#164 The Chosen Creator: Putting Words in Jesus' Mouth?

Within Reason - Alex J O'Connor

In this episode of Show: Within Reason, host Alex J O'Connor engages in a deep conversation with Dallas Jenkins, creator of the popular seri

Key takeaways

• Dallas Jenkins emphasizes that his primary goal in creating The Chosen is to craft a compelling, truthful, and entertaining story rather than to manipulate viewers for spiritual outcomes.
• He defends the practice of adding fictional elements by asserting that these additions do not contradict the character or intentions of Jesus as presented in the Gospels.

Main topics

• Artistic interpretation of biblical figures
• Ethics of fictionalizing sacred narratives

Notable quotes

"I'm trying to make the best show that I can. I'm trying to honor God. I'm trying to honor the character and intentions of Jesus... If I get past that, the rest will hopefully take care of itself."

"We're not adding to the Bible because the Bible hasn't changed since The Chosen started. We're not Scripture."

Conclusion

Dallas Jenkins reaffirms his commitment to truthful storytelling rooted in historical and cultural plausibility

Transcript preview

Speaker 4 (0:04) The Speaker 3 (0:05) city moves fast, but your vibe, that's different. Sharper, smoother, more alive. Speaker 5 (0:15) The new Speaker 3 (0:20) Honda City isn't just made to drive, it's made to feel. The new Honda City, all new vibe. Speaker 2 (0:28) North America, I'm coming for you. We're doing a small tour, just six shows at some really cool venues. We're going to talk about philosophy. We're going to talk about God, about consciousness. We're going to talk about whatever you want to talk about because there will be an extensive Q &A at every show. The dates are on screen. The ticket link is in the description. Be there. Dallas Jenkins, welcome to the show. Speaker 1 (0:50) Thank you so much. I've been looking forward to this. Speaker 2 (0:52) Me too. What is The Chosen's purpose? What I mean by that is it's genre. Is it entertainment? Because for me, I watch The Chosen. I think it's a really cool show, but I'm able to be like, hey, this is as if I'm watching any kind of show. But for a lot of people, it's maybe something more than that. But how do you see it? Speaker 1 (1:11) I genuinely, and I'm not just saying this to dodge a question or to try to manipulate anything. When I'm writing with my co-writers or when I'm directing, I genuinely don't think about the purpose. Now, that may sound bizarre considering that I'm doing a show about Jesus and as a believer in Jesus and as someone who would love for others to know him and love him more and all of that. That's my purpose in life. But when I'm writing a show, if I don't get the show right first, if the show isn't entertaining to watch and doesn't follow good storytelling rules and good filmmaking rules, well, then none of my— maybe perhaps higher mission or calling will be achieved anyway. So I just put all of that aside and I go, I want to make a show that's really watchable, that's really interesting, that's entertaining, that's good. And it's hard enough to do that. It's really hard to make good television and movies. That's why so many of them are not good. It's why I've made plenty of movies that aren't very good. It's hard to make something good. So that's got to be my number one priority. when it comes to the making of the show. Now, again, in life, I'm very pleased to hear that people all over the world have had a profound spiritual experience from watching the show. And people have said, I've converted to Christianity after watching the show. That pleases me as a Christian. But I'm also pleased when someone says, I find it— Or I just am watching it because it's a historical drama. So we describe it as a historical drama. I think that's accurate. I think the result, how the viewer interprets it, I used to be much more intentional and strategic in my storytelling. How will the audience respond to this? How can I make them, rouse in them some sort of emotional or spiritual or whatever response that... that I think would be great. I really, as of eight years ago, around the time I started developing this show, I kind of put all of that aside. And I'm like, you know, the name of our company is Five and Two Studios. Five Loaves, Two Fish. That's what I'm responsible for. The boy who gave Jesus five loaves and two fish was not thinking. will this feed 5,000 people? I want it to feed 5,000 people. He was thinking Jesus asked, and so I'm giving him five loaves and two fish. What happens with it after that is not up to me. Speaker 2 (3:46) I Speaker 1 (3:46) genuinely practice that, even with this show. I'm trying to make the best show that I can. I'm trying to honor God. I'm trying to honor the character and intentions of Jesus and the Gospels. How people respond, I cannot think about or I'll get crippled, because then I'll start avoiding certain things that might be challenging. that might confuse, that might cause people to question, or that might try to please someone like yourself, an agnostic or someone, you know, a non-believer. I'm like, well, how do I get them to believe? Well, I