In all honesty, if it brings people closer to God in ANY way whatsoever, even if it's one person, it did its job.

The Church teaches that scripture is inspired by God and inerrant, so no Catholic should make an issue about the fact that the gospels were written decades later, or doubt that the gospels are historically accurate. And it is a tradition of the Church that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the gospels, in that order. No said otherwise until modern times.

Well I have to disagree with you and go with the Church Fathers that the Gospel were written by Matthew, Mark (indirectly from Peter), Luke and John themselves. While I agree with you that they were not written like in the Chosen and were written many years later, I cannot agree that they were written by theologians who never witnessed the events. I actually side with St Augustine and St Jerome who believe Matthew was written first and in fact like the whole Church believed for the first 1500 years. We can't always agree ... keep up the good work.

Bruh...you're going to sit there and say the church got it wrong about who the authors were? And then you're even going to insinuate that Matthew, a tax collector, couldn't read and write? And theology vs history is a false dichotomy.

As a Protestant, I can say that the "sola scriptura" principle isn't really upheld by most Protestant groups either. What I mean is that each denomination has its own teachings that it puts forward, and if the Bible were the only thing, then no denomination could add to it, right? For example, Methodists (a Protestant group) traditionally completely abstained from alcohol. This practice isn't necessarily a bad idea, but on the other hand, Jesus turned water into wine so can it really be considered biblical? So before we complain about Catholics having teachings that aren't directly based on the Bible, we should examine our own denominations (or individual church for people in a non-denominational church).

Father's dating of Scriptural testimony on Jesus buys into theories which are not settled even by scholars. The idea that the literate members of the Apostolic group were not likely to write down what Jesus said is pure supposition. Plenty of writers in the ancient world were taking notes as they travelled around from Herodotus to Pliny the Younger. The theory of very late Gospel composition is an a priori assumption based on the concept of a multiple Community hermeneutic. This has its roots in the Modernist project that denies, for instance, that Christ could have predicted the Roman destruction of Jerusalem because he would not have had prescience as a human "person." The divinity of Christ is subtly set aside here. Our modern Catholic priesthood has been infected with all sorts of ideas which are not consonant with the Divine origins of Revelatiion. With all due respect to this fine young man who, I believe, needs to reexamine some of his training. He might benefit by starting with Pope Benedict's exegetical work, 'Jesus of Nazareth.'

Having watched both seasons I took the writings by John and Matthew as symbolic; pointing to the Gospels that would eventually be written bearing their names. If it’s meant to be literal that John and Matthew were writing during Jesus’s earthly ministry, they’re going to need a whole lot of scrolls and tablets by the last season.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." - St. Irenaeus

Statements that the gospels were, "written much later by people who never witnessed Jesus themselves.... to preserve the oral traditions of the eyewitnesses" that the gospels were "poetically and artfully crafted works of literature" "expressing the reflections of faith communities" and gospel stories that seem "completely unbelievable" - are statements that do not reflect the magisterium of the Church. The Church believes that what we call the "new testament" is the Word of God - and is true - and not just in an allegorical / poetical / symbolic sense. The Lord of the Rings is true in an allegorical / poetical / symbolic sense and it is a poetically and artfully crafted work of literature - but it is not the Word of God. Sure, I agree that it is highly unlikely that Matthew and John kept written notes. On the other hand it is highly likely that Luke spoke to various eyewitnesses including Mary as his gospel specifically reflects her memories. In the same way Mark includes the memory of a young man who fled naked down the street when his clothes were torn off - someone that is almost certainly Mark himself. John recalls leaning on the breast of Jesus and asking "Who is it?" - plus also his direction from Jesus to care for Mary - both almost certainly a memories of that eyewitness. Matthew also includes vignettes of his calling as a tax collector - again an eyewitness inserting himself into the overall narrative. The truth is that scholars are all over the map. There are scholars who believe the gospels were written several hundred years after the time of Christ and are a complete fiction. But there are also scholars who believe the gospels were written by eyewitnesses in the middle to late first century. As to the differences among the gospels - it is well known that eyewitnesses will emphasize different things - police detectives encounter these differences every day and the are not contradictions, but different points of view. I would urge you not to flatly accept the comments of "scholars". Instead, study the matter for yourself. Take a look at an early church document know as the Muratorian Canon - a document dated to around 170 AD which lists the accepted books of the new testament and includes some comments on them. Take a look also at the book of church history by Eusebius of Caesarea. He was a Bishop of a large church and an attendee of the Nicean Council. Within his book of history he has an extensive discussion of the gospels and the accepted books of the New Testament. He had access to a library full of books which no longer exist and he had a view of the gospels as early and accurate descriptions of eyewitnesses.

