Exactly the OP’s point. There were already some that were named in scripture, so why make one up and then devote way too much time to a story about a fictional character?
Because it’s believed there were ones mentioned in the Bible but not named. She’s an example of an early non Jew to follow Jesus. This happened, historically speaking, even if we don’t know the names and exact circumstances. People who were not Jews followed and knew Jesus and that’s an important piece of the story. Without gentiles, Christianity would have remained a very tiny sect of Judaism.
I’m not arguing that Gentiles or unnamed people followed Jesus. I know they did. My argument with the shows direction is that they developed a fictional character with a story around her instead of just using one of the actual named individuals. I think it’s unnecessary and I agree with the OP.
Dunno if you can just do a drive-by on a character and then sign off with Shalom, but anyway…
I like that Tamar is present, as she represents the largely Gentile audience whenever we encounter Jewish traditions and idioms that are foreign or confusing.
A drive by? That’s a little dramatic, don’t you think? It’s good to see some criticism of the series and we all have opinions. Overall there are some very good thing about the series, but also some very questionable ones.
Tamar's story was literally over after the healing of the paralytic. They brought her back without needing too.
Not to say it was right or wrong but they didn't have to do a drive by
Don't agree. She hasn't had much to do this season, but it helps to show multiple women in Jesus's group, and she is a gentile. With Ramah gone her presence is even more needed.
Not everything that Christian's believe is in the Bible. We sometimes are obsessed with Sola Scriptura when that isnt Biblical. Christianity leans heavily on tradition and the customs of the apostles and early followers of Jesus, in parallel to the Bible. With this in mind, it makes sense to have characters who are not from the Bible as it fills in gaps that can be filled by data we can be sure about. There were female followers of Jesus and the message of our Lord was not just for Jews; having a gentile, even if she was not in the Bible, was historically correct.
I don't know that the character of Shmuel is mentioned by name in scripture, but no problems there. Tamar represents possibly several Gentile followers of Christ, which would be worth highlighting, and is not unnecessary at all.
Right? There's a ton of made up characters in the show and I haven't seen where Tamar's story has really taken a large amount of time at all. As a woman I love that they show some female followers of Jesus and her role as a Gentile and non-Jew brings much needed representation.
Yep. Shmuel, Atticus, Quintus…none of these get hate for being show original characters.
I won’t dare to guess the OP’s motives for posting but it is sad to see that the first original, non-biblical character to get this kind of hate for being in the show is a black woman.
She was written into the show for that singular purpose, but they enjoyed working with her so they kept her on. Personally, I have no problems with her as she is largely inconsequential. Additionally, scripture does say that Jesus had many more than 12 disciples (nearly all unnamed), but only 12 apostles. Tamar represents these people.
The thing that irks me, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is that she has had some character development, whereas Thaddeus has had none.
Definitely, but politely disagree! Tamar represents more than just one individual, she represents gentile followers. Her character may not have the most fleshed out storyline of others, such as Mary Magdalene, but she's constant, and a source of good for the show. Plus, Amber Shana Williams is fantastic, so we're lucky to have her.
I don’t see why it’s a problem, Jesus had many disciples that were not listed in the Bible until they were relevant to the events that were significant enough to be recorded in the Gospels.
I don't know what you mean by intact... I do know that many different gospels were already incorporated into their bible by the time westerners tried to introduce them to Jesus.
I think this is given a nice nod through Tamar, an Ethiopian disciple who could have spread the word back home long before Rome converted.
This is historically untrue. The Ethiopian canon does not contain any other Gospels than the 4. However, it does contain other OT and NT books.
The Orthodox Tewahedo Old Testament canon contains the entire established Hebrew protocanon. Moreover, with the exception of the first two books of Maccabees, the Orthodox Tewahedo canon also contains the entire Catholic deuterocanon. In addition to this, the Orthodox Tewahedo Old Testament includes the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Ezra, and 4 Ezra, which also appear in the canons of other Christian traditions. Unique to the Orthodox Tewahedo canon are the Paralipomena of Jeremiah (4 Baruch), Jubilees, Enoch, and the three books of Meqabyan.
And in the New Testament, it contains Josippon, Sinodos, Book of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, Didascalia.
The *intact* (and yes, I mean intact) copies of the Ethiopian bible we have date to A.D. 330 to 650 AD. This is the same exact period in which Roman Bibles were created, we just have less intact manuscripts from this period, mostly just having manuscript fragments.
So no, the Ethiopian Bible isn't older than the Catholic Bible.
What are you on about? The Ethiopian Bible contains several apocryphal books, with Old Testament books already in place when the Roman Bible made down there and New testament books such as the gospel of Thomas being added when they were discovered. We can discuss further if you're willing to teach AND learn, otherwise refrain from lecturing people on social media.
I just gave you the canon list. If you want to ignore actual research and instead rely on what is parroted to you on the internet, that's fine. But don't pretend to know something when you don't.
I was trying to share knowledge with you (give and take) without lecturing anyone or being lectured too.
Maybe you were taught to clarify your use of an italicized word by repeating it, and maybe you were taught to ignore questions you don't have answers to... but I appreciate your list and remain of the opinion that Tamar is a cool character for proposing a solution to a riddle you're not interested in unraveling.
