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/
It is significant to note that the 1881 Westcott-Hort edition of the Greek New Testament actually reflects the closest approach to a “pure Alexandrian” text edition that has ever been created. The later editions of Nestle and others, including the identical text of the current Nestle-Aland 26th-27th editions and UBS 3rd-4th editions fail to preserve the “pure” Alexandrian character of the text in as sharp a manner as did Westcott and Hort, who relied primarily on the joint testimony of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B) in contradistinction to the assimilation of readings from manuscripts of other texttypes which is consistently practiced according to the eclectic principles espoused by the framers of the modern critical editions.
The current text found in the Nestle-Aland 26-27 and UBS 3-4 editions is actually an “eclectic” text, which reflects editorial choice among variant readings found in ALL known manuscripts and texttypes. Even though the current critical texts stand primarily in alignment with the Alexandrian manuscripts and in opposition to the Textform (Byzantine/Majority) found in most Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the modern critical editions at best represent a “halfway house” between two opposing document-based schools of New Testament Greek textual criticism. They thus present a predominantly Alexandri an text “compromised” with numerous “Byzantine” readings (now shown to be ancient by many early papyri).
Most of the readings wherein the Nestle-Aland 26-27/UBS 3-4 text differs from that of Westcott-Hort actually reflect a turn toward selected Byzantine readings, primarily because these supposedly “late” readings (so deprecated by Westcott and Hort) are now proven to be early thanks to their discovery in various early papyrus documents
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/biblia/gnt/index.htm
Well, if it was inspired scripture, then why didn't they use it in all cases. I found Blogger's 11,196 (along with the full linked article) very helpful in answering questions like these. Again, it's not a matter of declaring the Septuagint to be all error, just that it is not inerrant, thus disqualifying it from being scripture. It is reasonable to assume that when the Apostles saw clear error they did not quote from it.
Hmmmm...this verse (Eze 18:4) has nothing to do with the Trinitarian imo. "All souls are mine" seems rather all inclusive since we all have souls.
Kosta, I'm not sure what to make of all this. Without trying to get too personal, which is rather hard to do, you've stated you don't believe in the inspiration of the scriptures calling them into question, you have serious misgivings (to put it kindly) about Apostles' writings saying they were bias and filled with errors, and now you question the Trinity. Some of these are fundamental principles even for the Orthodox Church. Yet you maintain you're Orthodox. Do you just go for the pot lucks? If so you might consider becoming a Baptist. We have a lot more food although it's not as savory.
Did anyone live? No one follows the law.
...Are we to believe now that this was not true because +Paul says none is righteous?
And Paul is correct.
As for the comment that the Alexandrian text is "compromised" with Byzantine variations, the same can be said of the whole Codex Alexandrinus.
Despite your claim that I am behind on this issue, there is a surprising lack of balanced (non-biased, non-Protestant) scholary agreement on the "theory" that the older Alexandrian-type text is somewhow "junk" and the Byzantine-type is the one and true version, or that the KJV is the Bible. The KJV is anything but that.
Exactly the message of the Gospel.
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." -- Hebrews 9:14-15"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
There is unity and transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament, by the will and work of God. Men cannot justify themselves or perform works that will save them. Only the blood of the Son of God can save sinners who have been purchased with so great a price.
All determined by God, for God, through God, from before the foundation of the world according to His good pleasure for the glory of His name and the welfare of His children.
Rejoice, Christians. Jesus Christ has overcome the world.
The Apostles considered it Scripture. They quote from it. They use is as Scriputre (OT). The number of verses where they quote verses different from those of the Pharisaical bible is astaunding, and so is the Protestant denial:
Be your own witness.
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.
Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."
Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.
Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.
Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).
Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength."
Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.
Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.
John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.
John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"
John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.
Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke.
Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety.
Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers "were gathered together." Hebrew - rulers "take counsel together."
Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says "seventy-five" souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - "seventy" people went.
Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses "ruler" and judge; killed the Egyptian "yesterday." Hebrew - uses "prince" and there is no reference to "yesterday."
Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of "Moloch" and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - "your king," shrine, and star of your god.
Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression...he was taken away.
Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you "scoffers" and wonder and "perish." Hebrew - you "among the nations," and "be astounded."
Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of "men." Hebrew - the remnant of "Edom."
Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Hebrew - blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).
Rom. 3:4 / Psalm 51:4 - thou mayest "prevail" (or overcome) when thou art judged. Hebrew - thou might "be clear" when thou judges.