gotta remember everyone that this isn't pushed towards Catholics in particular, it has to cover everything generally enough that people of all denominations will not be turned away and can hear some gospel from this, we must remember that this is a series meant to draw in everyone to a deeper faith, not just the religious, not just the non-religious, but everyone and to draw them in and encourage them to stick with the series and bring the warmth of Jesus Christ to everyone

It was traditional knowledge that the gospels were written in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no reason to doubt it. The claim that the gospel of Mark was written first was first made by Lutheran scholars in the late 19th century. The claim about another John who wrote the gospel of John is also a claim of modern scholars.

When you fall for the blunders of skeptical scholarship in new testament criticism (which presupposes secular views) you get videos like these. We know with certainty who wrote the gospels according to actual early teaching, sacred tradition, and biblical manuscripts. Skeptical dating uses erroneous outlines for what they consider a plausible explanation for how things can be written. Such as any predictions in the text ASSUMING these predictions could never take place a skeptic will date it much later than it actually was. Don't fall for smoke and mirrors. A strong case can be made for early dating of the New Testament and its authorship. God bless

I think that you could argue that with the interpretation of Matthew, his previous employment as a taxman lends him to being of the type to keep notes. And with John, his writing of the events is sporadic, to the point I only remember him writing down the healing of the man at the Bethesda Pool. And technically, the show not only implies but directly tells you that what is being written down are not the gospels. There is a flash-forward to 44 AD where John is only just starting to write his Gospel and Matthew says that his Gospel "Will be accurate". As in it was not yet made. So I do not think it was intentional by them to say that the Gospels were written as witness to things as they happened. The show is not Gospel, it is Interpretation.

I would love to see a mini series on St. Francis and St. Clare. My favorite friars lead me to read more about both of them.

I think that Father needs to read Ratzinger's works. The Apostolic Fathers taught that Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John WROTE the Gospels, not the community. He seems to be a bit of a modernist.

If anyone is led to follow Jesus by watching this series, glory be His.

I really appreciate your perspective on most things, but I think your going a bit too far on two accounts. First, (from all that I’ve seen) the idea that the gospels were written later comes from 19th century high criticism that has the underlying assumption that Jesus wasn’t God and couldn’t have predicted the future. Second, there’s no reason to believe the apostles wouldn’t write stuff down. They most definitely didn’t know the big picture (as stated blatantly in the gospels), but they would’ve marveled at some of His sayings. I’m not saying that the chosen is historically accurate, but I do think it’s historically possible. Believing that they recorded certain sayings and extremely special events doesn’t mean that they didn’t weave the events into theological marvels. We see events that are unique to certain gospels and the timing of things that are different from the gospels. I think the goal of the show is to portray a possible historical reality that the gospel writers rearranged and reordered (with the Holy Spirit’s guidance and inspiration) in order to tell a narrative with specific and complex implications. I apologize for the long comment, and I can’t wait for more videos. God bless Father!

Father not going to lie, but I am quite bothered by the statement that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. John's gospel makes it pretty clear when he says "we saw His glory" (John 1:16) as if implying that he was an eyewitness to these events. I'm not denying the fact that the gospels were written later than the time of christ's public ministry, but to say that they weren't by eyewitnesses, much less the two apostles which are attributed authorship, then we have a major problem here.

Many students of the day kept close notes of what their masters said. A way to learn

I would respectfully disagree with your first point Friar Casey. I’d first say that the evidence is largely in favor of an early dating of the gospels, rather than the AD 70+ dating most secular scholars give it. There’s great evidence that at least some of the gospels were written as early as the 50’s or even the 40’s. Even so, the sayings of Jesus are probably much earlier given that some of Paul’s early letters written in the early 50’s contain sayings of Jesus as well as a creeds in 1 Corinthians 15 that some scholars date even as far back as the 30’s. There’s many reasons to believe in early dating of gospels as well as the fact that they are written by their traditional authors, much more so than a later dating, but that would take too much time to get into in one KZfaq comment. My main point is I don’t think it’s wrong for the show whatsoever to portray some of the disciples taking notes of things that occur during Jesus’ ministry, as it would seem that something like this likely happened due to the early dating of the Gospels being much more likely than the later dates you present. Much love and respect to you.

