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/
The Psalms may have been used as a type of the writings, as the dominant writing. I dont' know that we have enough information to be dogmatic that Jesus was using "Psalms" as a generic, but as a practicing Jew he would have been reading from the Tanakh which was an acronym for Torah Neviim and Ketuvim (or the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings). Its composition was laid out by the Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah or the Men of the Great Assembly. Its also said that many of the prophets whose names grace the books of the Old Testament were a part of them and probably had a role in determining the Canon for the Jews- however, as you know God has verified what He considers Scripture over and over again by the cross-references you find within Scripture itself.
There is another great chart at http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm
Here, they say that
1)The New Testament quotes from all Old Testament Books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.
2)And Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books.
I had to replace the batteries. :)
But I dind't really need a verse generator, because the Church teaches that everything Christ did defaults to Love.
Why did God make Christ a "curse for us?"
This is alien to me. My guess is that Christ took on our sins, and became the recepient of our ancestral curse, the way Yom Kippur's goat takes the sins of others and runs away with them.
One other thing we need to take into consideration, is that Jesus was speaking by an large to the Jews. When Jesus said "what saith the Scriptures" what would they have thought? The Hebrew Scriptures, of course.
Where were these Jews at? In Israel. Was Hebrew a lost language at that time so that they ONLY used the Septuagint? No. 80-85% of the documents that are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were in some form of Hebrew (most of it biblical Hebrew). The scholars used it extensively. When standing in the synagogue, Hebrew was supposed to be the language of prayer and study.
Alfred Edersheim wrote:
If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been understood and spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange, that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be 'targumed' into the vernacular Aramaean—and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have risen to address the people in Greek, or that He would have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis? The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Book II, Chap II, page 131.
It is without a doubt that the Septuagint was also widely used by the populace during the period of the early church. But was all of it considered Scripture - or, as Jerome seemed to deem it, was it a mixture of true Scripture and some profitable but not canonical reading? Philo quotes from the OT quite a bit, but never quotes from the Apocrypha. Not that Philo is authoritative regarding what IS Scripture. He is just there for evidence of what was considered Scripture at the time. Of course, this is an argument from silence and there are several OT books that dont' get quoted in the NT either and yet are Scriptural. However, I think it is odd that the TRANSLATION of the original with some added books has been deemed more authoritative than the Hebrew Old Testament (Masoretic or older fragments) and the word of the Hebrews as to what their Canon was. We know that the Jews have been blinded as far as Christ goes. But are we to expect they are blinded as to what their own Bible is as well?
Indeed it does. He obviously knew all the languages, but it seems pretty clear in which He taught.
However, I think it is odd that the TRANSLATION of the original with some added books has been deemed more authoritative than the Hebrew Old Testament (Masoretic or older fragments) and the word of the Hebrews as to what their Canon was.
Yes, that has struck me to be strange as well. In my mind, older "can" mean better, but it is not axiomatic. There obviously was that which is older than the Septuagint. I ask myself who was in the best position to make the call.
The Gospels were written when the good news was being told to the Greel-speaking Gentiles (ansd that includes Rome, as even Italy south of Rome was a Greek colony), and the Epistles before them were written for the Greeks and Greek-speaking hellenized Jews of Asia Minor who spoke Greek as their mother tongue.
There was no group at that time in Israel of any significance that the Epistles or the Gospels would have been written to or for in Aramaic, let alone Hebrew (Matthew's alleged Gospel notwithstanding). By the time the NT books were written (70 to 100 AD) the Church in Israel was finished.
Thus, any translation into Greek of what Christ said in Aramaic or Hebrew was done by the authors of the New Testament, whom you believe to have written God's words and not their own, and therefore could not make a mistake; and if they quoted from the Septuagint, including situations found only in the so-called "Apocrypha," then your argument is with the inspired men, for they considered the Septuagint Scripture, and worthy of being in the Scripture, without distinguishing the "other books" as only profitable.
Absolutely correct FK. I might add the verse:
Our Father is very clear that all souls are His. This, of course, raises an interesting question when He states,
If all souls are the Lord's to begin with, why were we "bought" and from whom were we bought? I believe the answer lies in your statement:
It is only the church of God which He purchased with His blood. What is rolled up in all of this is 1) original sin, 2) election, 3) perseverance. Three petals of the TULIP.
Many, including the recent addition of Nestles/Alland, that has put back hundreds of TR readings.
Check out the recent edition of the NASB vs an older one.
The TR is rated as equal in age to both Aleph and 'B' due to the recent findings of the papyri.
That Sturtz's work came out in the 80's shows how far behind you are in your textual understanding.
My Bible has all of the Synoptics being written before 70, but in any event, I don't see how it could be true that the Church in Israel was finished. In the broad sense, all of the Gospels were written to all believers. In the narrow view, the "alleged" Gospel of Matthew you speak of was written specifically to the Jews. (What would Gentiles do with multiple references to "Son of David"?) I think the Gospels were well balanced.
Thus, any translation into Greek of what Christ said in Aramaic or Hebrew was done by the authors of the New Testament, whom you believe to have written God's words and not their own, and therefore could not make a mistake; and if they quoted from the Septuagint, including situations found only in the so-called "Apocrypha," then your argument is with the inspired men, ...