Rom. 3:12 / Psalm 14:1,3 - they "have gone wrong." Hebrew - they are "corrupt" or "filthy."
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9 - they use their tongues to deceive. Hebrew - they flatter with their tongues. There is no "deceit" language.
Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 140:3 - the venom of "asps" is under their lips. Hebrew - "Adder's" poison is under their lips.
Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 - whose mouth is full of curses and "bitterness." Hebrew - cursing and "deceit and oppression."
Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 - my power "in you"; my name may be "proclaimed." Hebrew - show "thee"; may name might be "declared."
Rom. 9:25 / Hosea 2:23 - I will call my people; I will call my beloved. Hebrew - I will have mercy (love versus mercy).
Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 - only a remnant of them "will be saved." Hebrew - only a remnant of them "will return."
Rom. 9:29 / Isaiah 1:9 - had not left us "children." Hebrew - Jehova had left us a "very small remnant."
Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16 - he who believes will not be "put to shame." Hebrew - shall not be "in haste."
Rom. 10:18 / Psalm 19:4 - their "voice" has gone out. Hebrew - their "line" is gone out.
Rom. 10:20 / Isaiah 65:1 - I have "shown myself" to those who did not ask for me. Hebrew - I am "inquired of" by them.
Rom. 10:21 / Isaiah 65:2 - a "disobedient and contrary" people. Hebrew - a "rebellious" people.
Rom. 11:9-10 / Psalm 69:22-23 - "pitfall" and "retribution" and "bend their backs." Hebrew - "trap" and "make their loins shake."
Rom. 11:26 / Isaiah 59:20 - will banish "ungodliness." Hebrew - turn from "transgression."
Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9 - when I take away their sins. Hebrew - this is all the fruit of taking away his sin.
Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 / Isaiah 40:13 -the "mind" of the Lord; His "counselor." Hebrew - "spirit" of the Lord; "taught" Him.
Rom. 12:20 / Prov. 25:21 - feed him and give him to drink. Hebrew - give him "bread" to eat and "water" to drink.
Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10 - the root of Jesse..."to rule the Gentiles." Hebrew - stands for an ensign. There is nothing about the Gentiles.
Rom. 15:21 / Isaiah 52:15 - been told "of him"; heard "of him." Hebrew - does not mention "him" (the object of the prophecy).
1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 - "I will destroy" the wisdom of the wise. Hebrew - wisdom of their wise men "shall perish."
1 Cor. 5:13 / Deut. 17:7 - remove the "wicked person." Hebrew - purge the "evil." This is more generic evil in the MT.
1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14 - O death, where is thy "sting?" Hebrew - O death, where are your "plagues?"
2 Cor. 4:13 / Psalm 116:10 - I believed and so I spoke (past tense). Hebrew - I believe, for I will speak (future tense).
2 Cor. 6:2 / Isaiah 49:8 - I have "listened" to you. Hebrew - I have "answered" you.
Gal. 3:10 / Deut. 27:26 - cursed be every one who does not "abide" by all things. Hebrew - does not "confirm" the words.
Gal. 3:13 / Deut. 21:23 - cursed is everyone who hangs on a "tree." Hebrew - a hanged man is accursed. The word "tree" does not follow.
Gal. 4:27 / Isaiah 54:1 - "rejoice" and "break forth and shout." Hebrew - "sing" and "break forth into singing."
2 Tim. 2:19 / Num. 16:5 - The Lord "knows" those who are His. Hebrew - God will "show" who are His.
Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43 - let all the angels of God worship Him. Hebrew - the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.
Heb. 1:12 / Psalm 102:25 - like a "mantle" ... "roll them"... "will be changed." Hebrew - "raiment"... "change"..."pass away."
Heb. 2:7 / Psalm 8:5 - thou has made Him a little "lower than angels." Hebrew - made Him but a little "lower than God."
Heb. 2:12 / Psalm 22:22 - I will " sing" thy praise. Hebrew - I will praise thee. The LXX and most NTs (but not the RSV) have "sing."
Heb. 2:13 / Isaiah 8:17 - I will "put my trust in Him." Hebrew - I will "look for Him."
Heb. 3:15 / Psalm 95:8 - do not harden your hearts as "in the rebellion." Hebrew - harden not your hearts "as at Meribah."
Heb. 3:15; 4:7 / Psalm 95:7 - when you hear His voice do not harden not your hearts. Hebrew - oh that you would hear His voice!