Matthew being a tax collector may have taken note and the disciples were amazed and afraid as we learned last weekend. Those miracles weren't so insignificant father.

What I love about the Chosen is that they are open about the fact that it is a production - transparent - in their youtube channel, the discussions about how they made decisions about character portrayals, and other discussions, even Behind the Scenes continuously keep the audience aware of the fact that it is a work of fiction, and something that people of certain faiths have created.

From a hidden comment, way below, Fr Casey says “…How do you reconcile Jesus saying three different things on the cross? Or two different lists of Apostles? Or Jesus visiting Jerusalem three times throughout his life or him visiting it one climactic time in his life? The major sermon is said to be on a plain in Luke and a mountain in Matthew. I could go on and on. There are tons of contradictions. But that's okay if you read the Bible like Catholics do, not treating it like literal facts at every moment. If you do, you have to do many mental gymnastics to make it work”. ---No mental gymnastics, Father. With all due respect, there is a simple explanation to all your points: the authors were honest and did not embellish anything. For example, Jesus was reported to say different things on the cross because different people were listening to him at different times, and they did not lie or embellish when writing about it. Also, Jesus most likely visited Jerusalem every single year, for Eastern, as it was tradition for any Jewish family, and authors wrote about only those they knew, without embellishing. Also, the major sermon is reported to occur on a plain or a mountain simply because it happen on both. Jesus made the same speech more than one time for sure, and people remembered it in different locations. Thus, the "contradictions" you are concerned about are actually evidence that the Gospels are truthful and did not embellish anything.

I am a Catholic who just returned to the faith 5 years ago, and at the same time my wife of 32 years converted to Catholicism. I am not a theologian or scholar, so my knowledge surrounding the history of how the Gospel was written is very limited. During my return to the faith I have noticed many changes. I tend to disagree with a lot of the changes. My disagreement is based on my spiritual “gut” feeling so it obviously carries no weight (No pun intended). One thing that sticks out to me is something that Father said a couple of times that I have trouble with. He stated that the Apostles had no idea of the importance of their pilgrimage with Jesus. I find this hard to believe as they were witnessing the healing of some of the most devastating of diseases of that period. In addition, the healing of the lame and blind, and finally Jesus’ raising of the dead and himself, not to mention the transgression. I relatively sure that some or all of the apostles would have recognized the importance of this time and understood the importance of remembering it by documentation. Again, this is an unqualified position I take, and is my opinion only. Much love and joy to all!

Sadly this rejection of the teaching of Vatican II is pretty common in my experience. “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)” I respect you and love your videos, Father; but the Gospels were written by theIr name sakes

Fr. Casey, the one thing I appreciate most about your approach to these pop culture discussions is your courage and honesty. You aren't hiding behind any "because I said so" sort of arguments. That courage and strength obviously comes from honesty. Only someone who is completely honest can be that forthright. I hope I don't overstep when I say that I think that would be a fantastic way forward for a church that has always had an amazing message, but has had a few recent problems with some of the messengers. God Bless you.

I always felt like the part in John 19:35 "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled" gives a pretty good hint at the fact that at the very least John's gospel was such a strong oral tradition that even if he personally did not write it down, the person who did, wrote it in his name. Obviously this is interpretation, but that always brought it home to me that the apostles definitely wrote something down, even if they were not the ones who assembled the whole thing as an actual gospel. And even if it was oral tradition, do you really think people came to hear the deciples speak and never took notes? Or that the deciples who were aware that they were speaking to the messiah would not want to keep track - at the very least for themselves - of how he explained scripture? Especially Matthew, since we know for sure he was used to writing things down. So while I had the same initial reaction of confusion when I first saw how much they keep taking notes, and while i do share your worry that this is definitely going in a direction where it could lead people into thinking the gospels should be taken as absolute fact, I don't think it takes away from the validity of the series for even a catholic audience.

This view on the Gospels will lead to apostasy because if what you said is true (which it is most certainly not) then there is really no reason to even believe in the stories in the first place if they are just reflections of communities with no actual eye witness testimony. Trent horn did an excellent rebuttal of Father Casey so check that out on the Counsel of Trent podcast

Agnostic here . Just started following this channel and I have to admit I can't get enough of the reviews!

Definitely agree about Evangelical theology seeping into the show at times - there's a part where (I think) Philip says something like "I don't think Jesus cares for the religious very much" which definitely struck me as the whole "relationship not religion" Evangelical shenanigans you've discussed before.

