I saw another Bible scholar comment on The Chosen along the same lines. He pointed out that The Chosen literally hangs on the narrative of widespread literacy and eye witnesses, which is just not historical. You have sections of show where they show Biblical Hebrew graffiti written on the wall. You have Matthew and others writing things down as if that was common place--as if writing materials like that were cheap and widely available. You have Jesus leaving notes that little girls can read. The show is great, but I don't think they are really engaging with knowledgable people who will give them some pushback on some of the historicity issues.
Oh, great point about the graffiti being in *biblical Hebrew* (and not, I guess, Aramaic or something like that).
There's a bit in Season 2 where "the Zealots of the Fourth Philosophy" are plotting to kill a Roman nobleman when he goes to his "favorite restaurant" -- Atticus even says the Zealots are planning to "cancel" the Roman's "reservation" -- and, like, wow, there are so many problems with that whole set-up. First, I gather scholars doubt that the Zealot movement even existed this early, 30+ years before the First Jewish-Roman War. Second, Josephus happened to call them a "fourth philosophy" because they were fourth on the list of groups he was discussing (after the Sadducees, Pharisees and, I think, the Essenes) -- but it is highly unlikely that the Zealots would have ranked *themselves* behind those other groups. Third, it is my understanding that public eating establishments back then were basically for the riffraff -- prostitutes, etc. -- and there was nothing like the "fine dining" that we have today, which a nobleman might have enjoyed. (The social elite had plenty of *private* dinner parties, but that's different.) Fourth, how exactly would someone have made a "reservation" back then? Did they phone ahead? Send a messenger on foot? How punctual was anyone's sense of time back then? Etc., etc., etc.
I appreciate you chasing down the details (which are by no means minutiae) in The Chosen that, while admitting to some embellishment in the name of “dramatic license,” have scholars on their team who are there to check these details. I blew off much of what I heard in the Caesarea Philippi / gates of hell episode.(As in “what the heck are these funky shacks about?” I didn’t even HEAR the material about goat-sex… how, I do not know.) I just figured “nah..” and got up to get my ice cream. Thank you for doing the hard work of tracking down the impossible and granting good faith to folks you’re investigating. I loved research in seminary and love LOVE good footnotes in books, and this work demonstrates that the devil DOES lie in the details, messing up what could be good work had they only taken the time. That’s where good work is proven, and you can bet I’ll be listening to The Chosen more closely. (Maybe Dallas has taken on his dad’s penchant for fiction, but dad is already writing the novel-as in book- versions of the series.) Excellent work, Dr. Laura! I’m hooked.
Thanks for writing this incredible deep-dive; it's exactly the kind of nerdery that I love. I'm glad to know there are some other people out there with complicated feelings about The Chosen; I feel like I sincerely love it too much to ever be truly negative, but many other things (particularly the Evangelical assumptions baked into interpretation) give me pause. I'd love to read more pieces from you about the show; the stuff you like and the stuff that makes you go "hmm."
"Urban legends" is precisely the term that I have used when discussing stuff like this in The Chosen. Before the lamb-anointing, there was the stuff in the Christmas specials (including the bonus episode 'The Messengers') about the swaddling cloths that baby Jesus was wrapped in being special ritual garments for sacrificial lambs; I couldn't find any decent sources for that claim, either.
In that case, I gather the "urban legend" can at least be traced to a book that was written in the 1880s. So it's not quite the born-the-day-before-yesterday thing that this lamb-anointing seems to be.
Hi Peter - my newest blog What Is The Chosen, Part 2 gets into this.
The idea that they were Levitical shepherds is a bit of an overreaching claim from the Mishnah, that goes back to, as you said, Afred Edersheim in the 19th century. The claim that they were wrapped in priestsly clothes and put in mangers goes back to an email from 2005.
Thanks for your work on this! I'm using it as an example for a 1st year Bible College hermeneutics class of how the search for "historical context" can go awry
to expand on the "washing of the lamb's feet" thing, I would have thought if it had been a "real" practice, then someone like Alfred Edersheim would have discussed it in "The Temple and its ministry and services (as they were at the time of Jesus Christ)". I've just looked through the PDF copy I have, and there is no mention (that I can see) of such a practice. Now, perhaps he missed it, but I am hesitant to accept that over this being a much more recent (21st century) story.
As is often the case, we try to see 'patterns' that are not there, and once 'seen' are difficult to unsee.