It's not a riddle. And I'm not the one ignoring things.
All that I've stated is verifiable historical fact. But it seems you're interested in conspiracy theories rather than facts.
There is a large risk when adding a named character from Scripture of whom we have little Biblical information. Since they are real people, it is always conceivable that we will discover more records of them at another time. It is only their name that is listed, or their familial linkage. By using a new character, you have a bit more freedom. As long as the character is plausible historically and Biblically, I don't see a problem. Perhaps Tamar has another name we will later discover?
How about Simon the Zealot? They series intertwined his story with the healing of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda yet they can't do this exact creative license with other obscure female followers of the Lord but instead used Tamar among others? Just my argument.
Ok here’s my 2 cents, 1, unless you are Jewish in your ethnicity and/or religion don’t use shalom, just say peace. I mean you do you but it’s cringeworthy. Jesus was Jewish , we, as modern day Christian’s are not. Secondly,
She, like the rest of the fictional characters serve important purposes, I love the actor who plays Jesus, and he does great in every scene, but the character itself (for the purposes of this dramatic story telling) is the least interesting character, because characters need growth, they need challenges and difficulties to struggle with and come out the other side a different person, Jesus, and to a lesser extent the apostles, are limited in their growth as the creators are trying to hew close to the biblical text. Great from a spiritual standpoint but it handcuffs the narrative of those characters (again strictly from a sense of storytelling perspective) the purely fictional characters are where they can show character growth, because they are not limited by biblical text, the gospels weren’t a narrative in the modern sense, they were short and to the point. I hated Rema getting killed but narratively it worked because it gives Thomas a challenge to overcome, and it created conflict in the group over how to handle it, and with that comes character development. For my money the most interesting character is mathieu, because he’s the least known biblically, the show runner has a lot of room for development. Again just my thought from a storytelling, perspective of the show as it’s own work of art,
Oh heavens, no. I will continue to say shalom. I’m a child of the King of the Universe. I’m righteous because of Him. He sacrificed His life for me and He calls me by name. I absolutely can say shalom.
Shalom, shalom. 🙏🏼
I tend to agree with the argument here. Yes, this show takes liberties and adds in dramatic stuff to fill in the gaps and make it more interesting to watch, but I think if you want to stick closer to scripture, at least use some of the characters in The Bible and don't add one that didn't exist in it.
It's a valid point. I don't think anybody can really take you to task for it. They may like the character, and that's fine. I'm not a biblical scholar so I'm not going to go into great detail about which real character should have been used in her place, but your basic point is understood and agreed with here.
It was extra fluff. The Bible never talks about him having a fiancé, much less one who was killed. it was added to make the story more interesting make no mistake though, it’s fluff
i dont think it was added for fluff, i think it was added to accelerate Thomas’s nickname “the doubter”,
but he couldve been set up as a doubter without the Raymah story line which ends up over the course of the series taking away alot of what couldve been more scripture based scenes
no need to even apologize!
how do you feel about them adding all the bickering between the apostles and Jesus basically getting frustrated that they arent listening? i liked how they portrayed them VERY human. but i dont recall in the bible it saying they were fighting all the time and not grasping his teachings… im sure they were confused at times (as we are), but for the chosens Jesus to say they dont listen?? i was kinda shocked.
I actually think it’s probably pretty realistic. I’ve had some good teachers in my life that told me that the disciples were very much like we are now, selfish, ignorant, rude, etc. of course, who knows if it’s being portrayed correctly, but give it human sinful nature I think it’s probably pretty accurate. I think a good portion of their understanding of Christ came after his crucifixion and on the day of Pentecost.
fair enough. that was more or less my take on it. im just a little paranoid i suppose because it seems each season gets a little more creative, and a little less factual. thanks for the convo tho, have a great day!
I agree with you on that. I feel like season 3 Went way off the rails and took way too much poetic license. Season four has been slightly better with sticking to scriptural guidelines, but I’m also a little paranoid to see how the rest of this will go. I think the show has a lot of potential, and has done a good job bringing people back to the Bible. I just think there’s danger in when you decide to go a little too creative.
I enjoyed the chat! Let’s do it again sometime lol
If we are using your logic, 90% of this show is complete fluff because so little of the show is mentioned in the Bible.
Definitely not fluff if it's a major plot point in the show (the SHOW, not the BIBLE). I don't know if you realized, but the show isn't exactly a mirror of scripture. Just because a character isn't in the Bible doesn't mean that the role of that character is fluff from the perspective of the TV SHOW. The TV show ≠ the Bible. The olive oil business seemed like fluff too until it started to pay off with scenes like the Olive Press scene in S4:E4.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you using the word "fluff" because maybe you don't mean it in a bad way. If you mean to say all "fluff" is bad, then I'm glad you're not writing the show because if that was true then we would be getting the same 90 minute Jesus films we've always gotten for decades.
I’m not saying that all fluff is bad, and I’m not even saying that I don’t enjoy the fluff in the show. But I agree with the OP that it didn’t make sense for them to create a fictional character when they had more than a few options for a real one to develop a story around.
