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/
How is the way of an eagle in the air and the way of a ship in the sea like the way of an adulterous woman???
It's not. But being with a promiscious maid is. Let's just say, for some people thatr might be a dream-come-true.
Nonetheless, we are digressing from almah being with a man and with Barnes claiming almah appears only twice in the OT.
He doesn't say that. Here is what he says:
"The word here translated a virgin, is applied to Rebekah (Gen 24:43), and to Miriam, the sister of Moses, Ex 2:8. It occurs in only seven places in the Old Testament. Besides those already mentioned, it is found in Ps 68:25; Song 1:3; 6:8; and Prov 30:19. In all these places, except, perhaps, in Proverbs, it is used in its obvious natural sense, to denote a young, unmarried female."
Proverbs 30:19 not only uses almah in a context that makes is not God's special purpose, but also clearly NOT as a virgin.
Thank you also, Kosta, for a very informative and civil discussion. Well, Strong's has almah in this verse, so I have to admit that I can't explain why Barnes said it was only two. It's usually pretty trusty. :) In any event, the use of almah here in Proverbs can be seen as requiring a reference to a virgin. Here is an interpretation from the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary :
"Proverbs 30:18-19 There be three (things) ... yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man with a maid - as all these afford no clue to their mode of action. "The way of a man (geber: a mighty or wanton man) with a maid," whom he is trying to seduce, is so subtle that it baffles penetration. Inexperienced females must not rely on their own wisdom and strength of resolution, as securing them from evil, when they place themselves in positions of danger. The depths of nature symbolize the depths of Satan and his agents. The eagle flies upward, without turnings. like other birds, and soars so high that the eye cannot trace his "way." The serpent, though without feet or wings, trails along the rock wheresoever it will, leaving no impression of its way. The ship, notwithstanding its bulk, speedily traverse many miles leaving no track in the water. So the man who is passionately bent on gratifying his lust after a virgin, adopts varied devices which cannot be traced out fully in detail. The movements of all four are light, gliding, without noise, quick, and the mode unknown to us. Thus the sense gives no sanction to the Jews' use of this verse to deny that halmah, in Isa 7:14, means a virgin: if she were not so, there would be no miracle in that passage." (emphasis added)
I also see the reason in Brown's commenatry regarding Prov. 30:19 as well, "there would be no miracle in that passage," altough I can see alternative perceptions.
The virginity of almah is a given, but it is neither the focus nor a special favor, it seems, of hers. Mary's viginity, on the other hand, is absolutely the focus and a special favor.
It's like mentioning a 5-year-old girl. Her innocense is presumed and her (non-existent) sexuality is irrelevant.
With other two terms, betuwlah and naarah, it seems, the virginity is asserted and is in context of who the woman is, as regards her sexuality.
Going back to Isa 7:14, in the Hebrew version there is nothing to imply that (1) the Lord was speaking to her (the 'you' is plural), (2) that the conception was immaculate, (3) that she will remain virgin after 'coceiving in the womb.' In the Septuagint, all these are definitely implied and present.
The problem is, if the Septuagint is a retro-written forgery made to fit seamlessly the New Testament, as Paul kahle claims, then we have a problem on our hands since there is nothing in the form of prophecy (in the context of the Hebrew version) to suggest Isaiah was speaking of Christ.
And what you are ignoring is the fact that there is no proof of any BC Septuagint even existing.
When Origen made his copy of the Septuagint he had a copy of the New Testament in front of him and simply made the Old Testament verse match the New Testament one.
Now stop talking as if you have proof of anything-you don't.
You don't need a Greek Septuagint to know that Mary was a virgin, that is, a woman who hadn't 'known' a man. (Lk.1:34 cf Gen.24:16)
There are no Septuagint 'books' that have been found older then the New Testament.
The copy of Isaiah that was found was in Hebrew, not Greek.
The only BC evidence of any Greek Old Testament writings are some fragments from the Torah.
"For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator. [Augustine:City of God;Book XX;Chapter 43]
If that is one's attitude regarding the work of a translator, then it is not far-fetched to believe that Origen, the notoriuous master of forgeries, who was never bound by any text, and owed nothing to its words, would have simply made the words of his fifth column conform to the New Testament manuscripts which we all know he was also inspired to creatively emend as the spirit moved him.
So, while I acknowledge your Septuagint denials, I do not take them seriously. If you are going to deny everything, why bother joining the thread? If you are going to use margins among scholars who have an agenda (like Paul Kahle, a Lutheran scholar of the Hebrew bible, for instance), it's better not to even post anything because such views do not lead to any further discussion or learning.