This criticism suffers three major problems. First, it seems a straw man fallacy, as the show doesn't simply imply the disciples had the foresight to see themselves as fully-fledged gospel-writers, but portrays some jotting down of events and words, with Jesus explicit encouragement. Second, the dating of the gospels is disputed among highly competent NT scholars, as is the question of how much they are eyewitness accounts (cf. Bauckham, Keener). This criticism simply assumes as fact an unverified and probably unverifiable opinion. Third, even if the gospels in the form we have were then composed and collated late in the first century, this would not preclude previously circulating collections of written records of speeches and actions of the Lord. It would be impossible to prove or disprove their original provenance among the Apostles. To deny this is to privilege speculation over knowledge. This is perfectly reasonable to an extent in a dramatic adaptation that is confessedly part fiction, like the Chosen. It is not in a purportedly informed theological or historical critique.

The Chosen made me closer to Jesus even though I have been a Christian all my life and went to church .I have NEVER felt more closer and loved by God.

The part John was writing things down was much later after Jesus was ascended if you see the way it was portrayed in the movie. Pls do check it again. For Mathew, it was his personality putting things down not necessarily writing the gospel in its present form. Maybe much later, he arranged everything into the form we have it. But most importantly it is still a possibility he jotted things down.

I'm eager to see how they'll depict "You are Peter and on this rock…" or the last supper.

Let’s not forget that this is a show. The point I believe they are making is that, eventually, Matthew and John do write about what they experienced and Mark and Luke about what they were told by eyewitnesses. This show is opening up hearts to read God’s Word and to relate to our Lord Jesus… this world can certainly use more of that!

I have a big problem with the notion that, contrary to Catholic tradition, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. If Peter was not behind Mark’s Gospel and Matthew And John’s Gospels were written by other theologians, the big question is: why? Why would some theologian, not of authority to write such works, even risk his life in doing so? To be beheaded or crucified?? No, since Levi, aka Matthew, was literate, it only makes sense that he took notes. Was his Gospel first or was Mark’s? More people are in favor of Mark’s coming first lately. But just like John outran Peter to the tomb but didn’t enter, it only makes sense that Matthew would have also acquiesced to Peter, the head apostle, to have his version of the biography told first, through John Mark. To think that a literate Matthew would not have documented anything along the way is more far fetched.

Fr. Casey, I'm a student in Biblical Studies and I think you make too much of the "consensus" of biblical scholars on the issues of authorship, dating, eye witness reports, etc. Really it is entirely plausible that the gospels are eye witness accounts that came into their final form within a decade or two of the resurrection and composed by the traditional authors. I would look at some of Dr. Brant Pitre's work and recommend reading Dr. William Farmer's the Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem for more on this. Much of what you take as a matter of fact are contested issues in Biblical Studies.

I'm glad to hear your opinion on this. I have been simultaneously watching this and holding it at arms length at the same time, scrutinizing everything in fear that something will ruin it for Catholics. Very curious to see how they handle the last supper and bread of life discourse.

I love the show Chosen. It's not perfect. But its the best to relate to I have ever experienced. Like the Bible. .. We read it with the heart but it is not in scroll form. It's the way this show has given us a gift to finally relate to who Jesus was .

Counsel of Trent just dunked on the inaccuracies in this video

Please address the criticisms in the comments lest you lead sheep astray. Your silence except towards those who praise and agree with you is not a good look.

Thanks Trent Horn for debunking this.

I actually like the parts where they show the disciples taking notes. It does not necessarily mean that the notes are the gospel per se, but that they serve as reminders to the writers, (or reference for the writers, if you believe that it wasn't the same people who wrote the gospels). I mean, imagine recounting all that has been said and done for the past few years in detail, word for word. Wouldn't it make more sense that they kept journals?

Why can't the gospels be based on eyewitnesses and also be literary/theological? I don't think it has to be one or the other. Why not both?

Fr Casey this is unrelated to this video but I just wanted to express how much of a joy it’s been to watch your channel. People at my high school have discovered it and we even watched your video on answering Gods call at a school assembly today. My sister and I especially love your channel and we hope that your channel continues to grow and be a blessing in the lives of Catholics around the world!