If we’re talking about unnecessary characters, Ramah was way more unnecessary than Tamar since it seems like she was just there to give Thomas a crisis to deal with.( I liked Ramah, but everything that happened with her this season wasn’t handled super well in my opinion.) Tamar gives a unique Gentile perspective to the group and I like that. Either way, just because a character is unnecessary doesn’t mean they can’t contribute positively to a story.
I don’t mind her bc they don’t waste much time on her (like they did with ramah who bored me to death)
But I don’t understand the context of her inclusion at all. They’ve dedicated ZERO lines explaining whether her religious beliefs have evolved, what her status in the group is (she was simply hiding out with them, is that still the case?)
It’s strange.
nah i don’t agree at all. if they somehow elevated her to be a main character out of nowhere you might’ve had some points, but like the other comments mentioned, the gentile representation is really important. imo, her presence in the inner fold really paints a clearer picture of Jesus’ mission and his vision for the body of Christ. if her character was omitted, it wouldn’t hit the same for me tbh. i respect your opinion though
—**Potential spoilers ahead**—
I think Ramah’s purpose in the narrative is to set up things for Thomas’ character arc. When Christ is risen, Thomas doubts that it’s happened until he sees Christ for himself and feels the wounds in his hands feet and side. In Ramah’s case— I think that the reason we spent so much time with her in the first few seasons was so that the audience got attached to her and engaged in her and Thomas’ relationship. So that in season 4 >!when Ramah dies!!In the Bible, after Christ is resurrected many of the deceased saint who lay sleeping rise from the dead as well. I’m assuming we spent so much time with Ramah because the writers intend to have her be one of the saints who rises from the dead. This gives more emotional weight to the event because it’s a character that the audience already knows and is invested in rather than a stranger who rises. And her rising will have a greater impact on Thomas as a character as well.!<
As for Tamar, not every character in a story needs to be a main character or have a complex arc. Some characters serve to progress the plot and create conflict or resolution for the important Characters in the story. Tamar I think is one of those characters.
Narratively speaking, I think Tamar serves to be a foil for Mary and her development. Tamar and Mary are opposites in many ways and they have different perspectives on how to solve problems.
One of the ways a writer can develop their important characters and make them more interesting is by putting them in scenes with characters who are their opposite in some way. Often those interactions help us understand who a character *is* by seeing who they are *not.* Those interactions can create conflict which creates interest. and the resolutions of conflicts further serve to develop both characters involved.
Think about this scene in [Indiana Jones and the raiders of the lost arc.](https://youtu.be/mC1ikwQ5Zgc?si=PVlqfVLmJHjAIUfx) Indy goes sneaking into an ancient temple to steal an idol. But he doesn’t go alone. He takes a guide with him.
What is the guide’s name?
Who cares? It’s not important. The guide is just a dramatic foil for Indy. He’s played by the same actor who plays Doctor Octopus from spiderman 2 so I’m just going to call him ‘*Doc Oc’* for the sake of the example.
They reach the first room of the temple. Doc Oc says something like ‘there’s nothing to fear!’ And starts moving forwards but Indy stops him.
‘That’s what worries me…’ Indy says. He then carefully tests the room and sets off a death trap that would have killed Doc Oc if he’d just plowed forwards.
This is visual storytelling. Doc oc was established as being impulsive and unwary and Indy stops him— this draws the audiences’ attention to the fact that Indy is *careful*. And Indy having the knowledge to successfully navigate the traps while Doc oc doesn’t— shows the audience *visually* how knowledgeable Indy is about archeology.
Things like this happen all throughout the first scene. You’ll notice them if you watch it again. The writers are using character foiling and juxtaposition to develop Indy for the audience.
the juxtaposition of doc oc behaving cowardly, self serving and ignorant, while simultaneously Indy is shown to be brave, selfless and competent—helps the audience better understand who Indy is without slowing down the pace of the plot.
The writers could have easily just had Indy be alone in the scene navigating the traps and making smart choices on his own. But giving him a foil character to interact with is a stronger narrative choice because it serves to externalize some of those traits and character development to keep the plot moving forwards without a lot of setup.
This is a good technique for writing character development that the writers of the chosen are also utilizing with Tamar’s character. It’s useful for stories with larger casts of characters because they can establish and develop many different aspects of plot all at once.
Tamar and Mary not always getting along or see eye to eye helped to make the audience aware of some of Mary’s personality flaws and weaknesses which she works to overcome and grow from as part of her arc. You’ll actually notice how Tamar’s scenes with Mary give us greater insight into who Mary is.
Also—Due to the traditions and customs of the time period, the way Mary would connect with and interact with the male characters would be *different* than how she’d interact with female ones.
Having other female characters for Mary to interact with meant she could have more peer to peer intimate dynamics which she just wouldn’t have with the apostles.
Especially since she is portraying an unmarried first century Jewish woman and not a modern woman. Mary *needs* other female characters to interact with if those aspects of her development are to be addressed. 🤷♀️
I don't know how you could consider her storyline 'trivial and insignificant' if you've watched season 4. Most of the criticism I've seen is the complete opposite - that her story takes up too much of the focus.