Heb. 8:9-10 / Jer. 31:32-33 - (nothing about husband); laws into their mind. Hebrew - I was a husband; law in their inward parts.
Heb. 9:28 / Isaiah 10:22 - "to save those" who are eagerly awaiting for Him. Hebrew - a remnant of them "shall return."
Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6 - "but a body hast thou prepared for me." Hebrew - "mine ears hast thou opened."
Heb. 10:38 / Hab. 2:3-4 - if he shrinks (or draws) back, my soul shall have no pleasure. Hebrew - his soul is puffed up, not upright.
Heb. 11:5 / Gen. 5:24 - Enoch was not "found." Hebrew - Enoch was "not."
Heb. 11:21 / Gen. 47:31 - Israel, bowing "over the head of his staff." Hebrew - there is nothing about bowing over the head of his staff.
Heb. 12:6 / Prov. 3:12 - He chastises every son whom He receives. Hebrew - even as a father the son in whom he delights.
Heb. 13:6 / Psalm 118:6 - the Lord "is my helper." Hebrew - Jehova "is on my side." The LXX and the NT are identical.
James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to the lowly.
1 Peter 1:24 / Isaiah 40:6 - all its "glory" like the flower. Hebrew - all the "goodliness" as the flower.
1 Pet. 2:9 / Exodus 19:6 - you are a "royal priesthood." Hebrew - you shall be to me a "kingdom of priests."
1 Pet. 2:9 / Isaiah 43:21 - God's own people...who called you out of darkness. Heb. - which I formed myself. These are different actions.
1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9 - he "committed no sin." Hebrew - he "had done no violence."
1 Pet. 4:18 / Prov. 11:31 - if a righteous man "is scarcely saved." Hebrew - if the righteous "is recompensed."
1 Pet. 5:5 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to lowly.
Isaiah 11:2 - this verse describes the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the seventh gift, "piety," is only found in the Septuagint.
Ref http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
If any of these agree with the KJV or any current English Bible, that means you are reading Septuagint as Scriputre and not the Hebrew Bible. And I can tell you Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 in YOUR Bible is from the Septuagint!
Yes, I would say so as well, but apparently it's not, HD. Read on and it says "and that of the father, and of the son..." If it is "all inclusive" then the rest is silly redundancy. "All" would include "that of the father and of the son."
you have serious misgivings (to put it kindly) about Apostles' writings saying they were bias[ed] and filled with errors, and now you question the Trinity."
I don't question the Holy Trinity. I am asking how does a statement "Father is greater than I [Christ]" or "God is the head of Christ" explain thre co-equal Hypostases.
As for the rest, regarding Apostles, etc., I look at it from all angels and always mindful that human hands and human mind altered a lot of what is supposed to be the word of God. As for you, you question the Septuagint as Scripture because the denomination you identify with does, and you apparentyl share their opinion.
Yet you maintain you're Orthodox.
Yes, I am. I also defer everything to the Church as the lawful and only representative of the Faith once delievered. Thus, no matter what I say, I never maintain that I am correct and the Church is not. Rather, the other way around. But that doesn't mean I will simply follow someone's opinion.
Do you just go for the pot lucks?
Actually, I don't.
If so you might consider becoming a Baptist
Why? because I can believe whatever I want and eat all I can?
So, then you make Eze 18:5-9 is deceitful.
And Paul is correct
So, God waited until +Paul to tell the Gentiles the truth? What does that make of God's saying in Eze 18?
If +Paul is correct, then Ezekiel must be wrong.
There is nothing deceitful in God's message. He gives men an honest choice, obey or death. Trouble is men always choose death. If you break one commandment you break them all. But no matter how many times God resets the clock to give us "another chance", we will still break His commandments. You're focus solely upon Eze 18 whereas you need to focus on Eze 36:26. Ezekiel 18 is the law. Ezekiel 36 is grace.
And Paul understood the difference.
Drama, drama, drama.
Eze 36 is about the Jews. Do not think it concerns you.
"Then will you dwell in the land that I gave your fathers, and you will be a people to Me, and I will be to you as a God" [Tanach, Yechezkiel 36:24, 28]
All we know for sure is that they approved of some of it, or maybe even the vast majority of it. Quoting several lines does not say that they believed the whole thing was inspired. I'm sure we could quote passages from Mormon writings with approval, but that doesn't mean we accept their texts as scripture. If they did accept all of it as scripture, then why did they not quote from it exclusively?
