The Chosen - A Review

[Carborendum]

I'll admit that I haven't seen the entire series so far.  I've seen partial episodes here and there as I happen to come in the room when my family is playing it.  I believe my wife has seen the entire series so far.

I'm impressed at how disciplined they are to keeping the doctrines as close to the Biblical text as possible.  From time-to-time I've noticed some doctrines that are more evangelical than Biblical.  But it is minimal.

I've liked how they rounded out the characters as human (Jesus included, in some ways).  Everyone else is given very human weaknesses, but still fairly "good people".  Even the Romans aren't shown to be monolithic.  They have varying levels of "niceness" to the Jews.  They added the character "Eden" because we know Peter was married.  But his wife is never mentioned in the Biblical narrative.  That was a pretty cool addition.  It adds to the plot and storyline, even if it is fiction.  I didn't like how effeminate they made Matthew.  But whatever.

The first scene I saw was when Nicodemus was teaching.  I'm a fan of Erick Avari.  I've seen him in a LOT of films.  He has a tremendous range.  I felt he was the perfect actor for the role because, although he has fame as an actor, he isn't one to be typecast.  And he tends to play Nicodemus in such a manner that you can't pigeon-hole him.  And that was what I remember thinking about him when I read about him as a teenager.  I couldn't figure what kind of person he was.  (FYI: Mr. Avari is East Indian.  And I believe his faith is some sect of Zoroastorian.)

I've asked my wife why they depicted the Jews as having an accent (a few exceptions).  Why would they?  Wouldn't they be speaking in their mother tongue?  But then I saw a scene with a roman soldier.  I first heard his voice when I was looking away from the screen and thought, "That's John de Lancie!"  But alas.  It was Brandon Potter.  Never heard of him.  But he spoke with his real life American accent.

Then it struck me.  The accents put the viewers in the position of the Romans.  The Romans speak like us.  The Jews are foreigners.  I'm wondering why they made that choice in this depiction.  Maybe it is to remind us that the Jews were not the people in power at the time.  They had to maintain their traditions, their beliefs, their religious observances in the face of being a captive people.  That was probably a very difficult thing to do.  They certainly add a lot of political intrigue to the narrative.  And it seems plausible from my non-historian perspective.  I really don't know.  But I'm hoping that they spent some time consulting with historians about the Roman treatment of Israel at the time.

So far, it seems to be very well done.  The storyline is new, despite the well-known narrative.  And it makes the plot engaging.  The production quality is pretty dang good. Apart from minor things that only film aficionados would notice, you'd hardly know that it was made on a low budget.

[Carborendum]

So, this week's CFM we're going over the part where Nathaniel meets Jesus. I spent a lot of time wondering about why Nathaniel made such a big deal about Jesus noticing him under the fig tree.  Even Jesus jokes about it, as if to say,"Gee, that didn't take much, did it?"

I really spent a lot of time pondering it.  Who else do we know of that had a radical shift in testimony like that with just a few words?  Then it struck me that Oliver Cowdery "Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter?"

I shared this with my daughter who asked if I'd seen the Chosen.  I told her that I'd only seen bits and pieces.  She showed me the Youtube clip of the scene about Nathaniel.

... I'm happy that I came to a similar interpretation as the makers of the show.  But it also kinda took the wind out of my sails.

[Jedi_Nephite]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:56 PM, Carborendum said:

I'll admit that I haven't seen the entire series so far.  I've seen partial episodes here and there as I happen to come in the room when my family is playing it.  I believe my wife has seen the entire series so far.

I'm impressed at how disciplined they are to keeping the doctrines as close to the Biblical text as possible.  From time-to-time I've noticed some doctrines that are more evangelical than Biblical.  But it is minimal.

I've liked how they rounded out the characters as human (Jesus included, in some ways).  Everyone else is given very human weaknesses, but still fairly "good people".  Even the Romans aren't shown to be monolithic.  They have varying levels of "niceness" to the Jews.  They added the character "Eden" because we know Peter was married.  But his wife is never mentioned in the Biblical narrative.  That was a pretty cool addition.  It adds to the plot and storyline, even if it is fiction.  I didn't like how effeminate they made Matthew.  But whatever.