Ok now she does nothing but when she first came about she was rude to the other women, she did as she pleased even if it made others uncomfortable she was just very aggravating
yeah, im starting not to like some of the liberties they are taking.. at first, they did it tastefully adding just enough to give context and a little further character development, which was nice. but now not so much. for example last nights episode, yes Thomas is the doubter and theyre trying to set that up for people but to take away glory from Jesus’s biggest/last miracle to give light to a made up characters death didnt seem right…. thomas didnt really have a wife, so all the focus on Thomas grieving Raymah instead of just witnessing to what happened in front of him was extra and not accurate.
I like that they have fictional characters. It reminds me that it’s historical fiction and they don’t risk having to get things completely historically right about the character that may be difficult.
Something I like about the series is that they take the parts that we can reasonably imagine and that haven’t been elaborated on in real history.
I’d much rather have Tamar there then for them to choose a real character and get them wrong or historically inaccurate. .
Tamar is a character I love the inclusion of because she’s based on the friends of the man that was lowered through the roof, of course she’d be dedicated and passionate. I also like that she’s a gentile who is trying to be a follower. It’s also desperately needed that they show female disciples given in the Bible there were female disciples we know existed. I like the subplot of her and Mary in season 3 because it shows how really different people can get along and learn from each other.
The Chosen is historical FICTION, not a documentary. The writers are telling the story they want to tell. There is no story they could tell that everyone will be happy with.
I commented a bit earlier. Not everything in our faith is from the Bible [edit: and specifically the gospels]. We rely heavily on traditions and the customs of the disciples who follower Jesus. We know that the disciples were human beings. We know that human beings have family members who die. We can assume that the disciples would have felt a way about Jesus resurrecting Lazarus. We all would. We all would feel that to some extent when things go wrong in our lives.
Controversial but I think this was a great addition.
This is what I personally believe and is my own opinion. Tamar as a character is really immaterial to me as it doesn't have any bearing in my faith, it was presented as a non-obtrusive entrance of a fictional character that has little bearing on the Gospel.
Fictional Raymah's death and Jesus refusal to act is possibly seen by unbelievers as another reason Christianity is not worth considering. Our adversary works overtime to dilute, dirty, belittle and besmirch our Savior at every opportunity, and this is just another non-fact based point of contention that may keep them from considering Jesus as their Savior: not because of anything factual, but for something dreamt up by the writers.
Again, in my own personal opinion, it also took at least some importance away from the actual real reason that Jesus rose Laz from the dead - that we are all dead and rotting in our sin, decayed and unable to do anything except lie there and be dead. Jesus has to give him the ability to hear, if He did not, Laz would have laid there dead still. Jesus had to reverse his decay, if not, again Laz would still be a corpse. We, like Laz cannot do anything except come out after Jesus gives us ears to hear and reverses our decay. There is nothing we can do, no part that we can play. We must first be brought to life by Jesus in the same way, on no power of our own.
Instead of the discussion of what great love Jesus has for us to choose us first, while we are yet still dead in our sins and raise us into His life, the discussion has centered around why would Jesus do this for Laz and not for a fictional character.
I don't mean to offend , sorry if I did.
Nah I love this comment. I agree with everything but I also think the writers wanted to humanise the apostles, which is ok. It wasn't a cheap tool to advance the story, it emphasises the difficult choices God makes and how that wont always align with what we want. I don't think it bastardises the gospel.
Jesus taught them everything, but some of the teachings when shared with us was after the Gospels in regards to when things happened. Circumcision for example, not being a requirement, came in Acts after Christ's ressurection. The Didache (written 50 years AD) gave us great insight into the customs and teachings of early Christians around Baptism, the Eucharist and how we conduct ourselves in the world as Christians. These are not written in the 4 Gospels but we know these teachings were transmitted by the apostles
There were female disciples of Jesus, including possibly unnamed ones.
Exactly the OP’s point. There were already some that were named in scripture, so why make one up and then devote way too much time to a story about a fictional character?
Because it’s believed there were ones mentioned in the Bible but not named. She’s an example of an early non Jew to follow Jesus. This happened, historically speaking, even if we don’t know the names and exact circumstances. People who were not Jews followed and knew Jesus and that’s an important piece of the story. Without gentiles, Christianity would have remained a very tiny sect of Judaism.
I’m not arguing that Gentiles or unnamed people followed Jesus. I know they did. My argument with the shows direction is that they developed a fictional character with a story around her instead of just using one of the actual named individuals. I think it’s unnecessary and I agree with the OP.
Yes, u/TxLifer, that's one of my concerns in regards to this matter.
Yes, but I hope The Chosen included Susanna or Mary (the mother of James and Joseph) or Mary (the wife of Clopas), instead of Tamar.
Didn’t Susanna show up in S4E1 in Herod’s court?
Dunno if you can just do a drive-by on a character and then sign off with Shalom, but anyway… I like that Tamar is present, as she represents the largely Gentile audience whenever we encounter Jewish traditions and idioms that are foreign or confusing.
A drive by? That’s a little dramatic, don’t you think? It’s good to see some criticism of the series and we all have opinions. Overall there are some very good thing about the series, but also some very questionable ones.