The fact is that the Apostles used something other than the Hebrew bible (if we can speak of individual scrolls as the "Bible" that is). Whatever they used they considered it Scripture. The fact is there are Greek-language fragments of the Old Testament that pre-date Christ. Chances are the Greek-speaking Jews used them, as no known Greeks before Christ showed much interest in Judaism.
Josephus quotes from and mentions the Septuagint in the first century. He claims it consisted only of the Torah, but Josephus was a Pharisee and definitely not a Christian, and therefore is not an unbiased source. Philo mentions it too.
So, there was something as early as 70 AD that was called the "Septuagint." As far as I know, there were no copy-right laws or quality controls. It took the Church 300 years to agree on which scrolls of some 200 in existence at that time comproised the Christian canon, and many churches in the meanintime used noncanonical or even non-Christian sources as inspired texts!
Various copyists and versions of the Greek Old Testament found their way into the Christian world without anyone being able to compare it to some other versions.
Theodotian was a Christian convert who lived in the middle of the Christian Ephesus.When he rendered his 3rd century OT translation of the Hebrew OT in Greek, the Christians and Greek speaking Jews probably said "Great! We now have the Scripture in Greek to read." It's not like someone had all these cross-references to check for factual errors before it was released into the general circulation.
Most of the faithful today would not be able to distinguish a Gnostic text from a genuine gospel. Most people are not that well read and educated in biblical studies, myself included, to be able to say "Aha! this must be one of those versions made by Aquila because of Semiticisms and language style!" Most people would make nothing of a marginal or textual insertion of a Hebrew word here and there, even if they could read Greek and Hebrew.
But, the Church did not develop on what was written in any particular version of the Bible. The Church was teaching the New Testament orally for decades after Christ, and only committed to writing the Gospels from memory towards the latter half of the first century.
St. John Chrysostom in his Homily observes that God's truth was not meant to be written down, but that our corruption made it necessary.
In other words, the Church was aware that not everyone who wrote biblical "stuff" in those days was inspired and filled with Spirit, and therefore what we have, from the copies of the original Gospels is but a human rendition of what used to be inspired and is now made corrupt with various authors and scribes.
So, the written word becomes "second best," for God did not write the books of Moses; Moses did, not for himself, but for the idolatrous Jews. Christ did not write for his disciples but they did for us.
And then we copied them and copied them and are still copying them in endless and imperfect versions. Does that mean we have to reject or deny them? No, because we have textual criticism to arrive at some semblance of the 'true' version, even if such a version does not exist, just like the LXX.
The Chruch can preserve the truth only through those who are specially blessed, who see the truth and hear the truth. The same goes for Judaism, for nothing written exists before 500 BC. We simply trust that whatever was preserved orally and in fragments was carried from generation to generation of the saints, beginning with Moses. Those who are pure in heart did not receive the written Word. Thus, the faith delivered by Christ was never incumbent on the word written and copied by the uninspired.
So then are you saying that the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity rests on the Septuagint's translation here? That might explain the doctrinal agenda underlying the propagation of the myths of the Septuagint by those in the church who adhere to the Doctrine of PV.
The dilemma you are left with is two-fold. If the Jews removed "bethuwlah" from Isaiah 7:14 and replaced it with "almah", they would have done it when? after the new faith was growing, right? at the Council of Jamnia or afterwards, right? But they didn't because the DSS turned up a complete Hebrew Book of Isaiah, a copy that dates back to atleast 100 BC, and the word "almah" is in that copy in that verse.
So then the other dilemma that you are left with is whether the Greek word "parthenos" is the proper translation of the Hebrew word "almah" in the Septuagint. If it is not, then the Greek translators erred in their work, and those who are trusting in the Septuagint are trusting in a flawed document. So which is it --- an accurate rendering or a flawed translation?
The easiest thing for any defender of a BC Septuagint is to supply some actual proof of its existance, not rhetoric.
The Septuagint was never even regarded as a single translation of the Old Testament, but only the first five books.
There is no historical evidence of any BC work existing-period.
What is used today (Origen's 5th column), is regarded by any objective scholar as a being a very uneven translation, some books being mere paraphrases of the Hebrew Books.
The best that you can do is come up is with a Torah in 70 AD.
The Apostles never quoted from any 'Septugaint' since none existed.
The fact is that some 544 changes were made back to the TR from the WH readings in the 26th edition in the NA.
Being a 'Protestant' doesn't change those facts.
As you observe, the DSS prvoe that the rabbis at Jamnia did not change anything (there was no reason to change!).