need to manipulate the scene this way. Or how do I please the Christian community? Or how do I avoid criticism? It's crippling. So I just like, how do I make a really good show that doesn't violate the character and intentions of Jesus and the Gospels? If I get past that, the rest will hopefully take care of itself. Speaker 2 (4:29) A moment ago, you used the phrase, my storytelling. But of course, it's not your story. Do you think it is appropriate? I mean, you must since you're doing it. But do you understand what I mean in asking, do you think it's appropriate to... take the story of Jesus, embellish it with things that are not in the Gospels, and be forced into a position of your own choosing where you have to invent dialogue, personalities, behaviors, interactions, and put them on the lips and behaviors of some of the most important people for Christians who ever walked the face of the earth. Speaker 1 (5:09) Yeah, I mean, there's many, many people who would answer No, they would say. And you can find many YouTube videos and sermons from people saying he should not be doing this. Obviously, I believe it's appropriate. I'm six seasons into this thing. If by this point I didn't, it would be a problem. Speaker 2 (5:27) It would suck if you suddenly thought it wouldn't. You know, you get to like season seven and you're like, you know what, guys? I'm not so sure about this. Speaker 1 (5:33) There'd be a lot of people, including employees, whose livelihoods would be dramatically impacted if I suddenly had a crisis of confidence in my decision that I made eight years ago. The reason I believe it's appropriate is because I don't believe I'm violating the character and intentions of Jesus in the Gospels. It's a phrase that I use often because... Speaker 1 (5:58) I think that by the very nature of the show, and we even say before the first episode, there's this disclaimer of sorts that just acknowledges and makes it clear. I'm adding things to the story that aren't there. The most common question that I get that's maybe different from yours slightly is, well, you're adding to the Bible. That's usually how the question is framed. Is it okay to add to the Bible? That's where I strongly push back and say I'm not adding to the Bible because, as my co-writer Tyler often says as well, if you go to Barnes & Noble right now and find a Bible and open it, you're not going to see Rhema, you're not going to see Atticus, you're not going to see Jesus saying some of the things that are in the Chosen. The Bible has not changed since the Chosen started. So the whole adding to Scripture thing I'm not worried about because we're not Scripture. So is it appropriate to add things to the story? I believe that it is because I do believe that the viewer knows the difference. I also believe I'm not inventing a character flaw or a contradiction to Jesus' character or intentions and the character and intentions of the Gospels. So that's where I would have a problem if another filmmaker did a Jesus project. and was trying to explore new ways of interpreting Jesus that haven't been explored before. So I'm going to portray Jesus doing something. I'm going to show him sinning. I'm going to show him doing—it's hard to think of an example. I personally would find that inappropriate, but I also—I'm not a—you know, I tend to be fairly libertarian in my approach to things. I'm like, well, that's their choice, and I don't have to watch it, and people can watch it or not watch it. So I'm— I'm comfortable with it. I know some people aren't. I think the viewers are. I think that what has caused it to work is that it's a, the Catholics describe it as a kind of a holy imagination. I'm a Protestant, so I don't really usually think in those terms, but I just go, yeah, I am like anyone else has when they've done a historical biopic Speaker 2 (8:06) of Speaker 1 (8:07) a historical figure. You try not to violate their character, but. you're going to fill gaps in, and I think the viewers know the difference. And when they don't, they go to the Bible, right? And that's why I think it's appropriate, because we're not hearing from people. Now that I'm watching The Chosen, I don't have to read the Bible anymore, because I'm getting all my truth from The Chosen. I think that would be more of Speaker 2 (8:32) a Speaker 1 (8:32) problem. Speaker 2 (8:33) Yeah. And interestingly, this is more aligned for, I suppose, the skeptic or atheist who won't care as much that you're doing this. This is something that historians do, ancient historians, I mean, do all the time and just admit to doing so. Ancient biographies in particular are filled with intentional embellishments, like birth narratives for basically any famous figure from antiquity, especially someone who isn't known at the time of their birth. This is a story that someone later has sort of said, this is probably the kind of thing that would have happened. And I think, you know, even in the construction of the gospels, I think in the reconstruction of what Jesus said, there are times when they seem to slightly disagree with each other. You know, is it that you should not get divorced ever? Or is it you should not get divorced except