I read through your whole list and while there are clear differences, I did not see any major contradictions. The principles are still the same. I can read the NIV or the KJV (or others) and be fully confident in any of them.
And I can tell you Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 in YOUR Bible is from the Septuagint!
No argument here. That's what it says. Here is the note in my Bible on Is. 7:14 :
God's sign to Ahaz was that of a virgin and her son, who would not be more than 12 to 14 years old before Syria and Israel would be captured in 722 B.C. (When the prophecy was spoken, it probably referred to the woman, a virgin at that time, who Isaiah took later as his second wife, 8:1-4, his first wife presumably having died after the birth of Shear-Jashub, 7:3.) The virgin of Isaiah's prophecy is a type of the virgin Mary, who, by the Holy Spirit, miraculously conceived Jesus Christ. See Matt 1:23. The Hebrew word here that is translated "virgin" is found elsewhere in the OT in Gen. 24:43, Ex. 2:8, Ps. 68:25, Prov. 30:19, Song 1:3, 6:8, and in those instances refers only to a chaste maiden who is unmarried.
Is there any way to know that for certain? How do we know that many or most of these were not taken from the New Testament and just inserted into the Septuagint during the New Testament period, or during some of the revisions of the Septuagint, rather than vice versa???
Are the readings here from the Septuagint of Codex B, or Sinaiticus, or Alexandrinus or some later revisions? Hasn't the Septuagint been under revision for 2000 years and no one is really sure just what the pre-Origen Septuagint really was???
Hardly a few lines, FK. I have posted several sources that show clearly this is not so, yet you never commented on them (which is fine with me), such as this one.
The most important thing is precisely Matt 1:23 because ALL Christian Bibles agree with the Septuagint against the Hebrew Bible. If we take exception from something, according to your own logic, it must not be inerrant. And Matt 1:23 is not the only one.
It is easy to show that the Septuagint was used predominantly by the Apostles as Scripture, and is the norm. The Hebrew (Pharisaical version) of the Jewish Scripture is the exception.
Well the KJV that I use was translated from the Hebrew text and it reads "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, so that verse proves nothing.
My question is still a legitimate one. What is the pedigree of today's Septuagint from which these verses are quoted? Can the Septuagint of today be traced back to the Septuagint of the first century, particularly where these readings are concerned.
Is it true that all of today's Septuagints are revisions of the Septuagint in Codex B with no earlier pedigree? And how many of these have been revised further with readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Well, obviously that verse was not translated from Hebrew. All Septuagint versions say "virgin" while none of the Hebrew ones do.
And how many of these have been revised further with readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that Judaism did not have only one canon and textual traditions. The oldest LXX codices date back to 3rd century BC and they differ from the Masoretic version.
Al this is irrelevant. The Apostles used the Septuagint as a norm. Obviously they took exception to the LXX as they have to the MT. Either these exceptions are significant in which case neither version is the inerrant word of God, or these variations are irrelevant in which canse either one is as good as the other. The example of Matt 1:23 shows that they are not irrelevant, and our preference in that regard is clear.
4. Reconstruction of Original [Septuagint] Text:
"The task of reconstructing the Oldest text is still unaccomplished. Materials have accumulated, and much preliminary "spade-work" has been done, by Lagarde in particular (see his "axioms" in Swete, Introduction, 484,) and more recently by Nestle and Rahlfs; but the principles which the editor must follow are not yet finally determined. The extent to which "mixture" has affected the documents is the stumbling-block. Clearly no single Moabite Stone presents the oldest text. That of codex B, as in the New Testament, is on the whole the purest. In the 4 books of "Reigns" (1 Samuel through 2 Kings), e.g., it has escaped the grosser interpolations found in most manuscripts, and Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, I, 1904) regards its text as pre-Origenic. It is, however, of unequal value and by no means an infallible guide; in Judges, e.g., its text is undoubtedly late, no earlier than the 4th century AD, according to one authority (Moore," Jgs," ICC). In relation to two of the 4th-century recensions its text is neutral, neither predominantly Lucianic nor Hexaplaric; but it has been regarded by some authorities as Hesychian. Possibly the recension made in the country which produced the Septuagint adhered more closely than others to the primitive text; some "Hesychian" features in the B text may prove to be original. Still even its purest portions contain marks of editorial revision and patent corruptions. Codex Alexandrinus presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text. In the books of "Reigns" it is practically a Hexaplaric text without the critical signs, the additional matter being mainly derived from Aquila. Yet that it contains an ancient element is shown by the large support given to its readings by the New Testament and early Christian writers. Individual manuscripts must give place to groups. In order to reconstruct the texts current before Origen's time, it is necessary to isolate the groups containing the three 4th-century recensions, and to eliminate from the recensions thus recovered all Hexaplaric matter and such changes as appear to have been introduced by the authors of those recensions. Other groups brought to light by the larger Cambridge text have also to be taken into account. The attempt to Renetrate into the earlier stages of the history is the hardest task. The Old Latin version is here the surest guide; it has preserved readings which have disappeared from all Greek manuscripts, and affords a criterion as to the relative antiquity of the Greek variants. The evidence of early Christian and Jewish citations is also valuable. Ultimately, after elimination of all readings proved to be "recensional" or late, the decision between outstanding variants must depend on internal evidence. These variants will fall into two classes:
"(1) those merely affecting the Greek text, by far the larger number and presenting less difficulty; (2) those which imply a different Hebrew text. In adjudicating on the latter Lagarde's main axioms have to be borne in mind, that a free translation is to be preferred to a slavishly literal one, and a translation presupposing another Hebrew original to one based on the Massoretic Text."