You do not consider what most scholars assert: that the Septuagint is a variant of Jewish scriptural tradition. Yet I am sure you do recognize that there are koine Greek fragments of OT material that date back to the third century BC onward that differ from the Hebrew version.
Do you have any clue why would there be 3rd century BC OT fragments in koine Greek? Or did your biblical periphery, Paul Kahle 'establish' they were 'forgeries' as well?
You are obviously discounting the possibility that perhaps the Apostles used the Septuagint scrolls precisely because they were prophetic as compared to the Hebrew version.
Perhaps that's why those following the Hebrew version did not recongize Christ, and those who read the Septuagint did.
And there were how many errors in the first edition of the TR, starting with the title Instrumentum vs. Testamentum. How many errors were in the first edition of the KJV?
Being a 'Protestant' doesn't change those facts
It changes everything.
There are koine Greek fragments going back to the second century BC of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs numbers 801, 819, and 957), and the first century BC fragments including Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs numbers 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).
Besides, there are no OT fragments of any kind older than 500 BC. Does that mean ther was no OT before that? If we are to follow marginal Prostestant biblical thinkers, such as Paul Kahle, there wasn't!
Could these variants be what Jesus referred to as "traditions that make the word of God of no effect". Variants are like mutations --- they weaken the species. The Jews were zealous for the accuracy of their original scriptures. Variants were were destroyed and buried so as to not be passed on to later generations.
Yet I am sure you do recognize that there are koine Greek fragments of OT material that date back to the third century BC onward that differ from the Hebrew version.
Most of the fragments are from the Pentateuch, and since they follow the Hebrew text very closely, they are evidence that the first five books may very well have been authoritatively translated --- but that's all. Fragments from the other books are said to be poorly translated and loose paraphrases which means that amateurs were making haphazard attempts but failed. Furthermore if these fragments were found in Cave 4, where 40% of the fragments of the DSS came from, they have to be seriously questioned, since that is believed to have been the place where things were discarded not stored. The Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah, for example, was preserved in a jar because it was valuable.
Perhaps that's why those following the Hebrew version did not recongize Christ, and those who read the Septuagint did.
Actually the Hellenistic Jews who would have been the ones reading the Septuagint were just as violent against the new faith as those in Jerusalem who would have adhered to the Hebrew text.
And let's think about it. If you want to find out if something is true, you would go to the source. The Bereans may have checked their Greek copy of the prophets to see if what Paul told them was true, but then being true Bereans, they would have then checked the Greek translation against the Hebrew text to make sure. Isn't that how you would do it?
There is no reason to believe or prove He was talking about the Septuagint. We do know, within the context, that He was assailing the practices based on man-made traditions of the Pharisees, and not of Scriptures.
they have to be seriously questioned, since that is believed to have been the place where things were discarded not stored. The Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah, for example, was preserved in a jar because it was valuable.
Why burry them rather than destroy them? The OT seems to suggest that your enemies, who are ungodly, be annihilated, children and live stock included. Why would ungodly writings be preserved?
They could have been there being sorted out, translated, or copied. Maybe they didn't have enough jars for all of them.
Actually the Hellenistic Jews who would have been the ones reading the Septuagint were just as violent against the new faith as those in Jerusalem
Of course. They did not buy into the new faith. The Septuagint does not teach a "new faith." The "new faith" came from the tachings of St. Paul. Christ was not executed for the "new faith" but for claiming that He is the Son of God (in other words, blaspheming). He was not accused of "new faith."
But "new faith" is the key word. Christianity ceased to be Judaism when St. Paul stepped on the stage, dropped circumcision and dietary laws. If anything was choregraphed for a seamless biblical text it was the New Testament, not the Old one.
Christians are to the Jews what Mormons are to the Christians. The "new faith" changed the whole concept of God, and Scriptures, in both cases. Just as one cannot be a Jew and a Christian, one cannot be a Christian and a Mormon, or a Christian and a Muslim.
That seems to be one of those truisms many people repeat (like almah being mentioned only twice), but they are simply echoing someone else who hasn't read both source.
Here is a comparison from Genesis 4, v 7 (in Tanach it's verses 6 and 7).
| 7Have you not sinned if you have brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? Be still, to you shall be his submission, and you shall rule over him.” [LXX] | 6 And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it." [Tanach] |
BTW that TANACH translation sounds like it was done by the NIV translators. Here is a better one from Mechon-Mamre.org:
" 5 but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6 And the LORD said unto Cain: 'Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, but thou mayest rule over it.'"
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.