If you haven’t yet seen “The Chosen”, then you have a real treat in store. The YouTube series on the life of Christ combines first-rate acting with an imaginative retelling of the Gospel stories but how faithful is it to the Scriptural account? We see events from the lives of Peter, Nicodemus, Matthew, and others that do not appear in the Biblical texts. All of that is not surprising. Many films on the life of Christ have used dramatic licence to some degree in their retelling of the life of Jesus. Most viewers would probably agree that “The Chosen” uses licence in an imaginative and skilful way, whilst remaining faithful to the Gospel accounts. The creators of the series manage to weave Scriptural and non-Scriptural elements together into a very cohesive and stimulating whole.
The Retelling of the Miracle at Cana
Having said all of that, the retelling of the miracle at Cana diverges from the Biblical narrative in a way that is problematic. A couple of words in the dialogue between Jesus and his mother are changed and a couple of new phrases are added in. These divergences may seem trivial, but they actually alter what is central to the message that the Evangelist wishes to convey. Before going on, however, it is important to acknowledge that the writers of “The Chosen” evidently had honourable intentions in the way they modified the dialogue. They were using an artistic licence with the intention of enhancing the story, of bringing it alive and making the conversation between mother and son seem less disjointed. Unfortunately, the attempt to enhance the flow of the dialogue damaged something essential.
“The Chosen” devotes considerable time to prepare the context for the eventual miracle. We discover that the parents of the groom (who are hosting the wedding) are under financial pressure and have not been able to afford an abundance of wine for the feast. The parents of the bride, for their part, are already disdainful of the poor economic position of the family of the groom. As the feast progresses, we see the worries of the caterers regarding the limited quantity of wine at their disposal. They come up with all kinds of ideas to stretch it as far as possible. These include diluting it with water, feeding the guests salty snacks so that they drink more water and less wine, and ordering the servants to pour smaller measures into each glass.
All of this backdrop to the miracle is written, directed, and acted really well. The tension between the parents of the bride and groom, the anxiety of the caterers, the guests’ increasing requests for more wine, all lead to the critical moment in which the caterer examines the final amphorae to discover that there is not a single drop remaining. He turns around to find the mother of the groom standing looking at him in horror. Shortly afterward, we have the dialogue between Mary and Jesus, leading to the miracle. We are going to compare the two versions shortly, but to appreciate better how the dialogue in “The Chosen” is out of kilter with the Scriptural account, we must first say a few words in general about the fourth Gospel.
Cana’s Miracle in Biblical Context
If what follows sounds a little dense at times, the issue is actually quite simple. This author is no Biblical scholar and you don’t need to be one either in order to understand what is at stake here. The Cana story must be understood in the context of what has gone before in the Gospel, reading it from the wider Biblical worldview that the Evangelist assumes as given.
The Prologue of John’s Gospel begins with the Greek words, “en arché” (“In the beginning”), establishing a parallel with the very same opening words in the book of Genesis. The Prologue is really filling out the Genesis account of the Creation and the Fall, and completing it with a summary statement of our Redemption. In the Genesis account of the Creation and Fall, it is the woman who is tempted first by the serpent. She then gives the fruit to Adam, who also eats. God the Father later addresses the serpent as follows: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). This statement is called the Protoevangelium, and it is the first promise of a redeemer in Scripture.
The fact that the Prologue of John begins with the opening words of Genesis is a call by the Evangelist for us to understand his Gospel in the context of the first book of the Bible. In fact, the events of the Gospel constitute the restoration of the original plan of Genesis. In Genesis, humanity is created in the image and likeness of God; then, deceived by Satan, they distrust God, leading to the act of disobedience by which they place themselves under the dominion of the adversary. At the end of this narrative, the Protoevangelium promises a redeemer who will restore us to divine filiation. This redeemer is not drawn from the hosts of angels but will actually be the offspring of the “woman”. Incredible as it might seem, tainted human nature is going to somehow produce the one who will restore our relationship with God. In John’s Gospel, the dramatic events in which that restoration will take place is referred to as the “hour” of Jesus.
Comparing Dialogues
Now let us compare the dialogues in the Gospel and “The Chosen”, beginning with the Scriptural version.
