all the priests of Nob killed, even if Ahimelech's praise of David stokes Saul's fury.

Here though The Chosen expands things. David reminds Ahimalech about the pikuach nefesh, a principle rooted in the Jewish belief about the sanctity of life meaning that most of the laws could be broken if it meant saving a specific life/specified lives. While the principles behind pikuach nefesh can be traced back to Lev. 19:16, it seems unlikely that it was being cited like this by this stage. Discussions about the principles behind it are coming from centuries later, indeed a good dal of time after Jesus. Indeed the fact that Jesus has to refer to the story, rather than just cite the principle is good evidence that the understanding behind the principle was still building at this stage. Nevertheless, for those who don't know the principle by it's Jewish name, David spells it out moments later: "Life is more sacred
than bread".

The second addition here is that Ahimalech is also given some kind of prophetic ability. Ahimalech realises that helping David might get him killed but he tells David doesn't care because "Something is going to come through you. I can feel it. Something bigger and more exciting". The implication is that he is talking about Jesus, David's descendent. 

In some ways these additions play against how the story is used later in the show. If Ahimalech knows that this scenario is a life and death situation involving something even bigger than freeing the Israelites from the Philistines then the stakes regarding the eating bread when Jewish law says you shouldn't are far higher. But then Jesus' point is far weaker: there's a big difference between what Ahimelech is doing and just letting the slightly hungry disciples chew on a few ears of wheat. But then perhaps the filmmakers decided that adding further emphasis to the broader point the series is trying to make about Jesus' divinity is more important than this one aspect.

There's something about Mary

This instalment was only meant to be short, but I'm 750 words in and I still haven't got to the credits! At the end of the last episode a couple of incidents that happened near Mary Magdalene, had seemingly triggered her past memories of her sexual assault (from s1e01) and she had disappeared. The episode ended Empire Strikes Back style with the unlikely pairing of Simon (not-yet Peter) and Matthew (never called Levi) heading off to find her. 

The promise of that pairing, both logical in a way (Simon's brawn and Matthew's brain) while also promising tension – Simon is arguably the least tolerant of Matthew's former life and his mannerisms. Here we find them on her trail waking up and planning their day but it's interesting that Simon is already softening towards Matthew. At least he accepts why he is there and is not too stupid to listen to him when he makes a good point (I must admit I'm very much on the side of my namesake if it comes to picking sides).

Meanwhile we find out, almost, what has happened to Mary. She's back in one of her old haunts, in a basement in Jericho gambling, and seemingly doing very well, like a 1st century Victoria Coren Mitchell (if you don't know who she is, you should really look her up). Strangely, though, the show is a little reticent to go into what Mary else has really been up to on this bender. She has maybe been drinking, but she still seems to be doing really well playing a game that looks like it requires high levels of physical co-ordination, so she can't have had much. And then there's this exchange between Mary and one of several sore losers

Mary: I came in here with a single shekel to my name, and now look at this pile, huh?
Sore Loser:  How did you get the first one, woman, hmm? What'd you have to do for it?
Mary: Wouldn't you like to know. 

The implication seems to be that she earned it with some form of sex work. For what it's worth a shekel is perhaps the equivalent of around £10/$15. While I certainly wouldn't expect the show to go into the details, I do find it a little strange that its squeamishness about going into what Mary did that gave her such a sense of shame ("He already fixed me once. I broke again, I can't face him. I'm a bad person" she tells Mathew & Simon when they finally catch-up with her). 

Of course the point of this whole incident is that Jesus accepts her back. I find this quite a bold and interesting angle for the show and according to this rebuttal video from Dallas Jenkins they've taken some heat for it (though I didn't manage to turn anything up in an, admittedly brief, search). In the video Dallas talks about this being part of his own experience and perhaps the reason Willard and his team decided to leave any specifics out was to make it easier for people to read their own experiences onto it. Many Christians will admit to letting Jesus down: Not many did so in quite the ways that are implied here. Anyway I like the idea that not all of those who followed Jesus became flawless saints straight away. And of course says "I just want your heart" and tells her that he forgives her and gives her a hug.

I must admit, I found two of these scenes really moving. Firstly, when Mary finds Matthew and Simon (a nice reversal on them looking for her) and the alter part of the conversation as Matthew's sensitive side and his growing awareness of his own moral failures convinces Mary that it's OK for her to come back. It's nicely played by Elizabeth Tabish and Paras Patel. And then, obviously, there's Mary's reconciliation with Jesus in his tent, with some nice foreshadowing of Simon Peter's own coming reconciliation post-resurrection.