The creators of The Chosen have said that Matthew is supposed to have a form of autism.  I’m not entirely sure why they chose to write him that way, as there is nothing in the scriptures to suggest he had autism (as far as I know), but that’s why he seems a little different than the other apostles.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

The creators of The Chosen have said that Matthew is supposed to have a form of autism.  I’m not entirely sure why they chose to write him that way, as there is nothing in the scriptures to suggest he had autism (as far as I know), but that’s why he seems a little different than the other apostles.

The author of Matthew was extremely intelligent and at times almost fastidious—he quotes the Old Testament extensively and my understanding is that he jumps between the (Greek) Septuagint and his own (Greek) translation of the (Hebrew) Masoritic Text, depending on which version suits his purposes better; and this in an age when most people were barely literate.  That doesn’t necessarily put him on the autism spectrum, of course—but “savant” probably isn’t a bad descriptor of the historical Matthew. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

On 1/17/2023 at 10:56 AM, Carborendum said:

I've liked how they rounded out the characters as human (Jesus included, in some ways).

This has been a point of......curiosity...maybe for me. I'm not sure that's the word. It's one of the few semi-critiques I have of the show. It doesn't, necessarily, diminish my enjoyment of the show. It's just one of those, "not how I'd have done it" things. But since we don't really know, we don't really know.

There are some examples of this where I sort of just flat out think they're doing it wrong...like having Jesus needing to work out the details and then "practice" the sermon on the mount. Just feels wrong to me.

But then there are the moments of Jesus's humor, about which I just don't know how to feel. I actually really love that they did it. I like the character. It's enjoyable and fun. Etc. But....... a lot of humor (including Jesus's in the show) is based on sarcasm. And sarcasm is a lie, ultimately. Everyone understands it's a lie, which is why it's funny. It's that understanding that makes sarcasm work. But when Jesus says something that is plainly false as a joke I struggle a bit with it. Because he's saying something untrue.

(for example, Jesus might have a line like, "And we all know Peter never get's into fights with anyone...." and everyone laughs because Peter's known for having gotten into fights in the past.)

Like I said, kind of more a curiosity than a complaint. I, personally, wouldn't dare do such a thing. Putting words into Jesus's mouth that aren't truth...nope....I wouldn't do it. But the fact that they did it hasn't really bothered me too much...because they're obviously jokes. But intellectually I'm aware of it and feel unsure.

[JohnsonJones]

On 1/23/2023 at 8:26 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

This has been a point of......curiosity...maybe for me. I'm not sure that's the word. It's one of the few semi-critiques I have of the show. It doesn't, necessarily, diminish my enjoyment of the show. It's just one of those, "not how I'd have done it" things. But since we don't really know, we don't really know.

There are some examples of this where I sort of just flat out think they're doing it wrong...like having Jesus needing to work out the details and then "practice" the sermon on the mount. Just feels wrong to me.

But then there are the moments of Jesus's humor, about which I just don't know how to feel. I actually really love that they did it. I like the character. It's enjoyable and fun. Etc. But....... a lot of humor (including Jesus's in the show) is based on sarcasm. And sarcasm is a lie, ultimately. Everyone understands it's a lie, which is why it's funny. It's that understanding that makes sarcasm work. But when Jesus says something that is plainly false as a joke I struggle a bit with it. Because he's saying something untrue.

(for example, Jesus might have a line like, "And we all know Peter never get's into fights with anyone...." and everyone laughs because Peter's known for having gotten into fights in the past.)

Like I said, kind of more a curiosity than a complaint. I, personally, wouldn't dare do such a thing. Putting words into Jesus's mouth that aren't truth...nope....I wouldn't do it. But the fact that they did it hasn't really bothered me too much...because they're obviously jokes. But intellectually I'm aware of it and feel unsure.