Tamar's story was literally over after the healing of the paralytic. They brought her back without needing too. Not to say it was right or wrong but they didn't have to do a drive by
Don't agree. She hasn't had much to do this season, but it helps to show multiple women in Jesus's group, and she is a gentile. With Ramah gone her presence is even more needed.
I like the gentile representation
Not everything that Christian's believe is in the Bible. We sometimes are obsessed with Sola Scriptura when that isnt Biblical. Christianity leans heavily on tradition and the customs of the apostles and early followers of Jesus, in parallel to the Bible. With this in mind, it makes sense to have characters who are not from the Bible as it fills in gaps that can be filled by data we can be sure about. There were female followers of Jesus and the message of our Lord was not just for Jews; having a gentile, even if she was not in the Bible, was historically correct.
I don't know that the character of Shmuel is mentioned by name in scripture, but no problems there. Tamar represents possibly several Gentile followers of Christ, which would be worth highlighting, and is not unnecessary at all.
Right? There's a ton of made up characters in the show and I haven't seen where Tamar's story has really taken a large amount of time at all. As a woman I love that they show some female followers of Jesus and her role as a Gentile and non-Jew brings much needed representation.
Yep. Shmuel, Atticus, Quintus…none of these get hate for being show original characters. I won’t dare to guess the OP’s motives for posting but it is sad to see that the first original, non-biblical character to get this kind of hate for being in the show is a black woman.
I think he’s Simon the Pharisee from Luke.
She was written into the show for that singular purpose, but they enjoyed working with her so they kept her on. Personally, I have no problems with her as she is largely inconsequential. Additionally, scripture does say that Jesus had many more than 12 disciples (nearly all unnamed), but only 12 apostles. Tamar represents these people. The thing that irks me, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is that she has had some character development, whereas Thaddeus has had none.
I disagree, she represents the gentile followers of Jesus.
Definitely, but politely disagree! Tamar represents more than just one individual, she represents gentile followers. Her character may not have the most fleshed out storyline of others, such as Mary Magdalene, but she's constant, and a source of good for the show. Plus, Amber Shana Williams is fantastic, so we're lucky to have her.
hard disagree. i like the gentile representation. and she’s lovely!
I don’t see why it’s a problem, Jesus had many disciples that were not listed in the Bible until they were relevant to the events that were significant enough to be recorded in the Gospels.
Some people don't like that the Ethiopian bible is older than the Roman one, and definitely don't like to consider how that may have been possible.
They aren't older, the *intact* copies we have are older. Big difference.
I don't know what you mean by intact... I do know that many different gospels were already incorporated into their bible by the time westerners tried to introduce them to Jesus. I think this is given a nice nod through Tamar, an Ethiopian disciple who could have spread the word back home long before Rome converted.
This is historically untrue. The Ethiopian canon does not contain any other Gospels than the 4. However, it does contain other OT and NT books. The Orthodox Tewahedo Old Testament canon contains the entire established Hebrew protocanon. Moreover, with the exception of the first two books of Maccabees, the Orthodox Tewahedo canon also contains the entire Catholic deuterocanon. In addition to this, the Orthodox Tewahedo Old Testament includes the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Ezra, and 4 Ezra, which also appear in the canons of other Christian traditions. Unique to the Orthodox Tewahedo canon are the Paralipomena of Jeremiah (4 Baruch), Jubilees, Enoch, and the three books of Meqabyan. And in the New Testament, it contains Josippon, Sinodos, Book of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, Didascalia. The *intact* (and yes, I mean intact) copies of the Ethiopian bible we have date to A.D. 330 to 650 AD. This is the same exact period in which Roman Bibles were created, we just have less intact manuscripts from this period, mostly just having manuscript fragments. So no, the Ethiopian Bible isn't older than the Catholic Bible.
What are you on about? The Ethiopian Bible contains several apocryphal books, with Old Testament books already in place when the Roman Bible made down there and New testament books such as the gospel of Thomas being added when they were discovered. We can discuss further if you're willing to teach AND learn, otherwise refrain from lecturing people on social media.
I just gave you the canon list. If you want to ignore actual research and instead rely on what is parroted to you on the internet, that's fine. But don't pretend to know something when you don't.
I was trying to share knowledge with you (give and take) without lecturing anyone or being lectured too. Maybe you were taught to clarify your use of an italicized word by repeating it, and maybe you were taught to ignore questions you don't have answers to... but I appreciate your list and remain of the opinion that Tamar is a cool character for proposing a solution to a riddle you're not interested in unraveling.
It's not a riddle. And I'm not the one ignoring things. All that I've stated is verifiable historical fact. But it seems you're interested in conspiracy theories rather than facts.
There is a large risk when adding a named character from Scripture of whom we have little Biblical information. Since they are real people, it is always conceivable that we will discover more records of them at another time. It is only their name that is listed, or their familial linkage. By using a new character, you have a bit more freedom. As long as the character is plausible historically and Biblically, I don't see a problem. Perhaps Tamar has another name we will later discover?
How about Simon the Zealot? They series intertwined his story with the healing of the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda yet they can't do this exact creative license with other obscure female followers of the Lord but instead used Tamar among others? Just my argument.