Hungry disciples

As the opening scene suggests, the longer story of Mary's redemption is paired here with Jesus debating the laws around the Sabbath after some Pharisees call out some of the disciples for plucking "heads of grain" one Saturday. There's quite a build up to this issue. Not only do we go right back to the time of Ahimelech and exaggerate it a little bit, here it's really made clear that the disciples are properly hungry, rather than just a bit peckish. 

Firstly there is a conversation between Ramah and Mary, with Ramah extracting a few home economics tips from Mary who realises that they will all "be hungry for a few days". Next there is a conversation between Thomas who is concerned that "this is literally our last meal...Why can't he make food appear out of thin air?" and Andrew who recalls similar hardship when he used to follow the Baptist. "He doesn't sound like much of a planner" Thomas replies.

Thomas is naturally back in full doubting mode, which I think The Chosen is using to show he was always a bit of a doubter and so that the infamous moment when he doubts the resurrection was not a one off but part of his personality. (I'm reminded of Thomas in Lee and Herring's Sunday Heroes who occasionally interjects with "well I find that very hard to believe). But it's ongoing presence here suggests that it's his questioning personality that is a problem, intensifying the trait already present in John's Gospel of trying to steer people away from asking too many difficult questions.

And then in the final scene the hunger becomes too much for Simon Peter who absent-mindedly starts grazing on some wheat as they walk through a field and we arrive at the story from Mark 2:23-27 that everyone who knows the show and the gospels well has been waiting for. But the show reframes this incident, only having Jesus bring up the story of Ahimelech and the Jewish principle of pikuach nefesh right at the end of the episode.

Synagogues and Sabbaths

Immediately prior to this scene Jesus has already just had a Sabbath-related run-in with some Jewish authority figures. The gang turns up at the nearby synagogue in Wadi Qelt. This is a clever bit of research by the writers because there is a building known as the Wadi Qelt synagogue which some claim is one of the oldest synagogues in the world. The building dates back to the Hasmonean era around 70-50BC, but some dispute whether it was ever really a synagogue. (Incidentally, Wadi Qelt is a valley / stream between Jericho and Jerusalem that is possibly associated with the place where Elijah hid and was fed by ravens in 1 Kings 17:3).

The synagogue is dark and foreboding and looks almost as cold as the chilly reception given to Jesus and his followers. Jesus spots a man with a withered hand and proceeds to heal him despite the protestations of the two men leading the service. 

This story is also recorded in all three synoptic Gospels (e.g. Mark 3:1-6) where it comes immediately after the grain-plucking incident. Luke (6:1-11), specifies it takes place "on another Sabbath", but obviously this is just more than acceptable dramatic licence.

The two men leading the service are interesting in a number of ways. Firstly, one is a Pharisee and the other is described as a priest. The synagogue movement was still in its early days in the time of Jesus and there does not appear to be much uniformity about who led them or executed other roles. The Gospels and Acts suggest it was relatively easy to get to perform the role of teacher (Mark 1:39) or reader (Luke 4:16). Jairus we are told was "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:22) as is someone else in Luke 13:14.

It seems unlikely, though, that a priest would fulfil one of the more senior roles. Priests were for sacrifices at the temple, in Jerusalem. Perhaps they might be prominent members of synagogues in / close to Jerusalem, but we don't know of many synagogues in Jerusalem prior to the fall of the temple because synagogues were a sort-of stand-in for the temple for places too far away from Jerusalem. If you have a temple you don't really need a synagogue. It was only once the temple was destroyed in AD 70 that there began to be a real need for them. 

Wadi Qelt synagogue was about 25km from the temple, so it's not implausible that a priest would have a role there. Perhaps he was only in Jerusalem sometimes, or commuted, or was retired, but it's not likely. There were other members of the community who could fulfil these roles, and the whole set up at this point (pre-70AD) was away from key authority figures and more grassroots led.

It's far more plausible that a Pharisee was involved, however, given that their eventual successors – the rabbis – came to take on leading the synagogues as the movement took over following the fall of the temple. Eventually those different roles were increasingly consolidated into one role, fulfilled by a rabbi. 