I have watched the chosen since its beginning. I thoroughly enjoy this series and it does help to make Jesus real to me. I love the scenes where they’re sitting around joking with each other. It makes the apostles relationship with Jesus so human which we know it had to have been. But I enjoyed your pros and cons series about the chosen. Very well done and with such charity. Thank you!

CCC 126: ...The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."...

Please refer to Trent Horn on this matter.

thank you for the video father! that’s a really good point that i honestly haven’t thought of while watching it, but will help me when watching the rest of the seasons! I absolutely love the Chosen but always a bit worried about the Evangelical influences it may have that differ from catholic teachings. it’ll be interesting to see how some of the other scenes are played!

I disagree on the Gospel dating. I reckon the Synoptics were written before the Temple fell. Why? Well Luke wrote his sequel, Acts, without talking about Paul and Peter's deaths. So he provided a tale to a point. This preceded the temple fall. Matthew written first from tradition, as Dr Alan Nlack posits, Mark then reports the preaching of Peter following Paul's requested stamp of approval for Luke's account.

This take makes me proud to have been raised Catholic. I can trust the honesty of someone that speaks like this.

QUESTION: if the gospels aren't historically true, did the crucifixion really happen? What about the resurrection? Did that happen? How do you know what is actual history in the gospels?

I don't think Luke witnessed Jesus first hand. He wrote the Gospel speaking to the Apostles.

Good one. Thanks. I was beginning to wonder if my take on the series was too harsh. But you put that in perspective. thanks.

I respectfully disagree with you.

Who's here after watching the Council of Trent podcast?

Wow, father!!! It feels like I’m listening to Rudolph Bultmann (who wasn’t Catholic…) I humbly suggest you update your biblical studies, especially to deepen your knowledge of Church Fathers. The Living Tradition of the Church has never taught that the Four Gospels were written by theologians, but by two of the Lord’s Apostles (Matthew and John) and by two apostolic men (Mark and Luke). Have you ever read Papias of Hierapolis or St. Iraeneus of Lyons?

Hello, I am a catholic Bible scholar (in training getting a masters rn) and i say this with all the love in the world that you are completely wrong! I would point you to Brant Pitre’s, Richard Bauckham’s and Joseph Ratzinger’s works on this subject. It seems like u are reading too much German liberal Protestant form critics. This is one of the things the chosen gets right. That the disciples were there taking down the prototypes of the gospels is very historical.

We are not needing to be reminded that The Chosen is a work of fiction, we are not needing to be reminded that the chosen is not completely and utterly factual. We are loving the chosen for bringing us close to Jesus, and inspiring in us, the sacred and beautiful works that were done in His name.

The late dating of the Gospels comes (partly) from the atheistic belief that prophecy isn't real. Atheists don't believe that Jesus could have predicted the destruction of the temple, so they say the Gospels must have been written after the destruction of the temple. Don't fall for secular "scholarship".

I haven't watched the series yet but I will for sure. Fr. Casey, Thank you! God Bless!

The title had me cringing, but it was some good 10 minutes. This will help me to enjoy the Chosen even more with a devouring eye and a critical eye, as we should do when reading and listening to anything in life. Thanks for the training and the honesty! :D

There are no contradictions in the gospel accounts, because the Church teaches that scripture is entirely without error. Pope Leo XIII: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

Thank you father for a very important insight. I have not seen The Chosen yet, but now will remember your insight when viewing it.

I trust the early church historians on the gospels.

Thank the Lord for people like Trent horn and Jimmy Akin for refuting people like this

I’m not here to dissect and dissect to get into the core, I believe in Christ and this show has made me see the goodness of God in a different light, also helped me understand it, and to read the Bible. Could care less about how the show is made or the little things that are wrong, it has only made my strength greater. I 100% believe these miracles happened. God is good.

A better approach would be where we fast forward and see the disciples sharing their accounts to other people, who themselves are writing it down, or just listening eagerly. A bit like how the movie Titanic is played out.