Edersheim was working pretty extensively from the Mishnah and Talmud. Even if I think he's a bit over-genial on dating he does always have a pretty good source list - the idea that any shepherds around Israel would have been shepherding sacrificial animals is supported by a real passage in the Mishnah, I just think it's probably one of those things that's more ideal than actual. I checked Streck-Billerbeck for possible leads and also just asked some Talmudists, so I think if it was in the Talmud one of them one have turned it up between Edersheim, Streck-Billerbeck, or one of the people I called.
The fashion in Evangelicalism for playing at Judaism is extremely gross and offensive.
Aside from the anti-Semitism though, I think some of it comes from a craving for some real history and ritual practices.
I teach world religions, and as Episcopalian, I am constantly shocked all over again at the almost complete lack of knowledge that my Baptist and nondenominational students have about almost anything pertaining to the religion that they claim is the most important thing in their life.
They don’t understand communion, they don’t know anything about Epiphany, Lent, Pentecost or really any other church holiday then Christmas and Easter, they don’t know about any doctrinal or theological issues, they don’t know of the Nicene Creed, and they don’t know anything about liturgy or structure in worship.
Of course when these kinds of Christians are introduced to a ritual from the past that is laden with meaning and history they embrace it. They are desperate for something with that kind of meaning and authenticity.
Such a brilliant post, Laura. Really great work. One important typos -- "I talked to (at last count) three rabbis". The body of the post says you talked to over twenty. :)
Oh, maybe I should make that clearer. I was trying to distinguish between the people I talked to and all the rabbinic sources I used (the second one says "living and dead," trying to fit with the "ask three rabbis" joke). I'll rework that.
I wanted it to be interesting whether you'd seen the show or not. I think it's important to talk about how these stories proliferate and where they actually come from.
Especially because, in this odd case, it seems to be a very young story that got a big audience really quickly!
I saw another Bible scholar comment on The Chosen along the same lines. He pointed out that The Chosen literally hangs on the narrative of widespread literacy and eye witnesses, which is just not historical. You have sections of show where they show Biblical Hebrew graffiti written on the wall. You have Matthew and others writing things down as if that was common place--as if writing materials like that were cheap and widely available. You have Jesus leaving notes that little girls can read. The show is great, but I don't think they are really engaging with knowledgable people who will give them some pushback on some of the historicity issues.
I *strongly* suspect historical feedback is accepted at the whim of the creative team
Oh, great point about the graffiti being in *biblical Hebrew* (and not, I guess, Aramaic or something like that).
There's a bit in Season 2 where "the Zealots of the Fourth Philosophy" are plotting to kill a Roman nobleman when he goes to his "favorite restaurant" -- Atticus even says the Zealots are planning to "cancel" the Roman's "reservation" -- and, like, wow, there are so many problems with that whole set-up. First, I gather scholars doubt that the Zealot movement even existed this early, 30+ years before the First Jewish-Roman War. Second, Josephus happened to call them a "fourth philosophy" because they were fourth on the list of groups he was discussing (after the Sadducees, Pharisees and, I think, the Essenes) -- but it is highly unlikely that the Zealots would have ranked *themselves* behind those other groups. Third, it is my understanding that public eating establishments back then were basically for the riffraff -- prostitutes, etc. -- and there was nothing like the "fine dining" that we have today, which a nobleman might have enjoyed. (The social elite had plenty of *private* dinner parties, but that's different.) Fourth, how exactly would someone have made a "reservation" back then? Did they phone ahead? Send a messenger on foot? How punctual was anyone's sense of time back then? Etc., etc., etc.
Eating at restaurants is definitely more for the poor than the wealthy in everything I've read in ancient lit.
this is my new fave thing laura you doing this stuff
Thanks man
I appreciate you chasing down the details (which are by no means minutiae) in The Chosen that, while admitting to some embellishment in the name of “dramatic license,” have scholars on their team who are there to check these details. I blew off much of what I heard in the Caesarea Philippi / gates of hell episode.(As in “what the heck are these funky shacks about?” I didn’t even HEAR the material about goat-sex… how, I do not know.) I just figured “nah..” and got up to get my ice cream. Thank you for doing the hard work of tracking down the impossible and granting good faith to folks you’re investigating. I loved research in seminary and love LOVE good footnotes in books, and this work demonstrates that the devil DOES lie in the details, messing up what could be good work had they only taken the time. That’s where good work is proven, and you can bet I’ll be listening to The Chosen more closely. (Maybe Dallas has taken on his dad’s penchant for fiction, but dad is already writing the novel-as in book- versions of the series.) Excellent work, Dr. Laura! I’m hooked.
Thanks so much!