We also know that one of Jesus' criticisms of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:2-7 was their "love" for "the best seats in the synagogues", which even if you see that as hyperbole (or a later addition) at least suggest that scribes and Pharisees did sometimes have access to the best seats. Though it should point out that in the earliest version of that quotation was from Mark 12:38-40 doesn't actually mention Pharisees. That's something Matthew and then Luke add in.

Another thing I appreciated here is that the priest and the Pharisee are clearly distinguishable by their costumes (see above). I don't really like the fact that the Pharisees in The Chosen wear their garments all the time – I don't think there's much evidence for that – nor that they are so elaborate, expensive and black (it's interesting that we occasionally talk about black hats and white hats as a metaphor for overly-simplistic distinctions between goodies and baddies in westerns, but there are actually fairly few of those movies, and many many more biblical films where we find black hats indicating the antagonists, namely the Pharisees).

Nevertheless, many Jesus films tend to lump all of Jesus' opponents into one, they wear similar costumes, hang out together and act similarly and given the shorter runtimes it's hard to notice any distinction here between them. Here, however, it's clear that these two men, while united against Jesus' more lax approach to the Sabbath, are not the same. And actually Lamech (the Pharisee) wears a simpler head garment than some of the other Pharisees opposing Jesus. But this is actually an extension of an idea this episode has already explored...*

Jesus, the Pharisees & the other Pharisees

Going back even further in the episode we find two Pharisees trying to cause trouble for Jesus after another of his Sabbath healings in s2e04. The two are Shmuel, who goes right back to s1e01, and Yanni who only started opposing Jesus after the healing at Bethzatha in s2e04. Together, they are now petitioning Dunash, who seems to be the chief of staff for President Shimon, the son of the famous rabbi Hillel and leader of the generally more moderate Hillelite branch of the Pharisees. 

Dunash doesn't really take their complaints seriously: they don't have enough witnesses; Shimon is too busy etc. Dunash even seems to allude distantly to the pikuach nefesh. and areas where the law needs "reform". While they are annoyed that Dunash has rebuffed them, they quickly pivot to the followers of Shammai, "the rigid one" as a slightly reductive piece of clumsy exposition puts it. 

Yanni recites a story about Shammai of such dedicated adherence to the law, you suspect even Yanni thinks he might be going a bit far. They hope Shammai will use it to gain the upper hand over Shimon politically-speaking.

What this does well – far better than any Jesus film I can recall off the top of my head – is delineate the Pharisees and make it clear that not only are all Jews not the same (as the show has done already, for example with the Zealots and a shout out to Simon the Zealot's super camp "training exercises" in this episode), but even among the Pharisees there are a range of views. On the one extreme we have Shimon and his late father Hillel. On the other we have Shammai, and close-ish to the Shammaites, but still markedly different we have Shmuel and Yanni.

There are some things I really hope for here and some things I know won't happen, but hope that they one day might in something else. It would be nice if Dunash and maybe even Shimon get more air time in the rest of the series (remember I've still not seen it all). That we could see this more liberal Pharisaism up close a little more. And that it is shown to be truly liberal. While it seems that Shimon is more relaxed about the rules of the Torah (this episode awkwardly mentions 613 rules here twice!) it also seems that this is as much about moral laxity, or being overly casual than that he's more closely aligned to Jesus. 

This matters because after the fall of Jerusalem a lot of the branches of Judaism disappeared. With the destruction of the temple there was little role for the priests and the more aristocratic Saducees were perhaps more deliberately and systematically disassembled by the Romans. Similar Zealot ideology was a busted flush and the Essenes held out in the desert for a bit before more or less their extinction.

The Pharisees, though (and particularly, but not exclusively, the Hillel school) , eventually sort-of morphed into the rabbis (apologies for the gross simplification) and so when we see them portrayed in Jesus films it's important to remember they are, in some ways, stand-ins for the Jewish people of today. The more questionable their motives, the more The Chosen looks like the uglier forms of supersessionism and antisemitism (if modern day Judaism is descended from an inferior despicable starting point etc.). So I hope the Hillelite Pharisees, at least, are shown to include more devout, genuine and compassionate people, especially if they do not end up becoming Christians).