Nope. Wrong Father. The later dating doesn't stand out really on several grounds: 1. The Temple still stands 2. Those who helped Jesus were kept anonymous. Seriously, if you're going to write about somebody, why keep it anonymous? 3. It resembles a pre 70 AD Jewish context

"Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven." (Vatican II, Dei Verbum n. 18)

You're a great speaker. Thanks for your insights on this show. I found your commentary super interesting and very thought provoking

Fr. Casey concerns and red flags. 1) At 1:40 "It is pretty well agreed upon that the Gospels were not written until long after the events took place, between 80 to 90 A.D. for Matthew..." 2) At 2:50 "Rather, the gospels were written much later, by people who never witnessed Jesus themselves. " You are mentioning dates that are far beyond what was shared in tradition. The Gospel of Matthew was written before the destruction of the 2nd Temple. You are using the predominant modern dating extensively used in non-Catholic theoretical research or readings. The most surprising for us is that the teaching of the traditional dates under Catholic tradition viewable on KZfaq from years ago was from an older Fransciscan program. References all can check: 1) If you have access to the Catholic Encyclopedia you can see also the traditional dating being discussed there, there is now more diversity of opinion in the modern era, but in general if favor the years 40 to 45. A.D. 2) On KZfaq the Franciscan's Ave Maria videos.

Letters from the apostles were being distributed among believers AT THE TIME they were written.

Fr. Casey thank you so much. I didn't even know such a series exist. God Bless

"The appstles weren't concerned with hsitorical accuracy-also, this show isnt historically accurate!" Only video I've seen on this channel that didn't seem very charitable. One of the main questions this show should raise for Catholics is, "Why didn't we do this first?"

This is the very first time I disagree with Fr. Casey! ;) Yes, the Gospels were written long after the resurrection of Christ. And no, I am not convinced that they were written by others than tradition tells us. (Hey! It's TRADITION! Quite an important thing in catholic Church!) The scene with John an Mary shows the exiled Apostle writing things down because he understood that Jesus might not come back tomorrow (and I absolutely love the idea that it's Mary who says with a smile what later will be the very last sentence of John's Gospel). So John is depicted as someone seeing the necessity of writing the Gospel long after Resurrection. Then, I have absolutely no problems with disciples taking notes. Almost all Jewish men were literate (quite a point for Jewish religion as opposed to heathens). This may also have been quite a private thing - "I have to keep that in mind, I have to write it down or I might think I dreamed"). They may have kept notes for themselves a long time, before it became evident that a written Gospel was needed. Whoever learns to write also learns that writing is a great help to memorize things. And then of course they (or others - though I don't think so) wrote it down later in a more artful and theological way. Then, the different versions may be easily explained. Think of a police report. If four witnesses tell exactly the same course of action, would any police officer in the world believe them? Rather not. It would very much sound like an agreement. But if four witnesses tell the same story with a concordance in the most important points but different focusses, and in little, with different courses, they may be credible.

This is definitely heretical. I pray that you repent and people don't get swayed by this.

Well said. Thank you Fr. Casey, truly appreciate you, a good shepherd, as a Catholic priest to your flock- making sure that we are not misled from the dogmas and doctrines of the Church.

I really appreciate your take on this show father! The title makes it sound like everyone wants to pick the Chosen apart but like you said, although it will have flaws (it is an impossible endeavor already for any lay person to try to create a show about Jesus to please ALL denominations), I know we are all looking forward to allowing each episode to visually enrich our prayer and that's the point! Soo many miss the point of the show and pick it to pieces about every little detail but you were able to scrutinize very gracefully. Great work! 👍🏻✝️🙏

Thank you, Father, for pointing out some of the theological flaws and things that are wrong in the production. I have yet to see any of it.

As a disciple, I spend a lot of time studying the Bible, looking up reference materials and journaling. I have no call or intention of writing a gospel, a book or even a Bible study guide, but I am a notetaker by nature. I even have a collection of meticulous notes from sermons that I keep in my Bible. I imagine that a few of the disciples may well have taken down some notes as they listened to Jesus’ teachings, describing His miracles and jotting down a few anecdotal accounts. Rather than being put off, seeing a couple of the disciples taking notes is something that I relate to, and actually makes a great deal of sense to me. I don’t see them trying to make an argument for the apostles writing the gospels “in real time,” rather depicting a couple of the more analytical followers doing what came naturally to them. Might they have referred to what they’d written years later, when they actually did write the Gospels? If they had notes, they certainly did. I think you’re overthinking this.

Like others have said, it's true that the Gospels weren't written like stop-and-go journalism. But, they were, in fact, written by eyewitness disciples, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in that order, sometime after the events transpired.

Wow, a mini series on the life of St Francis! That 's something to look forward to.

I really like The Chosen’s “humanity”, because sometimes reading scripture “feelings” are hard to interpret. What I don’t have liked is when they show Jesus rehearsing his speeches. That to me shows a “flawed” Jesus, as if he isn’t Divine enough to say the right words at the right moment without any “practiced speech”. Like when the show shows Jesus practicing the sermon on the mount or when Matthew suggests to Jesus that the intro to the speech will take the listeners of guard, or something. It just doesn’t “fit” that Jesus, being God, can say what we need to hear “impromptu”. God bless!!