Thanks for writing this incredible deep-dive; it's exactly the kind of nerdery that I love. I'm glad to know there are some other people out there with complicated feelings about The Chosen; I feel like I sincerely love it too much to ever be truly negative, but many other things (particularly the Evangelical assumptions baked into interpretation) give me pause. I'd love to read more pieces from you about the show; the stuff you like and the stuff that makes you go "hmm."
"Urban legends" is precisely the term that I have used when discussing stuff like this in The Chosen. Before the lamb-anointing, there was the stuff in the Christmas specials (including the bonus episode 'The Messengers') about the swaddling cloths that baby Jesus was wrapped in being special ritual garments for sacrificial lambs; I couldn't find any decent sources for that claim, either.
OOF. Maybe that would be a good blog because that's another "why did people start saying this" thing.
In that case, I gather the "urban legend" can at least be traced to a book that was written in the 1880s. So it's not quite the born-the-day-before-yesterday thing that this lamb-anointing seems to be.
Hi Peter - my newest blog What Is The Chosen, Part 2 gets into this.
The idea that they were Levitical shepherds is a bit of an overreaching claim from the Mishnah, that goes back to, as you said, Afred Edersheim in the 19th century. The claim that they were wrapped in priestsly clothes and put in mangers goes back to an email from 2005.
Yeah, that case may be one that is cracked.
wow, this felt like listening to the Serial podcast!
This is the highest honor.
Thank you for this. This man has been using pseudo-historical tales to twist the meaning of scripture for too long.
Thanks for your work on this! I'm using it as an example for a 1st year Bible College hermeneutics class of how the search for "historical context" can go awry
That's awesome!!
oh shoot you snapped on this
interesting detective work...
to expand on the "washing of the lamb's feet" thing, I would have thought if it had been a "real" practice, then someone like Alfred Edersheim would have discussed it in "The Temple and its ministry and services (as they were at the time of Jesus Christ)". I've just looked through the PDF copy I have, and there is no mention (that I can see) of such a practice. Now, perhaps he missed it, but I am hesitant to accept that over this being a much more recent (21st century) story.
As is often the case, we try to see 'patterns' that are not there, and once 'seen' are difficult to unsee.
Edersheim was working pretty extensively from the Mishnah and Talmud. Even if I think he's a bit over-genial on dating he does always have a pretty good source list - the idea that any shepherds around Israel would have been shepherding sacrificial animals is supported by a real passage in the Mishnah, I just think it's probably one of those things that's more ideal than actual. I checked Streck-Billerbeck for possible leads and also just asked some Talmudists, so I think if it was in the Talmud one of them one have turned it up between Edersheim, Streck-Billerbeck, or one of the people I called.
The fashion in Evangelicalism for playing at Judaism is extremely gross and offensive.
Aside from the anti-Semitism though, I think some of it comes from a craving for some real history and ritual practices.
I teach world religions, and as Episcopalian, I am constantly shocked all over again at the almost complete lack of knowledge that my Baptist and nondenominational students have about almost anything pertaining to the religion that they claim is the most important thing in their life.
They don’t understand communion, they don’t know anything about Epiphany, Lent, Pentecost or really any other church holiday then Christmas and Easter, they don’t know about any doctrinal or theological issues, they don’t know of the Nicene Creed, and they don’t know anything about liturgy or structure in worship.
Of course when these kinds of Christians are introduced to a ritual from the past that is laden with meaning and history they embrace it. They are desperate for something with that kind of meaning and authenticity.
Such a brilliant post, Laura. Really great work. One important typos -- "I talked to (at last count) three rabbis". The body of the post says you talked to over twenty. :)
Oh, maybe I should make that clearer. I was trying to distinguish between the people I talked to and all the rabbinic sources I used (the second one says "living and dead," trying to fit with the "ask three rabbis" joke). I'll rework that.
Ah, ok; got it. I wondered if the three (for the joke) had got assimilated up to the earlier comment. Anyway, great point.
I fixed it, it's clearer now.
For a whole blog on "the importance of naming your sources" I could stand to be more obvious myself in the intro.
And I liked the Easter egg :D
I've also now read some of the other posts on The Chosen -- brilliant!
LOL I was hoping you'd click through at least one.
I have never watched the chosen but this was a fascinating read. I suspect a lot of misinformation follows a similar path as this.
I wanted it to be interesting whether you'd seen the show or not. I think it's important to talk about how these stories proliferate and where they actually come from.
Especially because, in this odd case, it seems to be a very young story that got a big audience really quickly!