What I'd love to happen was to see the narrowing of the gap between Jesus and the Pharisees and more of a recognition of the similarities between them. They had similar views on the Torah and belief in an  afterlife. The Pharisees had an interest in purity in every day living and we see Jesus discussing similar ideas around purity, holiness, being perfect and defilement. I think most Christians today like to think that Jesus was more relaxed about the rules of the Torah, and certainly that is the angle the show seems to come from but actually while Jesus was often less strict on certain rules he was more hardcore on others. Much of the Sermon on the Mount involves Jesus challenging his disciples to go beyond accepted standards.

So what would be nice would be to see these heated debates more as passionate in-family disagreements over relatively minor questions, than almost despising each other as much as the Romans. After all, in Luke 13:31-32, the Pharisees ultimately warn Jesus that Herod is trying to kill him: for all the passion of their debates they don't want Herod to kill him (like he killed John). 

For my money it's good that whereas in the Gospels the debate over the healing the man's hand ends with the Pharisees looking to "destroy" Jesus, here they seem concerned, and a bit angry initially, but softening to him even as they try to work out how to respond. The thought that Jesus might be for real seems to cross their minds, they seem at least a little open to the possibility even as they wrestle what the right way to respond is.

So this is an encouraging step and I hope the various flavours of Judaism in general, and Pharisaism in particular continue to get fleshed out in more detail. This has been a longer post than usual, and I do need to stop doing this and get on with catching up with the series before season 5 comes along in a few weeks.

* You can read more about ancient synagogues in Dana Murry's article for the World History Encyclopedia, "The Ancient Synagogue in Israel & the Diaspora". A much older (1896) and probably inaccurate piece by EDW Burton is also interesting.

The Chosen (2021) s2e05

It's been a while (nearly six months!) since I had time to write up an episode of The Chosen, but I finally have some space in my schedule. So I thought I'd get going with the next episode "The Spirit" even if it'll take me a few such moments in my schedule to get it done. Then hopefully I'll be able to write these a little more regularly from now on! 

After taking a deep dive in s2e04 into a single story (the healing the the pool of Bethzatha), this episode is much more about setting up future storylines. Arguably the min incident is the healing of someone with a demon, but it's not one of the major exorcisms that the Gospel focus upon and it's more a way of introducing several new characters – the man at the centre of this miracle seems to become almost incidental the moment he's healed.

Mary and literacy

The pre-credits sequence starts, unusually in recent episodes, with one of the characters we already know, Mary Magdalene, who's collecting some apples in a remote-ish part of the countryside. As she does so, she's memorising a bit of scripture (Psalm 139:8) from a scrap of paper. 

I've mentioned before how I find the literacy of the figures in this adaptation implausible and a little propagandistic, but since last I discussed this in s2e03, I've come across a further source. In Catherine Hezser's book "Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" (some of which you can read here and here), she presents evidence that the numbers of "Palestinian Jewish" who could "read documents, letters and 'simple' literary texts... and to write more than one's signature" would be only "slightly higher" than 3% and well below 10%.* She also concludes that Jewish elementary schools were focussed far more on reading than writing and "seem to have been rare before the third century".*

One could argue that Jesus' followers were a notable exception – and perhaps the filmmakers really do – that Nazareth bucked the trend; that experts such as Hezser and Harris and Bar-Ilan who she draws on are a little too pessimistic; and that Jesus specifically chose educated people who were not only able to read and write, but also able to teach others. But doing so moves far beyond 'likely', even if it's possible to come up with a scenario such as the above which one could say still passes Dallas Jenkins' "plausibility" test. Essentially, though, this is seeking to bolster a pre-determined outcome, not basing your take on the balance of available evidence. 

By the way, if you're interested in Jesus' own literacy (and I can't remember if we've seen him do much writing, but maybe some reading in The Chosen so far) then Chris Keith's recent book "Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee" (which is largely available online for free) might be of interest.

Anyway, the key point in this sequence, is to introduce the idea that despite Mary still seems to be recovering from some form of trauma. When the demoniac turns up later in the episode the point seems to be that while she has been exorcised of seven demons, she is not yet entirely free of them. But in this opening sequence it appears that she is triggered by seeing Roman soldiers, perhaps the remoteness of the location is also significant, perhaps not. Nevertheless it's an interesting creative decision to take that Mary's path is more complicated than a simple encounter freeing her from her part.