in the case of, you know, infidelity, that kind of stuff. Which tells me that you've got a bunch of authors who are trying as best they can to remember. the words that Jesus spoke, but are probably filling in details knowing that they might not be how it actually went down. But that's not with any intent to deceive. They're not making stuff up. Now, a Christian will want to say, but the Gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so they were guided to truth. But I think it's kind of interesting without that perspective to say that the kind of thing that people accuse you of doing, which is filling in gaps essentially without trying to contradict the message of Jesus. I kind of think that's what the gospel authors were doing, you know? Speaker 1 (10:01) Yes, although I would argue that the gospel writers, even if their memories were slightly different, were 100 % sincere in that this is what I would die in believing actually happened and what he actually said. I know that when I'm having Jesus... walk into a room and say, how's everybody doing? Which, you know, it might not be in the show, but I'm just saying something like that. Speaker 2 (10:28) I'm Speaker 1 (10:28) not claiming that that actually happened. I don't know that that actually happened. For me, it's, is this plausible? That's our operating approach. Because I can't know if some of my embellishments or additions are factual. I'm trying to capture capital T truth. and I'm trying to capture plausibility. So I use historical context, cultural context, biblical context, artistic imagination, human common sense, knowing that I'm a human being just like the disciples were. Jesus is obviously a very different human because he was also God. But I know how a human being would typically respond to this joke or this food, so it's plausible. I don't think the gospel authors were. trying to be plausible, I think they were. absolutely trying to, and I believe achieved, accuracy. So I think there's a slight difference there. So I don't think the gospel writers were ever saying, and then we think Jesus may have done this. Speaker 2 (11:30) That's Speaker 1 (11:30) what I'm doing. Speaker 2 (11:31) Yeah, I see. There Speaker 1 (11:32) is a difference there. Speaker 2 (11:33) Yeah, I'm interested to the extent that the gospel authors may have been doing that, and that's going to be different for an atheist and a Christian. But yeah, I mean, what you're doing, I don't think, It's only going to be controversial to somebody who... cares particularly that you're treading on a very particular kind of subject matter. Like people get up in arms about this when you do like a Freddie Mercury biopic and you get some of the details in the wrong way because they care a lot about Freddie Mercury. Caring about Jesus is like on a totally different level, right? So it must've been quite early on, even just like at the beginning of the project when you started talking about doing such a thing that you were starting to get people saying, hey, this like isn't a good idea. And did that ever give you pause? Did you spend much time thinking maybe I shouldn't do this? Speaker 1 (12:19) That's the... That's the superpower that I believe that I have is that for various reasons, I just don't care about the reaction. There was a time when I did. My drug of choice was affirmation and legitimacy for many years. I had a career failure in 2017 that caused me to kind of cling to God even more. And then that's where I got on that five loaves and two fish plan. Speaker 1 (12:47) I won't rehash all that whole story, but the result of it was, if I believe genuinely that I'm doing what God wants me to do or that I actually have permission to do, and my wife and my pastor and people in my life that I truly trust are also comfortable with it, and the three people that we brought on to kind of check our work, our scripts and our episodes to make sure that we don't— fall outside of the boundaries of the character and intentions of Jesus and the Gospels, then I genuinely don't care. I think you're probably similar. I mean, if I asked you, do you take pause in some of the things that you've said that have caused a lot of controversy, you would say, of course not. I've actually enjoyed it. I don't know that I would go as far to say that I've enjoyed it, although I find it entertaining sometimes, or I find it interesting, or sometimes it causes me to think. But I've never questioned the decision because it's... But by the time I made the decision, it was a very, very thought through and prayed through and talked about. That's the funny thing. I'll just say this quickly is sometimes people will point out something that they really didn't like in the show or something that they thought was controversial or unnecessary. Or why did you do that? Don't you see that it's distracting people or offending people? Why don't you just apologize? Or why don't you just take it out? And I'll go, what do you think I did before I made that decision? Speaker 2 (14:06) Like Speaker 1 (14:07) I thought through all this. Think of how... how much of a disrespectful jackass I would have to be to do something this important and then have