When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (John 2:3-5)
Here is the rendition from “The Chosen”:
Mary: They have no wine.
Jesus: Why are you telling me this?
Mary: We can’t let the celebration end like this and Asher’s family humiliated!
Jesus: Mother, my time has not yet come!
Mary: If not now, when?
(She looks imploringly at her son before continuing) Please!
Jesus returns Mary’s gaze. We see his resolve weakening and then both mother and son smile at each other. Mary turns to the servants: Do whatever he tells you.
It is often remarked that Jesus appears to deliver a rebuke to his mother in the Gospel version. Firstly, he addresses her with the impersonal title of “woman”. Secondly, he distances himself from her even more with the phrase “what have you to do with me” (here, the RSV gives us the most literal translation from the Greek). Thirdly, he seems to refuse her request on the grounds that his “hour” has not yet come.
“The Chosen”, we might think, does an admirable job in smoothing over the difficulties of interpretation of this enigmatic exchange. Jesus does not address his mother with the unusual title of “woman”. He does not “rebuke” her with that strange Gospel phrase in which he seems to distance himself from her. And the mysterious reference to “my hour” is replaced with a more comprehensible reference to “my time” – which implies that Jesus is simply saying: “It’s not time yet to begin my public ministry”.
Changes to Gospel Dialogue
Filmmakers are in the business of storytelling, and a story needs to flow in an intelligible manner, right? Surely “The Chosen” has made some legitimate changes to a perplexing Gospel dialogue? The problem is that these well-meaning changes have utterly transformed the meaning of the original dialogue. To appreciate this better, the first thing to note is that, in the Gospels, questions are often used as rhetorical devices.
We see an example of this before the feeding of the five thousand when Jesus tells the disciples to go themselves and buy food for the crowd. The disciples reply: “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?” (Mark 6:37). A denarius was a full day’s wages, so the disciples would not have had the resources to buy this volume of bread. They were not asking a real question but using the question as a rhetorical device to bring their situation into a clearer perspective. In the same way, what Jesus says to his mother at Cana is not a real question at all but a device that is intended to stimulate a proper perspective on what is at stake here.
Rhetorical Devices
Jesus uses rhetorical devices like these not only to improve perspective but also to bring out a response of faith. A clear example is his response to the Syrophoenician woman who asks him to drive a demon out of her daughter. His startling reply seems to discriminate crudely against people who are not children of Israel: “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Mark 7:27). Jesus has every intention of healing this woman’s daughter, but his primary interest is not in healings but in nurturing the life of faith. At Cana, Jesus’ apparent protest should not be interpreted at all as a reluctance to assist the family in distress. He is looking for a response of faith from his mother and knows that he will receive it perfectly.
Eliminated Words
The next thing to note are the two curious words that were actually eliminated by “The Chosen”: “woman” and “hour”. It is understandable that the filmmakers might have felt unsure what to do with these puzzling terms. There are no known cases in Greek literature of the period where a son addresses his mother as “woman”. The only other case is when Jesus himself repeats the reference from the cross (“Woman, behold, your son!”). But for experts on the Johannine literature, such as Rudolf Schnackenburg, terms like these are not to be ignored since the Evangelist intended them to be keys of interpretation for the entire narrative. As soon as Jesus speaks the words “woman” and “hour”, he is lifting the discourse onto an entirely different level, a perspective that all readers of the Gospel are challenged to take. These two words reveal that what is about to take place has to do with nothing less than the restoration of humanity to the filial relationship with God that was enjoyed before the Fall.
Jesus Challenges Us in the Scriptural Account
What is the wider narrative that Jesus is challenging us to reflect upon? He wants us to consider that humanity has separated itself from God by its disobedience. That this separation was caused by the distrust and disobedience of a woman (who was quickly and willingly joined in her disobedience by Adam). That the hour is at hand when the filial relationship with God will be restored. When Jesus says “O woman, what do you have to do with me? My hour has not yet come”, he is really saying, “Humanity, consider well your relationship with me. You have separated yourselves from me by your distrust and disobedience. Consider what it will take for that relationship to be restored. Consider the sort of obedience required to make the ‘hour’ of restoration a reality.” He is speaking in a rhetorical way, neither rebuking his mother nor protesting his reluctance to perform a miracle. Rather, he wishes to prompt reflection on the deeper significance of his public ministry and the sort of obedience needed to “trigger” the “hour” of redemption.