I am not a big fan of the show, but I suppose it appeals greatly to the younger generation.  The titles, the way the characters are written, and other aspects seem to be made to appeal to the Generation X and Y as well as today's youth more than my generation. 

A LOT of it just seems like fiction to me.  Made up.  I am probably just not one that is really fond of stuff like that.  It seems to have a great deal of appeal to many of the members though and it has been on BYUTV. 

[Jedi_Nephite]

On 1/23/2023 at 10:26 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

This has been a point of......curiosity...maybe for me. I'm not sure that's the word. It's one of the few semi-critiques I have of the show. It doesn't, necessarily, diminish my enjoyment of the show. It's just one of those, "not how I'd have done it" things. But since we don't really know, we don't really know.

There are some examples of this where I sort of just flat out think they're doing it wrong...like having Jesus needing to work out the details and then "practice" the sermon on the mount. Just feels wrong to me.

But then there are the moments of Jesus's humor, about which I just don't know how to feel. I actually really love that they did it. I like the character. It's enjoyable and fun. Etc. But....... a lot of humor (including Jesus's in the show) is based on sarcasm. And sarcasm is a lie, ultimately. Everyone understands it's a lie, which is why it's funny. It's that understanding that makes sarcasm work. But when Jesus says something that is plainly false as a joke I struggle a bit with it. Because he's saying something untrue.

(for example, Jesus might have a line like, "And we all know Peter never get's into fights with anyone...." and everyone laughs because Peter's known for having gotten into fights in the past.)

Like I said, kind of more a curiosity than a complaint. I, personally, wouldn't dare do such a thing. Putting words into Jesus's mouth that aren't truth...nope....I wouldn't do it. But the fact that they did it hasn't really bothered me too much...because they're obviously jokes. But intellectually I'm aware of it and feel unsure.

Agreed.  This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the show.  I enjoy it, but they often take certain liberties that I don’t think are appropriate.  One thing that bothered my wife and I is when they had an episode where Mary Magdalene relapsed to her previous lifestyle prior to getting healed by Jesus.  Now, there is nothing to suggest that Mary Magdalene did such a thing.  That’s one reason why her change was such a miracle.   The justification by the writers of the show for her relapse was to show that we all repent and fall again.  While that is often the case, I disagree with taking a historical person, who is known for her miraculous change, and making it less…miraculous.  She was a devoted follower of Jesus.

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

 One thing that bothered my wife and I is when they had an episode where Mary Magdalene relapsed to her previous lifestyle prior to getting healed by Jesus.  Now, there is nothing to suggest that Mary Magdalene did such a thing.  That’s one reason why her change was such a miracle.   The justification by the writers of the show for her relapse was to show that we all repent and fall again.  While that is often the case, I disagree with taking a historical person, who is known for her miraculous change, and making it less…miraculous.  She was a devoted follower of Jesus.

I see both sides of the matter and why they did it. The idea was fine. The execution was....less so.

[mikbone]

I am a fan. 

It is a breath of fresh air to see Jesus Christ portrayed as having human qualities.

I like that they chose to give the apostles personalities.  

I have no idea if Matthew was autistic.  But I like what the actor is doing with the role.

I love what they did with Nicodemus.

By far - my favorite portrayal of Peter.

Just finished Season one.

[Vort]

11 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

they had an episode where Mary Magdalene relapsed to her previous lifestyle prior to getting healed by Jesus.

And what was that "previous lifestyle"? Prostitution? If so, that's a scurrilous lie invented or at least furthered by an ancient Catholic pope.

[Carborendum]

On 1/22/2023 at 10:01 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The author of Matthew was extremely intelligent and at times almost fastidious...

—but “savant” probably isn’t a bad descriptor of the historical Matthew. 

I am beginning to wonder if these apostles represented the most intelligent and capable people of the age.  That's not usually associated with fishermen. But sometimes, very capable people are simply forced into a very mundane role.