So in order just to critique Sola Scriptura, you throw out the whole reliability of the gospels..? (+ history, manuscript evidence, church fathers words, traditional authorship and eyewitness claims by the apostles and people themselves in scriptures, as well as internal and external evidence). You have some decent videos, but this one is a disaster. I hope not many non-factchecking atheists will watch it.

Loving your views on the Chosen. When talking about it, I always stress that the lives of the disciples are made up by the writers, to flesh out the show. What a wonderful actor we have in portraying Jesus.

I am glad you said what you did. As I have watched this, I have asked others where Mathew is keeping his clay tablets for the long haul? The show is great and it captures so many different ideas of what it must have been like to be a member Of The Way.

I don't understand Fr. Casey's logic here. First he claims that the Bible shouldn't be taken as literal or accurate events, but then quotes Matthew 16:18 and John 20:21-23 as evidence of something Jesus actually said. How do you know Jesus actually said those things, Fr. Casey? This is contradictory.

Trent Horn has tackled this. It's worth a listen.

Conflation of the Gospels destroys the differing (and complementary) insights in each which help us try to understand something particular about the infinite nature of God. Thank you, Father.

I didn't get the sense that they were writing the Gospels in those moments... simply taking notes. There is, to my knowledge, a big flaw in believing the disciples likely did take notes, even if only for themselves, as a way of journaling to understand for themselves. Just a thought.

I love the Chosen and it's become one of my favourite series, but yeah -- I think we as Catholics need to remember that this was a show written by an Evangelical and tends to lean towards Evangelical tendencies (especially the idea of sola scriptura seeping in). I know a Catholic is involved in being an advisor to the script and Jonathan Roumie himself is a Catholic, so it will be interesting to see future seasons from Catholic perspectives while simultaneously just enjoying the show for what it is. (And it isn't made primarily for Catholics -- it was made so that Christians of all denominations can enjoy it and I, like possibly all the other Catholics here, thoroughly appreciate the effort Dallas has made to assure that this is a show that Catholics too can enjoy) (Love the video though, it taught me a lot of new things about Scripture. Like mentioned before, Evangelical theology has seeped in so subtly that I didn't notice until now.)

Fr. Casey, forgive me if this is a bit uncharitable, but your statement that it is "nearly impossible that the disciples themselves were doing the writing [of the Gospels]" seems to directly contradict the Church's teaching on the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John. Can you perhaps clarify? Because what you are asserting as a seemingly obvious historical fact may be scandalous to the faithful, could very well be incorrect, and seems to go against the Catholic teaching on the topic (while adhering to one position held among the most liberal scholars, which is in no way proven, or even a consensus). "we're not reading literal eyewitness accounts of people who were there"? I fear you are implying that an opinion of some liberal scholars is the baseline factual opinion on the Gospels, rather than what the Church teaches.

I wrote a snarky post disagreeing with this video but deleted it when I started reading comments and realized that most commenters completely agreed with what I was thinking.

Let's not forget, God in the OT often told the prophets to write things down. Also, Jesus said that Mary, anointing his feet, would be remember in future writings.

Totally agree it is the best series worthy of watching but, it is still fiction with great biblical text woven in, and yes I do tend to read the Bible more to make sure I know what is truth and what is fiction. Bravo father and thank you for your insights.

imagine if mel gibson created his own series based on the gospel. Better yet he should just write and a direct a series based on the Acts of the apostles called "ACTS"

I still cannot get over Robert Powell as the actor who most looked like Jesus with his charisma and screen presence. I just cant feel the same with Jonathan Roumie

As a fellow believer I appreciate these videos and the work that goes into them. As a non-denom protestant pastor I also agree on your comment regarding the the actual authors and historic timeline of the gospels. I personally, however didn't interpret the notes being taken by the disciples as them literally writing their gospels in that moment. I feel it's too soon in the show to say how they will develop that. All that said, I know it's difficult to put yourself out there and I'm grateful you do, it sparks much needed conversation and loving debate to help us all learn from each other's perspectives and become more empathetic. I love that we can rejoice in our common love for Christ, and be challenged to grow from each other's unique faith journey's. God Bless!

This video is so important. Thank you!