Let us be very clear. When Jesus turned up at that wedding in Cana it was with every intention of performing the miracle and beginning the series of public events that would culminate in his “hour”. Every detail and circumstance of that wedding – the quantity of wine, the number of guests, the size of the cups – were guided by the providence of God. But the Lord wanted the miracle to be performed in the right manner, in a manner that would constitute a holy reversal of the unholy sequence of events that led to the Fall. In the Fall, the woman distrusted and disobeyed, but an “offspring” was promised who would bring the dominion of death to an end. At Cana, the offspring of the woman is finally here. This time the woman trusts and obeys, prompting her Son to set in motion the public events that would usher in the “hour” of restoration.
15 thoughts on “What “The Chosen” Gets Wrong About Cana- Part I”
hold everything. let’s focus on how 120 gallons or so of H2O became choice wine. Let’s get physical…Please somehow, say that this is not history or science. But unfortunately, preachers and others act as though this actually happened. It is metaphor and hyperbole.
This is why any Catholic seriously trying learn what the Church has always taught should shy away from this garbage and any other garbage produced from hollywood. Would you expect that the enemies of the Church to produce anything of long term edification to the Catholic soul? The best lies are those sprinkled with some truth. For anyone that has read what the Saints have attributed to the Most Holy Mother of God, this dialogue is blasphemous.
Mary: They have no wine.
Jesus: Why are you telling me this?
Mary: We can’t let the celebration end like this and Asher’s family humiliated!
Jesus: Mother, my time has not yet come!
Mary: If not now, when?
Jesus returns Mary’s gaze. We see his resolve weakening and then both mother and son smile at each other. Mary turns to the servants: Do whatever he tells you.
(She looks imploringly at her son before continuing) Please!
If we were reading the Bible and discovered a few changed words, I think you’d have a point. However, the writers have openly said they are paraphrasing and even changing the order of events for dramatic purposes, and encourage people not to rely on the series as if it were scripture. Paraphrases and summaries of scripture are included all the time in homilies and sermons, as well as in sacred poetry, hymns, and songs.
The interpretation of Mary’s role viz-a-viz her son, Jesus, at Cana is only strained by some Protestants. Mary was simply asking (praying to) her son to help out the wedding hosts. How is that any different if we pray to her to intercede with her son on our behalf to help us to pass a school test, or whatever, as we might ask another friend to do the same. Get real folks! Her son is also the second equal person of our one triune God. He also has two natures: human and devine. It would seem strange indeed if she had a relationship with her son other than a loving mother and son relationship.
I note that older films, Ben-Hur and The Robe come to mind, pretty closely use the biblical words and when fill in dialog is necessary, keep with the original intent. Today’s films are rather fanciful with inserted dialog and use modern syntax. I suppose that’s the price of admission to see any religiously themed entertainment today.
Dear Mr. Benet:
First of all I apologize for my english, my native language is spanish.
I am going to make a very interesting comment about what Jesus answered to His and our Beloved Mother.
a. There was a Grand Rabbi in Rome during the the Second World War, he was in charge of the Roman jewish community.
b. His jewish name: Israel Zoller, but, during fascism, he changed it to Italo Zolli
c. He was an expert in Hebrew.
d. He, his wife and his daughter converted to catholicism at the end of the war.
e. About the answer from Jesus to His Mother he wrote:
– The answer had to be in aramic, that is a semitic language.
– The answer was a semitism.
– Semitisms, like anglisisms, or spanisisms, etc. are dificult to translate; you need to
know very well the original language to translate correctly.
– (I heard once the semitism, but I forgot it).
– So Israel Zoller said that the real answer-translation is: ¿in what shall you and I
disagree, woman?
f. In some Bibles writen in spanish, Jesus s answer has footnotes that explain that it is
difficult to translate.
g. This answer is more in accordance with the following words of The Mother: “do what he
says”.
h. And also this answer is absolutly in accordance of the perfect relationship between this Mother, and this Son.