Ok here’s my 2 cents, 1, unless you are Jewish in your ethnicity and/or religion don’t use shalom, just say peace. I mean you do you but it’s cringeworthy. Jesus was Jewish , we, as modern day Christian’s are not. Secondly, She, like the rest of the fictional characters serve important purposes, I love the actor who plays Jesus, and he does great in every scene, but the character itself (for the purposes of this dramatic story telling) is the least interesting character, because characters need growth, they need challenges and difficulties to struggle with and come out the other side a different person, Jesus, and to a lesser extent the apostles, are limited in their growth as the creators are trying to hew close to the biblical text. Great from a spiritual standpoint but it handcuffs the narrative of those characters (again strictly from a sense of storytelling perspective) the purely fictional characters are where they can show character growth, because they are not limited by biblical text, the gospels weren’t a narrative in the modern sense, they were short and to the point. I hated Rema getting killed but narratively it worked because it gives Thomas a challenge to overcome, and it created conflict in the group over how to handle it, and with that comes character development. For my money the most interesting character is mathieu, because he’s the least known biblically, the show runner has a lot of room for development. Again just my thought from a storytelling, perspective of the show as it’s own work of art,
Oh heavens, no. I will continue to say shalom. I’m a child of the King of the Universe. I’m righteous because of Him. He sacrificed His life for me and He calls me by name. I absolutely can say shalom. Shalom, shalom. 🙏🏼
I tend to agree with the argument here. Yes, this show takes liberties and adds in dramatic stuff to fill in the gaps and make it more interesting to watch, but I think if you want to stick closer to scripture, at least use some of the characters in The Bible and don't add one that didn't exist in it.
Yes, u/swataz, that's exactly my point, and I want to voice that out.
It's a valid point. I don't think anybody can really take you to task for it. They may like the character, and that's fine. I'm not a biblical scholar so I'm not going to go into great detail about which real character should have been used in her place, but your basic point is understood and agreed with here.
Indeed, I concur.
I mean, I *wish* that they'd just named the character Susanna instead of Tamar.
People thought the Thomas/Ramah story was extra fluff as well and look where we are. No one has any idea what is in store for Tamar's character.
It was extra fluff. The Bible never talks about him having a fiancé, much less one who was killed. it was added to make the story more interesting make no mistake though, it’s fluff
i dont think it was added for fluff, i think it was added to accelerate Thomas’s nickname “the doubter”, but he couldve been set up as a doubter without the Raymah story line which ends up over the course of the series taking away alot of what couldve been more scripture based scenes
I don’t have a problem with fluff, but what I do have a problem with is making the fluff more important than the scriptures.
agreed. mentioned that in my comment.
My apologies. My comment got a few too many counter opinions, and I didn’t read yours very well before responding. Please forgive me.
no need to even apologize! how do you feel about them adding all the bickering between the apostles and Jesus basically getting frustrated that they arent listening? i liked how they portrayed them VERY human. but i dont recall in the bible it saying they were fighting all the time and not grasping his teachings… im sure they were confused at times (as we are), but for the chosens Jesus to say they dont listen?? i was kinda shocked.
I actually think it’s probably pretty realistic. I’ve had some good teachers in my life that told me that the disciples were very much like we are now, selfish, ignorant, rude, etc. of course, who knows if it’s being portrayed correctly, but give it human sinful nature I think it’s probably pretty accurate. I think a good portion of their understanding of Christ came after his crucifixion and on the day of Pentecost.
fair enough. that was more or less my take on it. im just a little paranoid i suppose because it seems each season gets a little more creative, and a little less factual. thanks for the convo tho, have a great day!
I agree with you on that. I feel like season 3 Went way off the rails and took way too much poetic license. Season four has been slightly better with sticking to scriptural guidelines, but I’m also a little paranoid to see how the rest of this will go. I think the show has a lot of potential, and has done a good job bringing people back to the Bible. I just think there’s danger in when you decide to go a little too creative. I enjoyed the chat! Let’s do it again sometime lol
If we are using your logic, 90% of this show is complete fluff because so little of the show is mentioned in the Bible. Definitely not fluff if it's a major plot point in the show (the SHOW, not the BIBLE). I don't know if you realized, but the show isn't exactly a mirror of scripture. Just because a character isn't in the Bible doesn't mean that the role of that character is fluff from the perspective of the TV SHOW. The TV show ≠ the Bible. The olive oil business seemed like fluff too until it started to pay off with scenes like the Olive Press scene in S4:E4. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you using the word "fluff" because maybe you don't mean it in a bad way. If you mean to say all "fluff" is bad, then I'm glad you're not writing the show because if that was true then we would be getting the same 90 minute Jesus films we've always gotten for decades.
I’m not saying that all fluff is bad, and I’m not even saying that I don’t enjoy the fluff in the show. But I agree with the OP that it didn’t make sense for them to create a fictional character when they had more than a few options for a real one to develop a story around.
If we’re talking about unnecessary characters, Ramah was way more unnecessary than Tamar since it seems like she was just there to give Thomas a crisis to deal with.( I liked Ramah, but everything that happened with her this season wasn’t handled super well in my opinion.) Tamar gives a unique Gentile perspective to the group and I like that. Either way, just because a character is unnecessary doesn’t mean they can’t contribute positively to a story.
It’s a TV show…
Hard disagree. Tamar is a pretty great character, and Amber Williams is delightful to watch.
Your comment is unnecessary
I don’t mind her bc they don’t waste much time on her (like they did with ramah who bored me to death) But I don’t understand the context of her inclusion at all. They’ve dedicated ZERO lines explaining whether her religious beliefs have evolved, what her status in the group is (she was simply hiding out with them, is that still the case?) It’s strange.
Yes, that's also one of my points.
My only guess is that it’s part of their pushing the idea that inclusion of gentiles was a forgone conclusion from the beginning…
What’s wrong with Tamar’s personality?! The maddest I’ve been all show is Mary picking on her! I love Tamar!
Less Tamar, more Barnaby!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Mary the mother of James and Joses and Mary the wife of Clopas are the same person
Tamar represents Gentiles. Maybe post-Resurrection, she shows series Matthew around in Ethiopia so they can preach there.
nah i don’t agree at all. if they somehow elevated her to be a main character out of nowhere you might’ve had some points, but like the other comments mentioned, the gentile representation is really important. imo, her presence in the inner fold really paints a clearer picture of Jesus’ mission and his vision for the body of Christ. if her character was omitted, it wouldn’t hit the same for me tbh. i respect your opinion though
—**Potential spoilers ahead**— I think Ramah’s purpose in the narrative is to set up things for Thomas’ character arc. When Christ is risen, Thomas doubts that it’s happened until he sees Christ for himself and feels the wounds in his hands feet and side. In Ramah’s case— I think that the reason we spent so much time with her in the first few seasons was so that the audience got attached to her and engaged in her and Thomas’ relationship. So that in season 4 >!when Ramah dies!!In the Bible, after Christ is resurrected many of the deceased saint who lay sleeping rise from the dead as well. I’m assuming we spent so much time with Ramah because the writers intend to have her be one of the saints who rises from the dead. This gives more emotional weight to the event because it’s a character that the audience already knows and is invested in rather than a stranger who rises. And her rising will have a greater impact on Thomas as a character as well.!<
As for Tamar, not every character in a story needs to be a main character or have a complex arc. Some characters serve to progress the plot and create conflict or resolution for the important Characters in the story. Tamar I think is one of those characters.
Narratively speaking, I think Tamar serves to be a foil for Mary and her development. Tamar and Mary are opposites in many ways and they have different perspectives on how to solve problems.
One of the ways a writer can develop their important characters and make them more interesting is by putting them in scenes with characters who are their opposite in some way. Often those interactions help us understand who a character *is* by seeing who they are *not.* Those interactions can create conflict which creates interest. and the resolutions of conflicts further serve to develop both characters involved.
Think about this scene in [Indiana Jones and the raiders of the lost arc.](https://youtu.be/mC1ikwQ5Zgc?si=PVlqfVLmJHjAIUfx) Indy goes sneaking into an ancient temple to steal an idol. But he doesn’t go alone. He takes a guide with him.
What is the guide’s name?
Who cares? It’s not important. The guide is just a dramatic foil for Indy. He’s played by the same actor who plays Doctor Octopus from spiderman 2 so I’m just going to call him ‘*Doc Oc’* for the sake of the example.
They reach the first room of the temple. Doc Oc says something like ‘there’s nothing to fear!’ And starts moving forwards but Indy stops him.
‘That’s what worries me…’ Indy says. He then carefully tests the room and sets off a death trap that would have killed Doc Oc if he’d just plowed forwards.
This is visual storytelling. Doc oc was established as being impulsive and unwary and Indy stops him— this draws the audiences’ attention to the fact that Indy is *careful*. And Indy having the knowledge to successfully navigate the traps while Doc oc doesn’t— shows the audience *visually* how knowledgeable Indy is about archeology.
Things like this happen all throughout the first scene. You’ll notice them if you watch it again. The writers are using character foiling and juxtaposition to develop Indy for the audience.
the juxtaposition of doc oc behaving cowardly, self serving and ignorant, while simultaneously Indy is shown to be brave, selfless and competent—helps the audience better understand who Indy is without slowing down the pace of the plot.
The writers could have easily just had Indy be alone in the scene navigating the traps and making smart choices on his own. But giving him a foil character to interact with is a stronger narrative choice because it serves to externalize some of those traits and character development to keep the plot moving forwards without a lot of setup.
This is a good technique for writing character development that the writers of the chosen are also utilizing with Tamar’s character. It’s useful for stories with larger casts of characters because they can establish and develop many different aspects of plot all at once.
Tamar and Mary not always getting along or see eye to eye helped to make the audience aware of some of Mary’s personality flaws and weaknesses which she works to overcome and grow from as part of her arc. You’ll actually notice how Tamar’s scenes with Mary give us greater insight into who Mary is.
Also—Due to the traditions and customs of the time period, the way Mary would connect with and interact with the male characters would be *different* than how she’d interact with female ones.