a YouTube comment come and make me go, oh, shoot, maybe Speaker 2 (14:20) I shouldn't have done that. Didn't think of that, yeah. Speaker 1 (14:22) Like that's a, I'm far more thoughtful and considerate than to just, after the fact, question my decision because of criticism. Speaker 2 (14:33) Well, I want to talk about some of those decisions that you've made. And we can start by zooming out a little bit. I mean, You talked about how the gospel authors were writing what they believed happened and would die for that truth. And yet, most biblical scholars think that there's at least a different emphasis. You've kind of got an apocalyptic Jesus in Mark. You've got a very philosophical Jesus in John. John is very clearly writing for a Gentile audience, constantly sobbing himself and explaining what the Sabbath is and explaining what Passover is and rabbi, which means teacher. So we know that they were sort of writing for different audiences and probably writing with different intentions. Some think that Mark was writing... in order to deal with the recent destruction of the temple. Some people think that Luke's gospel is particularly showing an affinity with the poor and the downtrodden. You have to construct this meta-gospel. You have to pull the thread, and you've got to make a decision. Do you present the philosophical Jesus? Do you present the story which is appealing to the Gentile? Do you present Jesus to an audience where you assume that they'll know a lot about the Jewish law, you'll have to do some exposition. There are moments in The Chosen when Jesus is doing something like the triumphal entry, and you have one of the background characters kind of quote Old Testament so Speaker 1 (15:55) that Speaker 2 (15:55) people who don't know the Jewish law... You've got to make decisions like this. Speaker 2 (16:00) I don't know, like, is one of the Gospels like your backbone and you pull from the others when necessary? Or is it kind of just as and when you kind of pick and choose? Yeah, it's a Speaker 1 (16:10) fascinating question. I would say that the majority of the reason that I do those kinds of expositions is for clarity. It's less about, I want the viewer to... to hear this and be convinced or converted or whatever in the same way that the characters in the show are. Again, that's not my job. It's not what I tend to worry about as I'm making the show. But I do want, as a storyteller, that's my primary goal. I want to be cautious. You can say whatever you want. For me, I can't say I'm metagospel. I'm not doing a gospel. I'm not inspired by the Holy Spirit to introduce some new revelation about Jesus that's never been discovered before. That's for others to attempt. Speaker 1 (16:53) I want to make sure that the story is enjoyable for the viewer. And to make it enjoyable, I'm not going to change things. I'm not going to go, all right, I'm going to leave this part out because that's not as fun to watch. That's not my goal. I'm just saying I want it to at least be clear. I want them to, if the viewer is watching the triumphal entry and. They're confused by why would they even do this? What is the purpose of the palm branches? Then they're distracted. They're not enjoying the narrative. So just like in the movie Titanic, at the beginning of the movie, you have this modern day exposition where they're literally telling you exactly what happened and why and how it happened and all that. Now you might think, well, that's... That's boring or that's weird or that's not entertaining. Well, in many ways, it made the experience of watching the movie much better before you because you weren't distracted by thinking of how did the ship break and how did it go down? You're just enjoying the love story and then feeling the emotional tragedy of it, yada, yada. So it's similar in my show, which is. to answer your question about what do we choose from each of the different Gospels, usually it's to serve the story, the storytelling, what's going to make it more clear, what's going to make it more entertaining, so that when the truth comes, or the facts, which I know, of course, is debatable, but the moments in Scripture that we are treating as canon. as gospel, as truth, as we're not changing this. We find that they're illuminated and spotlit and become even more enlightening for the viewer because of some of these extra biblical context that we give Speaker 2 (18:39) that Speaker 1 (18:40) sometimes is for entertainment, sometimes is just for clarity. The gospel writers, for example, like when you mentioned Matthew, he's writing to a primarily Jewish audience. He's leaving some of those things out because he's assuming they already know it. That's what we don't, we don't have that luxury. That's why we're not doing just a biblical reenactment. I'm like, the Gospels biblically reenacted as a movie or as a show are actually not really conducive to that. I mean, it's been done and many people have been moved by it, but, and many people have been changed by, you know, the Jesus film, which is verse by verse, word for word. I personally find it quite emotionally distant, quite, quite odd. You know, Jesus as a main character doesn't actually make