Jesse and the Jewish Authorities

Jesse, the man whose leg Jesus healed in the last episode, is also struggling to walk away from his past. People keep wanting to interrogate him about his experience. This starts with him being interviewed by Schmuel and what I assume is another Pharisee. Certainly they are dressed very similarly and are both members of the Sanhedrin (though filmmakers often have a tendency to dress all of Jesus' Jewish opponents the same).

It turns out that this is at least their second time interviewing Jesse and various scenes follow of Schmuel essentially trying to alert the Sanhedrin that Jesus is a threat and his companion trying to teach him how to navigate the politics of the Sanhedrin. It appears that Nicodemus has perhaps quashed their efforts to begin proceedings against Jesus.

There's little scholarly consensus around the Sanhedrin of Jesus' day. One of the things that the show consistently seems to do is apply what we know about Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem (70AD) to Jewish life before the fall. But this was an earth-shattering event in Jewish history that destroyed certain pillars of Jewish life. Simply assuming that things such as the Sanhedrin did not radically change after the fall is kind of problematic. Similarly I'm uncomfortable with the way the Sanhedrin is portrayed here: it's not only authoritarian with seemingly strong powers to enforce how people live their lives, but it's also venal, and divided by political wranglings, riddled with bureaucracy, and rendered ineffective with corruption. 

In some senses this makes for good drama. The problem is that in the 2000 years since Jews have often been portrayed very negatively and this has contributed to a atmosphere of othering / dehumanising of Jews and antisemitism. I certainly don't think that is at all the show's intention, but I do wish they'd approached this issue more carefully and then been rigorously determined to come in the opposite spirit. It's never clear, for example (and this is true of almost all Jesus films/television) why the people accepted the harsh regimes they are portrayed as living under (which itself perhaps suggests they were all 'blindly religious' and that only Jesus and those willing to follow him were exceptions).

But Schmuel and his colleague are not the only people trying to find out what happened. Atticus bumps into him in the city and poses as a sympathetic friend to try and extract information. Just as Aesop's "The North Wind and the Sun" concludes that "gentleness and kind persuasion win where force and bluster fail" so Jesse responds to Atticus' sunny disposition and unwittingly tells him everything he wants to know, particularly about Jesse's brother Simon. Jesse even mentions that having seen the healing, Simon "believes the man responsible *has* to be our messiah" (as per his letter in s2e04). As a result, Atticus soon manges to track down Simon just as he himself is tracking down Jesus.

The other Simon

Jesse's brother is also working through the implications of the healing at Bethzatha as he reaches Jesus' camp. First though he has an encounter with Caleb who is afflicted with demons. Simon nearly kills him but spares him in case the demons enter him instead. The two go separate ways but meet again at the disciples' camp as the demons try and taunt Mary. Despite the various montages we've seen of Simon training, Caleb has a seemingly supernatural strength and throws him off. Jesus comes to the rescue by using supernatural strength of his own.

For Simon this re-confirms that Jesus is the messiah. "Then you are…?" he asks, to which Jesus replies with a simple yes. Having got the introductions out of the way (including a moment Abbott and Costello-esque confusion confusion which Jesus resolves with "I'll stop you there. You are both Simons"), Jesus and Simon head off for a little chat. Simon wrestles with resolving his different expectations about what the Messiah would be like. This time he flat out asks him "You are messiah aren’t you?" to which Jesus agin responds in the affirmative.

This is interesting because in the Gospels (and particularly the Synoptic Gospels) Jesus is much more reticent about confirming that he is the Messiah/the Christ. It's not until Peter's confession that Jesus actually confirms this. John's Gospel is not entirely dissimilar. There there is much more speculation from people: Andrew announces to Simon Peter that he has found the Christ in 1:42, likewise the woman at the well (4:26), unnamed people in the temple (7:27-42), those at the Feast of Dedication (10:24) and Martha (11:27). But Jesus never gives a straight out yes to the "Messiah" question even in John until he brings it up the night before his death in 17:3.

Jesus realises Simon's military/political expectations need to shift so coaxes Simon into showing him his sica (dagger), which Jesus then tosses into a nearby pond. " You have no use for that?" asks Simon. Jesus' response – "I have a better sword..." – is interesting as well. I'm presuming the scriptwriters mean "sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" from Ephesians 6:17, but it's not a metaphor Jesus used himself a great deal aside from "I come not to bring peace, but the sword" (Matt 10:34). 