Well, I don't think I've ever said that everything in the Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonicals, or whatever one wishes to call them) is automatically wrong. I just don't think they were inspired as individual works. That by itself would be enough to exclude them from scripture. (This is my understanding of Luther's position.) I'm not aware of any references to situations found only in the Apocrypha, but if there were, then depending on the context they could have been perfectly true. So as far as I know, I wouldn't have any cause to argue with any of the authors.
Excellent analysis, Harley. His justice must be satisfied, it cannot be cheated. I love your quote from Acts. I'm definitely going to have to remember to include that in the future.
Personally, I believe that regardless of what version of Scripture one has, God has preserved His message to mankind.
Amen. If all I had available was a "Catholic" Bible, I would use it without thinking twice. The whole message is still there.
The Alexandrians had some issues and the commission wasn't made by the Jews (who were very careful in translating and preserving their own Scripture), but by a secular authority. I think some of these things need to at least be considered when one tries to discern Holy Spirit leadership on the issue.
This is one part that confuses me. Is it right that the actual translators were Alexandrian Jews? Is the idea then that they simply followed the orders of the secular Commissioners in which books to put in? Is it proper to say that translations made by Diaspora Jews were not as authoritative?
For example, God allowed the originals to go to dust. Why would he do that? Well for two reasons. So we wouldn't worship paper/papyrus/lambskin, but pay attention to what was written on the media. But secondly, I believe He did this so that we would wrestle with the issue a little. Why? Because it causes us to ask questions about Himself.
Yes, I fully agree. Not only is idol worship wrong, but it is too easy. God gave us an inquisitive nature and so He knew exactly what buttons to push to get us asking questions. It's no surprise at all that the Bible is the most analyzed work in the history of literature.
And whose "son" is He talking about?
That verse and others, such as "for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) or "and God is the head of Christ" (1Cor 11:13), raise serious Trinitarian questions, imo.
Then why would they be in Greek?
I don't see how it could be true that the Church in Israel was finished
The first Bishop and Patriarch of Jerusalem, +James the Just, was beheaded in 62 AD and the Church in Jerusalem was shut down by Romans in 69 AD. The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed a year later, and Jews started leaving Palestine. Before that, the Christians were thrown out of the synagogues by the Jews, and hunted down by zealots like Saul.
+Paul, addressing the Jews says "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles" [Act 13:46]
In the broad sense, all of the Gospels were written to all believers
Then, I believe they would have followed the steps in which +Paul does "first the Jew then the Gentile" and naturally would have written the Gospels in Hebrew, and would have used Hebrew canon rather than the Septuagint.
I just don't think [the "Apocrypha"/OT Deuterocanonical books] were inspired as individual work
I have no issues with that, since you clearly state that this is you opinion.
CCEL has a good article on the Septuagint.
I don't think they were just following orders. But you do not see the same attitude towards what is Scripture and how to preserve Scripture with the Alexandrians as you do other Jewish groups. Think of how meticulous they were in preservation of the text.
At Seminary, one of my profs, who is a brilliant Old Testament Scholar and is not only fluent in Hebrew but in ancient Phoenician, I believe Mesopotamian and other near-East languages, showed us a slide of an original Hebrew text. In the text, the Scribe made an error in omitting a phrase. On the page of the text, the scribe wrote the text out to the side and had the equivalent of an arrow being drawn to where the text was to be inserted. They were meticulous.
The Alexandrians were closer to an NIV Dynamic translation. They were not as concerned with 100% literal accuracy as they were with conveying thoughts. It wasn't a big deal to insert books they thought were valuable - even if they were not a part of the Hebrew Canon.
Here are a few excerpts that I think help answer some of your questions. The authors there are better authorities on it than myself.
"In examining the version itself, it bears manifest proof that it was not executed by Jews of Palestine, but by those of Egypt: -- there are words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin: this alone would be a sufficient demonstration that the narrative of Aristeas is a mere fiction. It may also be doubted whether in the year 285 B.C. there were Jews in Palestine who had sufficient intercourse with the Greeks to have executed a translation into that language; for it must be borne in mind how recently they had become the subjects of Greek monarchs, and how differently they were situated from the Alexandrians as to the influx of Greek settlers.
Some in rejecting the fabulous embellishments have also discarded all connected with them: they have then sought to devise new hypotheses as to the origin of the version. Some have thus supposed that the translation was made by Alexandrian Jews for their own use, in order to meet a neccesity which they felt to have a version of the Scriptures in the tongue which had become vernacular to them.
There would be, however, many difficulties in the way of this hypothesis. We would hardly suppose that in a space of thirty-five years the Alexandrian Jews had found such a translation needful or desirable: we must also bear in mind that we find at this period no trace of any versions having been made by Jews into the languages of other countries in which they had continued for periods much longer than that of their settlement at Alexandria.