for a great main character because he doesn't he doesn't really change. He doesn't really grow. He doesn't. Speaker 4 (19:29) The city Speaker 3 (19:33) moves fast, but your vibe, that's different, sharper, smoother, more alive. Speaker 5 (19:47) The Speaker 3 (19:48) new Honda City isn't just made to drive, it's made to feel. The new Honda City, all new vibe. Speaker 2 (19:56) You mean like in the sense of a traditional movie? A Speaker 1 (19:58) traditional protagonist, right? I just Speaker 2 (20:00) want to be careful there because somebody will clip you saying, you know, Jesus isn't a great main character, is he? Thank Speaker 1 (20:05) you for protecting me. But it's from a strictly narrative perspective from Joseph Campbell's, you know, the hero's journey. He doesn't. need to learn something new that he didn't know before and that has to overcome some personal vice or struggle with advice from a sage. So that's why I think when people watch these verse-by-verse reenactments, they learn something. It's interesting to see the gospel they love and believe in visually, but it doesn't really have a... kind of an emotional connection to it, and it doesn't make for a good television show. Now, what I think some viewers of our conversation are going to be more critical of is my statement that, well, it doesn't make it for great television, so I need to do things to make a great television. I'm not changing, again, the story, and I'm still pointing people, yes, for the narrative that God intended you to know, read the Gospels. Speaker 2 (21:03) But Speaker 1 (21:04) what we're finding, which is interesting, is that this context that's given in the context of this show, not in a bookish context, in a sermon context, seems to be causing people to understand the biblical narrative even better. Speaker 2 (21:18) We'll get back to the show in just a moment. But first, here in ancient Jerusalem, nutritionally dense food can be difficult to come by. And especially for someone like me, who finds it difficult to stay on top of my diet, that is where today's sponsor Huel comes to the rescue. That's H-U-E-L. This is the black edition. It's a bit beat up because I brought it to America. I mean, ancient Jerusalem. And believe it or not, this is a complete meal. 400 calories, 35 grams of vegan protein, 26 vitamins and minerals, omega-3s. It's gluten-free, it's low sugar, and it's low cost, coming in at under $5. This one is the chocolate flavor, which I drink the most, but it also comes in vanilla, chocolate peanut butter. It comes in iced latte, which is also actually caffeinated. And you can also get different kinds of Huel. This is the ready-to-drink black edition, but it comes in its original formulation, as well as a light edition. Or you can get it in powdered form. You get a bit more protein that way, and you can also then customize how thick or thin you want your Huel to be. I drink one of these almost every single day. I take it with me when I travel. It's high protein, low sugar, low cost. And if you go to Huel.com forward slash Alex O'Connor, then if you use the code Alex O'Connor at checkout, you'll also, as a new customer, get 15 % off. It's complete nutrition while saving your time and your money. And with that said, back to Dallas. But also, in a way, the show isn't even about Jesus. It's called The Chosen. Speaker 1 (22:45) Sure. Speaker 2 (22:46) In a way, it's really about... the disciples. Speaker 1 (22:48) And Speaker 2 (22:49) for the longest time, the sort of image on like the YouTube channel was a picture of Simon Peter, you know, as the main guy, right? And if you're looking for the sort of traditional storytelling angle, the character arc, the failure, the learning, you're going to find that with the disciples. And so I suppose you can kind of get it that way too. Speaker 1 (23:11) Sure. Have you seen the West Wing? Speaker 2 (23:13) I have not, actually. Speaker 1 (23:14) Yeah. So do you know much about it? It's Speaker 2 (23:17) a U.S. show Speaker 1 (23:18) about the presidency. It's called The West Wing, which refers to that whole wing of the White House. It's Speaker 2 (23:26) actually Speaker 1 (23:26) similar to The Chosen, or The Chosen is similar to The West Wing. I've used it before as a model. I Speaker 2 (23:32) see. The Speaker 1 (23:33) president doesn't show up until the last few minutes of episode one, which is similar to our show. Jesus doesn't show up until the last few minutes of episode one. It's as much about the people around him as it is about the president. And so our show is an ensemble show. Jesus is one of the characters, but he's not the main character. He's not the protagonist. And yet, of course, the show in the West Wing is. is ultimately about the presidency because it takes place in the White House. Everyone that you're meeting is either a supporter or work or employee of the president or an antagonist of the president. The show wouldn't exist. The story wouldn't exist. The characters wouldn't be in the West Wing if it wasn't for the president. It's very similar to The Chosen. The Chosen, just to be clear, the title refers to three different things. You're right. Jesus, the Jews, and