Otherwise Jesus' best known pronouncement on swords is "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" (Matt 26:52) which this conversation from The Chosen captures nicely. I wonder if the show will return to Jesus' use of sword here, or not. Incidentally, Paul's use is interesting because he exchanges one metaphor for what is probably another. I was brought up believing Paul meant the Bible – even though that didn't exist at the time Paul was writing – which would, then, be a metaphor, but there's no real consensus on what he does mean, or even if he always uses it consistently to refer to the same thing. It's perhaps never 100% literal, but using "word" as meaning something God says is certainly closer to that than if he meant "the Bible".

Anyway, I digress. I'm really interested to see how the character of Simon the Zealot (as he's known in Luke. In Matthew and Mark he's known as Simon the Canaanean) will develop. He's largely sidelined by Jesus films, except perhaps the occasional line to confirm that, yes he's the one who believes(d) in violently overthrowing the Romans. He gets a whole song in Jesus Christ Superstar but it's actually more common for Judas to represent the Zealot cause than Simon. So I'm keen to see how that will work in the remainder of The Chosen with it's much greater screen time and it's more committed focus on the disciples.

Incidentally, Simon's sword is retrieved moments later by a thoughtful looking Atticus. Does he take this as evidence that Jesus is associating himself with violent men or as a sign that he is brining peace not the sword?

The other John

It's in this episode that we finally get to meet John the Baptist. Guven that The Chosen seems to start around the beginning of Jesus' ministry it's interesting that there is no baptism scene. In the Gospels we see this progression in the story from gospel to gospel which tallies with their respective ages: Mark seems to hold John in the highest regard; by the time we get to John a few decades later it's unclear whether Jesus was even baptised by John. The progression here – omitting the scene of Jesus being baptised entirely – seems kind of in keeping with this.

It's clear though that Jesus and some of his disciples have a longer relationship with John the Baptist, including those who followed him before following Jesus. John is described as Jesus' cousin (I suppose technically he's his second cousin) and it seems Andrew and John son of Zebedee also followed the Baptist before they followed Jesus. Previously we've also heard Simon Peter refer to him as "Crazy John", but the extent to which that's based on having met is unclear to me.

The portrayal of John here is really interesting, particularly compared to other portrayals of John the Baptist in other Jesus films. Whereas he tends to be very two-dimensional in most on-screen portrayals (the courageous, but wild prophet) here he's much more developed as a real person right from the start. Yes, he looks wild (not least because of one of the series' few unconvincing beards) but the conversation between him and Jesus really gets behind the caricature. John and Jesus have an obvious strong affection and yet disagree on tactics. Jesus is concerned on a human level for what will happen to John is he continues to publicly criticise Herod. In contrast, John is concerned Jesus is being too safe. Yet there's also a mutual respect that each is probably taking the path they are called to.

This aspect of their conversation leads to one of The Chosen's best lines so far. When John challenges what he sees as Jesus' over-reliance on stories, saying "I'm eager for you to get to the point, Jesus counters with "I'm going to tell stories that make sense to some people, but not to others and that's just how it's going to be". I think this is a brilliant way of unifying the various things the Gospels have Jesus say about parables and while avoiding the technical discussion that often accompany efforts to make them make sense.

And finally...

This is not the only occasion in this episode where the series is prepared to break protocol and get behind the caricatures (I guess that's essentially what The Chosen is all about). Having been traumatised by encountering a Roman soldier and then having been directly addressed by Caleb's demon and reminded of that area of her past, she runs off. Jesus (slipping into a delegating leader type role) asks Ramah to go and check she's OK (the two have been reading scripture together imperfectly moments before), but later she's no where to be found. The camera catches up with her going back to her old haunts and Jesus – clearly concerned – sends Peter and Matthew after her. Is she going back to confront her old life or return to it? One for episode 6 I guess.

Peter is not initially overjoyed about being sent by Matthew. Indeed Matthew is getting a hard time from the other disciples in this episode. Early on Thomas argues with him before admitting he thinks Matthew’s arrogant and dislikes that he was a tax collector. I do like how the series makes us root for Matthew in these contexts and shows Jesus doing the same. Perhaps the next episode will give him the chance to be something of a hero.

===========

*Hezser, Catherine (2001) Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (some excerpts at Google Books), some at academia.edu – see also Chris Keith (2011) Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee
I'm grateful for discovering foreverdreaming.org which features transcripts of many episodes. Wish I'd come across that before.

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