Thank you.
Very interesting, thank you Manuel!
Thanks for your comment, Howard. The key terms are also contained in the Vulgate translation, as you show, and these are “Woman” and “hour”. Woman is a clear reference back to the Protoevangelium of Genesis. But “hour” – as it is used consistently in John’s Gospel – is NOT a synonym for “time” as in “moment”! We must understand the term as John intends it to be understood, not as it is used in common parlance. In John’s Gospel, “hour” is an unambiguous reference to the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is the hour of the restoration of our filial relationship with the Father. And, as such, it is the hour of the glorification of Jesus. This is not my opinion by the way. The “hour” of John’s Gospel is unanimously understood by scholars and virtually anyone who reads the Gospel to refer to the central events of the redemption. Thank you for your interest in this article Howard and for going to the trouble of leaving a comment. Here are a few citations, but there are many more instances in the Gospel where Jesus uses “hour” in this very definite sense.
“And Jesus answered them, ‘The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.'” (John 12:23-24)
“Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name.” (John 12:27-28)
Then they tried to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come. (John 7:20)
Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end (John 13,1)
After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you.” (John 17,1)
You DO realize that St.John did not actually use the word “hour”, right? Nor, for that matter, was the actual comment made in Greek; almost certainly it was said in Aramaic. True, the word in Greek literally means hour, not literally moment; but then you go on to insist that this is important because it DOES NOT MEAN AN HOUR, it means the time of Christ’s Passion, which lasted roughly a full day and culminated with THREE hours on the Cross. So the script writers did not use the word in the RSV, but rather, a more literal word for the period referred to metaphorically as an hour.
You are picking at nits. Stop acting like this is “The Last Temptation of Christ”.
Thank you for your respectful criticism of the episode. I personally have no issue with it, but I understand your concern and I can appreciate the article. It’s important we care about how the word of God is being used. Also, I’m so glad I’ve finally found a good explanation on the words Jesus speaks to His mother! I’ve always wondered about that particular interaction. Thank you so much!
Thank you also for your last comment, Howard. I respect your opinion and can understand that people might feel that the critique is “nitpicking” on trivial matters. However, there is general agreement, among Protestant and Catholic scholars alike, that the terms being used in this little dialogue are highly significant; that the term “woman” points back to the disobedience of Genesis; that the term “hour” points forward to the restoration by Christ’s sacrifice of what was lost in Genesis. John’s Gospel wishes to highlight that the road to redemption involves a model of discipleship of humble obedience to God’s word, the polar opposite of what Adam and Eve did in Genesis. The article was written from the heart, with concern that this picture of discipleship was lost in “The Chosen” episode, even though it was brilliantly acted and directed, and no doubt done with noble intentions. The article was also concerned to defend a proper portrayal of Our Lady, whom John’s Gospel is placing in front of us as a model disciple, she who did not act like the original Eve, she who bowed humbly and said “I am the servant of the Lord. Let it be done onto me according to your word”.
Having said all that I respect your opinion Howard and thank you for the trouble of commenting. God bless you,
Edward
Tabita, I am so glad you found the explanation helpful. Thanks for your comment!
Edward
It’s worth pointing out that in the Douay Rheims, the verse is, “And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.” This is a faithful rendition of the Vulgate: “Et dicit ei Iesus quid mihi et tibi est mulier nondum venit hora mea.” It would seem that this way of putting it should not be offensive to a Catholic, even though it is mere reluctance and nothing like a rebuke.
As for “hour”, that really is a synonym for “time” as in “moment”. It was, after all, probably the shortest interval of time that could be accurately measured in the first century. But it has the same meaning, as it does in “The Elephant’s Child”: “Now you must know and understand, O Best Beloved, that till that very week, and day, and hour, and minute, this ‘satiable Elephant’s Child had never seen a Crocodile, and did not know what one was like. It was all his ‘satiable curtiosity.”
Pingback: What "The Chosen" Gets Wrong About Cana- Part II - Catholic Stand
Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit