Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
Talk about a leap to a conclusion. Just what makes you think that they quoted from the Septuagint and not vice versa. What makes you think that those who were writing the Septuagint in the NT period were not quoting from the NT which they had in their possession?
Tell us --- if the Septuagint for the entire OT existed and was considered accurate by the apostles, then why don't all the NT quotes of the OT follow the Septuagint??? How come so many of them follow the Hebrew instead and not the Septuagint???
Biblical scholars indicate that only the five books of Moses composed the Septuagint and the rest of it was translated during the Christian era. And the DSS nor anyone else can provide any evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint.
Brenton's essay in what 1850?
The Qumran caves were found in the 1940s! They are still yeailding new documents including COPIES OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
The fact that 2 BC COPIES of the Greek septuagint AND Hebrew texts with the same wording IN HEBREW have been discovered at Qumran.
Protestant denominations lie about this to defend an uninformed opinion from the 14th century.
Exactly, which is why the Orthodox (='right glory') are probably the only folks, some scholarly Latins and Anglicans excluded, who still have an absolutely clear understanding of what the old Christological and pneumatological controversies were all about.
It is also why we argue vociferously against the protestant substitution of a merely human tradition of considering a shortened version of the Scriptures as a complete axiom-system. from which all truth about God and salvation can be deduced by discursive human reason on the basis of surface meaning, for the Holy Tradition of Christ's Church which, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote and canonized the Scriptures. (And yes, we're claiming the Old Covenant Church, too: 'who spoke by the prophets' says the Creed of the Holy Spirit, and we Orthodox count Moses, David and Solomon among the prophets--you'll see icons of them and other Old Covenant saints in our churches.)
Nothing uncovered in the DSS can change the facts of history regarding Origen's Hexapla, and nothing uncovered in the DSS challenges Brenton's Essay on the Septuagint, which is a fair presentation of facts on the matter.
BTW when you use the word "Septuagint", what arre you referring to: the Greek translation of the OT that supposedly took place under the auspices of the Jewish authorities or any Greek translation of the OT regardless of who did it and when --- and just how do you know the difference???
And just how come Origen's Hexapla had one column for the Hebrew but five for the Greek and he had to use Theodotian's in the sixth column to create his fifth column which became the OT of Codex B. If the Septuagint was so authoritative and standardized in Origen's day, why was it not in the first column instead of the Hebrew text???
the facts are that origen's hexpla was based on the septuagint which was in general use at the time.
the only ones to say otherwise are protestant denominations with zero supporting evidence. History and Evidence is clear that the Septuagint predates the hexpla by 200+ years
Well show me the evidence --- where can I find this --- is there a link ????? Is it the entire OT or just a few books???? And which LXX do they match up with --- that of Lucian or that of Origen or neither????
you've seen the link as has forthedeclaration (who btw last I heard is still denying that Christ preached in areas that spoke predominatly aramaic even though even orthodox Rabbis admit that was the case).
Didn't read anyone asserting Isaiah was written in 100 BC.
Someone mentioned a copy of a version of it from that era.
I think you knew that.
good summary, imho.
One version I read spoke of ADOPTED daughters. Works for me.
if the Septuagint for the entire OT existed and was considered accurate by the apostles, then why don't all the NT quotes of the OT follow the Septuagint???
You see, theologians will quote from Scripture which they find suits their purpose. In some cases, the Hebrew version was more suited for their purpose that they were writing about. In most cases, however, the Greek OT was quoted from, such as Is. 7:14.
Biblical scholars indicate that only the five books of Moses composed the Septuagint and the rest of it was translated during the Christian era. And the DSS nor anyone else can provide any evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint.
Hardly true. There are well over one hundred allusions in the NT of the OT Deutercanonicals - no doubt taken from Greek writings of these books. Thus, the Septuagint preceded the NT.
Regards
Regards
kawaii is quite right. You need to update your notion of Biblical scholarship in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
They show that the LXX is a translation of Hebrew Scriptures from before Our Lord's Incarnation, which are at variance with the Masorete.
Actually, except for some points where Matthew relies on a Hebrew text--in particular pointing a word which without vowels could abiguously mean Nazarite or Nazarene to meand the latter--essentially all New Testament quotations from the Old Covenant Scriptures are from the LXX.
You might also consider that the earliest manuscript we have for the Masorete dates to c 1000 AD (!), while the earliest extant LXX manuscript dates to dates to the 4th century AD. The facts that the LXX text is largely confirmed by the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls in both Greek and Hebrew, and that you, as a Christian, are trusting anti-Christian rabbis to have maintained the text faithfully when reading the Masorete (based, not on the Palestinian texts used in the Temple at the time of Our Lord's Incarnation, but on a Babylonian text adopted by the anti-Christian rabbis at Jamnia), should give you considerable pause in prefering the Masorete to the LXX.
excellent summary!
Most of what I have read indicates that only the first five books were well translated from the Hebrew into the Greek before the NT period. Therefore anything that calls itself "Septuagint" would have to match the Hebrew MT in those five books every closely.
Biblical scholars furthermore indicate that the other books that were translated were not done as well as the first five and done by those who didn't really know what they were doing. Translations of these other books may have been attempted at the synagogue level by those with only a limited knowledge of either the Hebrew and or the Greek ---but they never followed through all the way.
It would seem reasonable to me that as the Jews in the NT period were throwing all their Greek translations away, that Christians would pick them up and try to finish what they started. There were probably numerous Greek translations of OT books floating around with numerous variations and different levels of accuracy in different passages.
When people referred to a Greek translation of an OT book, it was called "Septuagint". That word meant "Greek translation of OT". But there was clearly no fixed standard "Septuagint", otherwise Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian would have not have undertaken their translations.
And if there had been a fixed standard "Septuagint" in Origen's day, it certainly would have been in column one, or two, or three, or four --- but it wasn't there at all. And he used Theodotian's translation to create column five which became his LXX.
Why undertake a great work like the Hexapla if the goal of all that effort, time and money was already in your hand??? Origen's Hexapla is testimony to the fixed nature of the Hebrew text which never changed over time. It also testifies to the fact there was no fixed "Septuagint", just multiple Greek translations that differed from translator to translator, and he was trying to create a single one in his column five which became the OT of Codex B.
Well then show me the evidence so I can present it to all those Biblical scholars who are hiding it from us.
Does those DSS have a full copy of the Book of Isaiah in Greek to compare to the Book of Isaiah in Hebrew discovered in the DSS??? How well does your Septuagint match that Isaiah manuscript????
I guess that vaunted Septuagint that was all over the Christian world just disappeared in Origen's day, right??? It was so fixed and common that he couldn't find it, but had to undertake an expensive venture in order to write one for a generation of Sola Septuaginters to come.
Haven't heard that before, but it sounds like as good a reason as others I've heard to throw out that nonsense.
I'm not as well versed on this issue of the Hebrew text versus the LXX as others, but it seems pretty clear that the primary reason the RC's and EO are so vehement in supporting the LXX, or whatever version you are talking about, is because they include books that allow for praying to angels, purgatory and some of the other unique beliefs you hold. It's an odd position to hold to since so many of the pre-nicenean theologians rejected those books as Scripture.
According to Josephus and others the Septuagint in his day composed only the five books of THE LAW of MOSES.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.