the 12th. But you're right that it's... And because one of the reasons why the show, I think, does succeed on a traditional storytelling level is because some of the hero's journey things that we do, we do through Peter, Matthew, and also guest characters. Yes. Like, such as the woman with the issue of blood, who in the Gospels shows up for three verses, right? Like most women in the Gospels. Yeah. Well, that's another topic, yes. But even... we'll just use the blind man. Jesus then did this, found a blind man, healed him, he was healed, and then he went on to the next thing. And we explore the arc of those characters. That Speaker 2 (25:04) for me was always the most brilliant thing about the Chosen. When it first came out, I remember first watching it, and the Gospels are so fast, so quick-paced. It's so, Jesus did this, then he did this, then he did this. Which is like, it's sort of, I've always thought that kind of... helps me believe that maybe this is historical because there's like no effort to make it sort of, and then this amazing thing happened and here's the details and you won't believe it. It's just sort of like, oh yeah, Jesus did this. I'm just recording what happened. It's so sort of bizarre, but it does mean that you don't really like oftentimes sort of feel the time scale, for example, like Jesus is walking around for years doing this and you can read it in 20 minutes. And so spending that time with the... with the disciples, like even, even just like after big events, Jesus leaves and the disciples are still left there. Then just sort of like talking about it, you know, like, well, what now? And then they've got to go and like make dinner and then they've got to go to sleep and wake up the next day. It just reminds you that this is supposed to take place over, over a period of time, which I think is great. But there is a problem with this in terms of timing, which is you've got to construct a chronology. And it's not just in terms of chronology, but the Gospels diverge from each other in various ways. Some people will say that they contradict each other, and that's a problem. Some people will say they contradict each other, and that's how we know that they're true. Some people try to reconcile them. But there are definitely sort of different approaches here. I've already mentioned, you know, slight differences in the things that Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, for example. A big one for me is... when the cleansing of the temple happens. It's an extraordinary scene of Jesus just like exploding in the temple and flipping over tables. In synoptic gospels, this happens near the beginning of his ministry. And in John's gospel, it happens near the end. Speaker 1 (26:50) Synoptics, meaning me referring to the first three. Yeah, the first three that are Speaker 2 (26:55) sort of reliant on each other. Seem Speaker 1 (26:56) to be more, yeah, relying on each other seem to be more chronological in nature, less poetic, less emotional. I've Speaker 2 (27:03) got that the wrong way around, haven't I? Well, it's Speaker 1 (27:05) Matthew, Mark. Speaker 2 (27:06) No, I mean when the cleansing of the temple happens. Oh, yes. Speaker 1 (27:08) Well, there's, yeah. So in John's gospel, and sometimes I confuse which gospels they come from, but it happens twice. Speaker 2 (27:14) Yeah. Yeah. So I got it wrong. It's actually John's gospel that has the cleansing of the temple near the beginning and the synoptics, which have it nearer the end. And so as a creator, as a storyteller, you've got to make a decision. Some people try to reconcile this by saying, oh, well, it must've just happened twice. That's why one gospel says it happens at the beginning and one says it happens at the end, because it happened twice. But to depict the scene twice would be quite a bold move of reconciliation of the gospel stories. You make the decision to show it once, to show it at a particular time, and to rely on one telling of the story versus another. When you're faced with that kind of stuff, or the fact that, you know, does Jesus say that you can't get divorced, or you can't get divorced in case of... except in cases of adultery, stuff like that. How do you begin approaching that kind of problem? Speaker 1 (28:08) Yeah, I tend to look at the Gospels when something is, this is a great example of the cleansing, where some people would say it happened twice. I go, well, I'm not sure if it happened twice. It's certainly plausible that it happened twice. But for the purposes of my show, A, that would, yes, be very bold. B, it would be a, and I hate to say this, it's just not great storytelling. Because if I did it first time, because it's the same thing with the feeding of the 5,000. There's a feeding of the 4,000. There's Speaker 2 (28:45) a Speaker 1 (28:45) feeding of the 5,000. Did he do it twice? You know, I don't know for certain. Scholars debate it. Believing scholars debate it. Speaker 2 (28:54) I Speaker 1 (28:54) know it certainly wouldn't make sense in my show because it would, A, undercut the power of the. of the one time that we portray it. So in the cleansing of the temple, for sure, I believe that it happened closer