I remember people talking about the Constitutional Convention. Those were the most intelligent and learned men on the planet.   Later, JFK had a White House dinner with (IIRC) a group of Nobel Laureates. He declared that this represented the greatest assortment of minds in the White House at any given moment, except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.  Interesting that TJ was not at the Constitutional Convention.

But I remembered thinking that as I looked through the backgrounds of our apostles (past and present) I am amazed to find out that we had a similarly gifted assortment of individual with expertise in different areas, all with different backgrounds.  Perhaps they know what they are doing in both a temporal and eternal perspective.

Upon reading this quote above, I wonder if the same was true of the ancient apostles.  I've been reading the gospels from a more scholarly perspective this time through. And I'm absolutely amazed at the writing quality.  The usage of words is mind-blowing.  Perhaps they were all savants or at least very gifted.  Perhaps it was spiritual enlightenment. It may have simply been talents they were given by the Lord.  Perhaps it was the talent of later editors who re-wrote their words.  But it is amazing to read.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I am beginning to wonder if these apostles represented the most intelligent and capable people of the age.  That's not usually associated with fishermen. But sometimes, very capable people are simply forced into a very mundane role.

I remember people talking about the Constitutional Convention. Those were the most intelligent and learned men on the planet.   Later, JFK had a White House dinner with (IIRC) a group of Nobel Laureates. He declared that this represented the greatest assortment of minds in the White House at any given moment, except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.  Interesting that TJ was not at the Constitutional Convention.

But I remembered thinking that as I looked through the backgrounds of our apostles (past and present) I am amazed to find out that we had a similarly gifted assortment of individual with expertise in different areas, all with different backgrounds.  Perhaps they know what they are doing in both a temporal and eternal perspective.

Upon reading this quote above, I wonder if the same was true of the ancient apostles.  I've been reading the gospels from a more scholarly perspective this time through. And I'm absolutely amazed at the writing quality.  The usage of words is mind-blowing.  Perhaps they were all savants or at least very gifted.  Perhaps it was spiritual enlightenment. It may have simply been talents they were given by the Lord.  Perhaps it was the talent of later editors who re-wrote their words.  But it is amazing to read.

James and John’s father, at least, was wealthy enough to have multiple fishing boats and hired servants.  And I remember a BYU prof of mine saying that Galilean fish were sold as far away as Rome itself.  So yeah; the four fishermen apostles were probably about as solidly “middle class” as one could be in first-century Judea.

[Jedi_Nephite]

On 1/30/2023 at 1:58 AM, Vort said:

And what was that "previous lifestyle"? Prostitution? If so, that's a scurrilous lie invented or at least furthered by an ancient Catholic pope.

That may have been implied, but what it did show was her drinking, gambling, and carousing with men. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

That may have been implied, but what it did show was her drinking, gambling, and carousing with men. 

As I wrote before, a scurrilous lie.

[Jedi_Nephite]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

As I wrote before, a scurrilous lie.

Possibly, but Luke 8:2 does say, “Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils.”  
 

That doesn’t necessarily mean she was a prostitute, gambler or a carouser, but people don’t have devils inside of them unless they are doing something in their lives to invite them.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

As I wrote before, a scurrilous lie.

Curious.

So...we do know that Mary was possessed of seven devils. Just out of curiosity...what sort of behavior do you believe leads to such a state? Or do you believe behavior is sometimes irrelevant to such a thing? A good and righteous person walking along and then all of a sudden...bam...possessed?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Jedi_Nephite said:

Possibly, but Luke 8:2 does say, “Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils.”  
 

That doesn’t necessarily mean she was a prostitute, gambler or a carouser, but people don’t have devils inside of them unless they are doing something in their lives to invite them.

Jinx!

[Jedi_Nephite]

On 1/29/2023 at 3:29 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I see both sides of the matter and why they did it. The idea was fine. The execution was....less so.

I think the idea would have been fine if they would have used a fictional character instead of a historical figure.