So if the Codex Alexandrinus Septuagint presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text, then why isn't the Septuagint in Codex Alexandrinus the standard text among Septuagint Onlyists instead of the Septuagint of Codex B??? or is it disregarded in favor of Codex B because it does approximate the Masoretic Text???
According to one authority. Brilliant. Very convincing.
What everyone seems to ignore (as much as possible it seems) is that no matter how you turn it around, the Apostles used what appears to be (whatever version) of the Septuagint that was used at that time among some Jews. Obviously, they had no issues with it being Scripture. Obviously, in only six instances did they prefer clearly the Hebrew (Pharisaical) version of the OT as opposed to that of the LXX.
Clearly, the Apostles built their wiritngs on the Septuagint standard in a majority of cases and rejecting the Hebrew text also in a majority of cases.
So if the Codex Alexandrinus Septuagint presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text, then why isn't the Septuagint in Codex Alexandrinus the standard text among Septuagint Onlyists instead of the Septuagint of Codex B???
Codex Alexandrinus is Byzantine-type text when it comes to Gospels. The rest is Alexandrian-type text (i.e. like the one found in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). It is also considered the least reliable version of the three.
Part of the problem is that you have second and early third century recensions of the Septuagint, just as the Hebrew Bible underwent recenssion by using those accent marks the anti-Christian rabbis preferred.
The three major OT translations from hebrew into Greek that masquerade as 'versions' of the LXX are that of Aquila, a convert to Christianity who then converted to Judaism (after being accused of witchraft!). How seriously can one take such a version? The other version was by Symmachus, an Ebonite, and therefore no different than, say Gnostics or for that matter modern-day LDS. Is this something to seriously consider as a valid Christian translation?
The last one was a Hellenized Jews, Theodotion (early 3rd century) whose work is actually quoted in Jerome's work. Because he was himself a Christian, and lived in or near Ephesus, which was pretty much the center of Christianity at that time, his work was available and naturally used and copied by most Christians there.
Was he inspired? I doubt it. Even the publishers of the KJV admit they were not inspired. The first copies of the KJV contained numerous, numerous errors. So did the first three version of Textus Receptus.
Dies this invalidate anything? No, of course not. It only makes it Scripture less than "inerrant" in the literal sense. But that still doesn't change the fact that the Apostles built the NT canon as Scripture on the Septuagint version and not on the Palestinian (Pharisaical) Hebrew version, the six eceptions notwithstanding.
The source you cite here has 320 quotes, including multiple repeats. The author goes on to say "One word of caution: I am no expert in Greek". Warning noted. :)
I have posted several sources that show clearly this is not so, yet you never commented on them (which is fine with me), such as this one.
I don't know that I've passed on anything you've written directly to me. I may have passed on commenting on pings because I am like the author. :)
The most important thing is precisely Matt 1:23 because ALL Christian Bibles agree with the Septuagint against the Hebrew Bible. If we take exception from something, according to your own logic, it must not be inerrant.
I don't see it as an exception or a contradiction. The Hebrew allows for a virgin, a chaste young woman. When the prophecy was spoken it probably referred to who would become Isaiah's second wife. The virgin here is a type of the Virgin Mary.
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.