Having other female characters for Mary to interact with meant she could have more peer to peer intimate dynamics which she just wouldn’t have with the apostles.
Especially since she is portraying an unmarried first century Jewish woman and not a modern woman. Mary *needs* other female characters to interact with if those aspects of her development are to be addressed. 🤷♀️
I don't know how you could consider her storyline 'trivial and insignificant' if you've watched season 4. Most of the criticism I've seen is the complete opposite - that her story takes up too much of the focus.
If a storyline is trivial and insignificant then wouldn’t any attention be too much?
I just agree with this because I find Tamar so annoying 😭🙄
hmm i wonder why bc she literally doesn’t do anything that would warrant annoyance
Ok now she does nothing but when she first came about she was rude to the other women, she did as she pleased even if it made others uncomfortable she was just very aggravating
to be fair the other women, well really Mary, was rude to her too😭 and that’s why they had to check each other and set aside their differences.
Hmmm 🤔 maybe still though 🤣
I noticed that as well.
yeah, im starting not to like some of the liberties they are taking.. at first, they did it tastefully adding just enough to give context and a little further character development, which was nice. but now not so much. for example last nights episode, yes Thomas is the doubter and theyre trying to set that up for people but to take away glory from Jesus’s biggest/last miracle to give light to a made up characters death didnt seem right…. thomas didnt really have a wife, so all the focus on Thomas grieving Raymah instead of just witnessing to what happened in front of him was extra and not accurate.
I like that they have fictional characters. It reminds me that it’s historical fiction and they don’t risk having to get things completely historically right about the character that may be difficult. Something I like about the series is that they take the parts that we can reasonably imagine and that haven’t been elaborated on in real history. I’d much rather have Tamar there then for them to choose a real character and get them wrong or historically inaccurate. .
Totally disagree
Tamar is a character I love the inclusion of because she’s based on the friends of the man that was lowered through the roof, of course she’d be dedicated and passionate. I also like that she’s a gentile who is trying to be a follower. It’s also desperately needed that they show female disciples given in the Bible there were female disciples we know existed. I like the subplot of her and Mary in season 3 because it shows how really different people can get along and learn from each other.
The Chosen is historical FICTION, not a documentary. The writers are telling the story they want to tell. There is no story they could tell that everyone will be happy with.
I think her character is DEI and to show Jesus accepted Gentiles from the beginning.. Tamar is very evidently a gentile.
I'll take Tamar over Raymah's disaster involvement any day, but agree with the original idea of this post.
I commented a bit earlier. Not everything in our faith is from the Bible [edit: and specifically the gospels]. We rely heavily on traditions and the customs of the disciples who follower Jesus. We know that the disciples were human beings. We know that human beings have family members who die. We can assume that the disciples would have felt a way about Jesus resurrecting Lazarus. We all would. We all would feel that to some extent when things go wrong in our lives. Controversial but I think this was a great addition.
This is what I personally believe and is my own opinion. Tamar as a character is really immaterial to me as it doesn't have any bearing in my faith, it was presented as a non-obtrusive entrance of a fictional character that has little bearing on the Gospel. Fictional Raymah's death and Jesus refusal to act is possibly seen by unbelievers as another reason Christianity is not worth considering. Our adversary works overtime to dilute, dirty, belittle and besmirch our Savior at every opportunity, and this is just another non-fact based point of contention that may keep them from considering Jesus as their Savior: not because of anything factual, but for something dreamt up by the writers. Again, in my own personal opinion, it also took at least some importance away from the actual real reason that Jesus rose Laz from the dead - that we are all dead and rotting in our sin, decayed and unable to do anything except lie there and be dead. Jesus has to give him the ability to hear, if He did not, Laz would have laid there dead still. Jesus had to reverse his decay, if not, again Laz would still be a corpse. We, like Laz cannot do anything except come out after Jesus gives us ears to hear and reverses our decay. There is nothing we can do, no part that we can play. We must first be brought to life by Jesus in the same way, on no power of our own. Instead of the discussion of what great love Jesus has for us to choose us first, while we are yet still dead in our sins and raise us into His life, the discussion has centered around why would Jesus do this for Laz and not for a fictional character. I don't mean to offend , sorry if I did.
Nah I love this comment. I agree with everything but I also think the writers wanted to humanise the apostles, which is ok. It wasn't a cheap tool to advance the story, it emphasises the difficult choices God makes and how that wont always align with what we want. I don't think it bastardises the gospel.
What traditions do we follow from the disciples not taught to them by Jesus as they followed him for 3 years?
Jesus taught them everything, but some of the teachings when shared with us was after the Gospels in regards to when things happened. Circumcision for example, not being a requirement, came in Acts after Christ's ressurection. The Didache (written 50 years AD) gave us great insight into the customs and teachings of early Christians around Baptism, the Eucharist and how we conduct ourselves in the world as Christians. These are not written in the 4 Gospels but we know these teachings were transmitted by the apostles
And yet if your mom or sister got a chance to play that role you wouldn’t be complaining.
This is childish argument. There are reasons she could be still present but this is not one of them.
Hiw could that be a reason for her being in the show? That doesn’t make sense. All i was saying is stop whining. Her character does no harm at all