The most reasonable conclusion is, that the version was executed for the Egyptian king; and that the Hellenistic Jews afterwards used it as they became less and less familiar with the language of the original... "
"At Alexandria the Hellenistic Jews used the version, and gradually attached to it the greatest possible authority: from Alexandria it spread amongst the Jews of the dispersion, so that at the time of our Lord's birth it was the common form in which the Old Testament Scriptures had become diffused.
In examining the Pentateuch of the Septuagint in connection with the Hebrew text, and with the copies preserved by the Samaritans in their crooked letters, it is remarkable that in very many passages the reading of the Septuagint accord with the Samaritan copies where they differ from the Jewish. We cannot here notice the various theories which have been advanced to account for this accordance of the Septuagint with the Samaritan copies of the Hebrew; indeed it is not very satisfactory to enter into the details of the subject, because no theory hitherto brought forward explains all the facts, or meets all the difficulties. To one point, however, we will advert, because it has not been sufficiently taken into account, -- in the places in which the Samaritan and Jewish copies of the Hebrew text differ, in important and material points, the Septuagint accords much more with the Jewish than with the Samaritan copies, and in a good many points it introduces variations unknown to either.
The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo, but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.
In consequence of the fact that the New Testament writers used on many occasions the Septuagint version, some have deduced a new argument for its authority, -- a theory which we might have thought to be sufficiently disproved by the defects of the version , which evince that it is merely a human work. But the fact that the New Testament writers used this version on many occasions supplies a new proof in opposition to the idea of its authority, for in not a few places they do not follow it, but they supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, although contradicting the Septuagint. ..
Thus the Septuagint demands our attention, were it only from the fact that the whole circle of religious ideas and thoughts amongst Christians in the East has always been moulded according to this version. Without an acquaintance with the Septuagint, numerous allusions in the writings of the Fathers become wholly unintelligible, and even important doctrinal discussions and difficulties (such even as some connected with the Arian controversy) become wholly unintelligible.
As the Septuagint was held in such honour in the East, it is no cause for surprise that this version was the basis of the other translations which were made in early times into vernacular tongues. There was, however, also another reason; -- the general ignorance of the original Hebrew amongst the early Christians prevented their forming their translations from the fountain itself. The especial exception to this remark is the Syriac version of the Old Testament formed at once from the Hebrew."
http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/intro.html
I can even buy the excuse that the Septuagint became a "popular error" among the Jews of Palestine in the 1st century AD, but the Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit. Asserting they used false or deficient Scripture denies their inspiration and authority.
And Eze 18: 5-9 claims one who is righteous by works shall live. God's words, quoted, no less.
"5. So a man who is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,
6. And does not eat [offerings of meals] on the mountains, and does not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; neither defiles his fellow man's wife nor approaches a woman in her period of separation,
7. And wrongs no man; what has been pledged for a debt he returns; [he] has committed no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry, and clothes the naked with garments,
8. Does not lend on interest, nor does he take any increase on a loan, keeps his hand back from wrong, executes true judgment between man and man,
9. Has walked in My statutes, and has kept My ordinances to deal truly-he is a righteous man; he shall surely live, says the Lord God" [Tanach, Yechezkiel - Chapter 18]
Are we to believe now that this was not true because +Paul says none is righteous?
I don't claim to know for sure when they were written, or why it would be terribly important. One line of reasoning I found in the notes was that Acts had to be written in the early 60's because monumental events (e.g. burning of Rome, destruction of the Temple, etc.) are not mentioned at all. Then, add in that Luke was the first volume before Acts. Finally, Luke had the Gospel of Mark when he wrote his Gospel, so Mark must have been from the 50's or very early 60's but not as late as 70. But again, I'm not declaring anything as fact.
The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed a year later, and Jews started leaving Palestine. Before that, the Christians were thrown out of the synagogues by the Jews, and hunted down by zealots like Saul.
OK, I may have misunderstood. They had to move, yes, but I didn't think they folded in on themselves in terms of just quitting or something. I always thought a fair amount of the early laity in general was Jewish.
FK: "In the broad sense, all of the Gospels were written to all believers."
Then, I believe they would have followed the steps in which +Paul does "first the Jew then the Gentile" and naturally would have written the Gospels in Hebrew, and would have used Hebrew canon rather than the Septuagint.
They did follow those steps. Weren't the mission journeys in both Luke 9 and 10 only to the Jews? Matthew was probably written in Hebrew, and as you like to note, there were plenty of Jews who could understand Greek. If we believe that the Bible is truly a timeless work, then we have to say that it was written generally to all believers. I would agree that in cases it appears that some audiences are more targeted than others, but I still think all applies to us generally.
The Alexandrians were closer to an NIV Dynamic translation. They were not as concerned with 100% literal accuracy as they were with conveying thoughts. It wasn't a big deal to insert books they thought were valuable - even if they were not a part of the Hebrew Canon.
That makes perfect sense.
But the fact that the New Testament writers used this version on many occasions supplies a new proof in opposition to the idea of its authority, for in not a few places they do not follow it, but they supply a version of their own which rightly represents the Hebrew text, although contradicting the Septuagint. ..
I zoomed in on this part. The authors obviously knew Hebrew so they did have a choice at any time.
Thanks for the great reference.
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.