to the crucifixion. And in our show, it's like that really makes sense as a storytelling device in that it accelerates the resistance that took place during Passover week. Speaker 2 (29:24) So Speaker 1 (29:24) having it happen early in that week and then arousing the ire not only of the religious leaders, but some of the people and the vendors that you see in season five getting upset. Maybe they would have believed in him before, but now he just cost them their livelihoods Speaker 5 (29:40) and Speaker 1 (29:40) he told them that they're all wrong and they're sinners. And they're like, all right, I hate this guy. So it just makes more sense to me, both in my show and in the biblical narrative. Did it also happen early in his ministry? It's certainly possible. And I'm sure there's... I might have a pastor in my life who'd go, Dallas, of course it happened. I told you that it happened early in the ministry. I'd Speaker 2 (29:59) be Speaker 1 (29:59) like, sorry, but I forgot. But that's how we tend to approach those things. It's not a contradiction of the Gospels by not showing it twice. Speaker 2 (30:09) It Speaker 1 (30:10) would be more of a contradiction of the Gospels, I think, if we... for example, showed it three times. So Speaker 2 (30:16) that's Speaker 1 (30:16) the thing that I try Speaker 2 (30:17) to Speaker 1 (30:17) - Speaker 2 (30:17) That'd be one way of dealing with it. So Speaker 1 (30:19) that's what I try to- Every day, Speaker 2 (30:20) Jesus just goes in and flips the tables. Speaker 1 (30:23) So that's what's interesting for me as a believer and what the show has done for me personally is as a storyteller, I'm tasked with reconciling some of these things. And then it begs the question of like, oh, well, when I was in elementary school or when I was in college as a Bible student, Speaker 1 (30:41) I wasn't thinking of it maybe in the same way that I am now. And so I wasn't asking maybe some of the same questions. And so it's caused me to ask certain questions of my consultants or my own study and going, okay, oh, wow, I never thought of it. Did it happen twice or did it not? Well, for the purposes of my show, I think we're just going to show it once. But then it also... it causes me when I'm reading the gospels, because I'm a storyteller, to start making certain connections that I may not have made as a theologian or as a pastor. And I go, oh, it actually makes more sense to me now. Even that gospel story makes more sense to me now when I consider the cultural context or the historical context or Jesus's intention. So just for one moment, put yourself in Jesus's shoes. He's also maybe... telling a story is a wrong way to put it, but he also has an intention. And so what would Jesus more likely have done if we know and we believe that Jesus is intentionally affecting events to cause his death? Speaker 2 (31:47) Yep. Speaker 1 (31:47) Right? That's one of the reasons why we believe he raised Lazarus so close to, you know, around that time. Yes. Because it caused more resistance. Speaker 5 (31:59) Mm-hmm. Speaker 1 (31:59) Because it accelerated the journey towards his death. I know that he was doing that on purpose because that was part of the plan, if you believe that, which I do. It also makes sense as a storyteller. Speaker 2 (32:14) And Speaker 1 (32:15) so I go, in many ways, telling the story of Jesus for the purposes of a show has caused me to understand him more Speaker 2 (32:21) too. Well, some people think that the author of John's Gospel kind of does this on purpose, right? Is that like... The synoptics have the cleansing of the temple near the end, and this will be part of the reason why he ends up getting arrested. Whereas because John is the only gospel in which we get the story of Lazarus, some people have suggested, well, that's kind of why John relegates the story of the cleansing of the temple, to make room for this Lazarus story. Some really interesting debate there as to the extent to which people are willing to say that the author of John's gospel was willing to move things around a bit, like the date of Jesus's death, to make him the Passover lamb and that kind of stuff. But I think it's worth noting, I suppose in your defense here, that if somebody's listening to that and going like, well, Dallas, clearly if it's supposed to have happened twice, if that's the only way that you can reconcile the story, you should have depicted it twice. The gospel authors didn't. Speaker 1 (33:15) So Speaker 2 (33:15) if you think that it happened twice, and that's Speaker 1 (33:17) the Speaker 2 (33:17) way to reconcile the story, there's still a reason why the authors of the Gospels thought it's only worth including once. At the end of John's Gospel, it says that, you know, There are many other things that Jesus did, and all the books in the world couldn't contain them. And I'm sure all the episodes, all the Netflix episodes could not contain the stories of Jesus. And so the gospel authors are quite clear that we're not showing everything that he did. We're showing a particular select set of things in order to tell you the best kind of story. And that's often Speaker 1 (33:44) our response when some