It’s still a good show, though.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Jedi_Nephite

[Vort]

58 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Curious.

So...we do know that Mary was possessed of seven devils. Just out of curiosity...what sort of behavior do you believe leads to such a state? Or do you believe behavior is sometimes irrelevant to such a thing? A good and righteous person walking along and then all of a sudden...bam...possessed?

I do not know. I don't understand demonic possession, nor do I understand what is meant by "out of whom went seven devils." I do believe that Mary Magdalene was an unusually virtuous person and obviously dearly loved by the Lord. I think it unconscionable and spiritually criminal to smear such a person with baseless charges of harlotry.

[Jedi_Nephite]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I do not know. I don't understand demonic possession, nor do I understand what is meant by "out of whom went seven devils." I do believe that Mary Magdalene was an unusually virtuous person and obviously dearly loved by the Lord. I think it unconscionable and spiritually criminal to smear such a person with baseless charges of harlotry.

I wouldn’t say the charges of harlotry are completely baseless.  She was obviously spiritually disturbed.  “Out of whom went seven devils” means that Jesus cast seven demons out of her.  That only happens to those who are far removed from the spirit.  That being said, because Jesus healed her, she regained the opportunity to become an “unusually virtuous person.”  Her past didn’t matter anymore, as she made a firm decision to become a disciple of Christ.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Jedi_Nephite

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

I wouldn’t say the charges of harlotry are completely baseless.  She was obviously spiritually disturbed.  “Out of whom went seven devils” means that Jesus cast seven demons out of her.  That only happens to those who are far removed from the spirit. 

I'm no longer sure if this idea is true.  

Two things:

• As far as I can tell, prostitution was EXTEMELY common among the ancient Israelites.  Often, it was the only way most women could make a living without a husband.  And there were plenty of men (both single and married) who patronized them.  So, was this really considered "spiritually disturbed"?  There is even a Jewish school of thought interpreting the Law of Moses' prohibition to refer to cult prostitutes only.  But regular prostitution as a business model was perfectly legal.  Looked down upon, but perfectly legal.
• I believe this idea that anyone is "righteous enough" to be immune from possession is a tenuous one.  Some are certainly afforded protection. But just "how bad is bad?"

Maybe? Maybe not?

Edited February 3, 2023 by Carborendum

[The Folk Prophet]

57 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe this idea that anyone is "righteous enough" to be immune from possession is a tenuous one.

Why do yo believe this? Can you back up this idea with any teachings or scripture? Because I believe, if one were to look into it, that it would be pretty easy to back up the idea that anyone who is righteous would be immune to possession. But backing up the idea that, you know...say...President Nelson could be walking along and all of a sudden...whammo... Mephistopheles is now running the church.... I mean come on. (Edit: I realize you said "some" are afforded protection, and certainly included the prophet in this. But why would it only be some?)

Yeah...I know...I used a silly example. But the principle seems to apply across the board. We are promised safety in obedience...again and again and again.

We are protected from Satan and his influence by adherence to faith to and obedience in Christ. We open ourselves to the influence of Satan by disobedience to and disregard for Christ. I think finding such teachings would be pretty easy.

I think one might find a few obscure anecdotes of people being possessed even though they were being righteous...but they would only be that...stories. Stories that didn't align with known doctrinal principles to my understanding.

Edited February 3, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

think one might find a few obscure anecdotes of people being possessed even though they were being righteous...but they would only be that...stories. Stories that didn't align with known doctrinal principles to my understanding.

JSH 1:15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

[zil2]

7 minutes ago, mikbone said:

JSH 1:15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

I don't think that was possession, that was Satan's presence and influence externally.

[zil2]

Really, if Satan and his minions could just possess whomever, easily, regardless of the individual's agency or degree of righteousness, why on earth are we not all possessed except those special "some" who get protected?  I cannot believe Satan or his "angels" wouldn't jump at the opportunity, nor do I believe that the vast majority of the Saints are possessed.