'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

I truly regret your testimony that you do not recognize Paul’s words as Scripture, kosta50. Moreover, I regret your testimony that you do not know the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I do know Him, personally, and Christ through Him, personally – and have known Him for nigh onto a half century - not as concepts, but as Persons.

Evidently you cannot receive this, nevertheless to those who also know Him I testify that the indwelling Spirit (John 15-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2) authenticates both Peter’s testimony and Paul’s epistles:

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. – 2 Peter 3:14-16

Again, I aver it is crucial to understand the specially announced name of God, i.e. the Rock.

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

After all, that passage is in the “Song of Moses” which will be sung in heaven:

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4

As to antiquity, Deuteronomy is the second most copied book at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) – 33 copies, second only to Psalms. Some are copied in fragments like literature, poems or hymns. However, generally speaking, carbon dating of manuscripts at Qumran establish true antiquity of copies at several centuries B.C.

The Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies does not mention any change to the Masoretic Text needed with reference to Deuteronomy 32:1-4. However, although we do have a non-MT Hebrew version of Deutoronomy 32 from cave 4, 4QDt(q) – it only contains lines 37-43. So we cannot read anything into an omission here in comparing DSS to LXX.

But as to the faithfulness of the Torah itself there is no question. As I have already testified, the indwelling Spirit authenticates Scripture and leads us into Truth. (John 14, 15):

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

For a good summary of the antiquity of the Torah manuscripts, from IBSS :

The basic Hebrew text is called the Masoretic Text (MT), which is named after a group of scribes in the ninth century that preserved the text and added vowels and punctuation marks. The original Hebrew just had consonants, but a few consonants functioned as vowels. No one would know how to pronounce the Hebrew words unless vowels marks were added. This is a great help in understanding the text. (Hebrew Bible)

There were three different tasks of copying the OT. The Sopherim wrote the consonantal text. The Nakdanim added the vowel points and accents. The Masoretes added the marginal notes. An example is the Kethib (what is written) and Qere (what should be read). There are over 1,300 of these. The vowels of the Qere were written in the text of the Kethib. There are three different systems of vowel pointing, the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian which the Masoretes created. The marginal notes called Masora were mainly written in Aramaic and were like a concordance.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Nash Papyrus was the oldest known witness to the OT which dated to the first or second century AD. It contained the decalogue. The second oldest were the Cairo Geniza fragments (about 200,000) which date to the fifth century AD (See Princeton Geniza Project). Most of these are in the Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Today the oldest known text of the OT was discovered in 1979 in tombs across the Hinnom valley from Jerusalem. The text is the benediction of Aaron (Numbers 6:24-26) written on a silver amulet from the 7th century BC (Hoerth 1998, 386).

The oldest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible is the Codex Leningradensis which dates to 1008 AD. A Facsimile edition of this great codex is now available (Leningrad Codex 1998, Eerdmans for $225). The BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) follows this codex. The most comprehensive collection of old Hebrew manuscripts is in the Russian Public Library in St. Petersburg formerly called Leningrad. Another important text is the Aleppo Codex which is now in Jerusalem. The HUB (Hebrew University Bible) follows the Aleppo Codex. The Isaiah and Jeremiah editions are now available. For a more detailed study see The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein and Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.

The Nash Papyrus dating has been pushed back to approximately 200 BC (Hebrew manuscript collection - University of Cambridge Cambridge University Library) Like the DSS, it contains fragments of Deuteronomy, but not the one we are seeking here.

Nevertheless, the Jews always understood their responsibility to keep the Torah:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deu 4:2

For Lurkers:

The Hebrew Alphabet wrt the history of the signs and the care in forming letters in Holy Scriptures.

Ancient Hebrew Translation Project - wrt the translation of poetic form v mechanical v literal

Amen. This is either true, or Scripture is false.

We can debate the genuineness of someone's knowledge, whether or not it is truly of the Holy Spirit, but we can never disallow that this is the means by which the Holy Spirit moves throughout Scripture, throughout our lives and throughout history.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." -- 1 John 4:1-6

Interesting that you should say so, because Peter does:

He says that Sha'ul's writings are Scripture, and I agree with him. However, the Jews have a slightly different view of canonicity than we do. To most Christians, something is simply either canon or its not. To a Jew, all the Tanakh (and to a Messianic Jew, all the NT as well) is inspired and canon, but there are still differing levels of authority, with the Torah at the top, then the prophets, then the writings. The Torah, being the highest authority, was the plumb line to which every other Scripture must conform. Since Yeshua is the Living Torah, I put His words, even recorded by others, on the same level.

In regards to Sha'ul's writings, I regard them as Divinely-inspired commentary, since they are completely dependent on the Torah and the Gospel and simply seek to explain them. There are only a handful of cases where Sha'ul is revealing something new that he received by special revelation, and he's careful to identify those (and salvation by grace is not among them--that's from the Torah).

Since Sha'ul's writings are completely dependent on the Torah and Yeshua, they fall under the latters' authority, so they are not on the same plain. In terms of literary value, one must also rate the Torah and Yeshua higher for the same reason.

Again, that's not to denigrate Sha'ul--it's to elevate God Himself.

Christ might have also spent that time in order to highlight the errors of the pharisees. I think that more plausible given His assertions about their blindness and things being deliberately hidden from them.

That would be culturally inconsistent for the reasons I've already given. He was far more frustrated with the Pharisees as a group because they were so close to the Truth, but were missing it (and causing others to miss it) because they could not admit that some (not all) of their traditions were wrong. Because they were closer to the truth, in effect having more light, He held them to a higher standard.

Look at it this way: The Sadducees were undeniably corrupt and had turned the Temple of God into their own private marketplace. But how much time did Yeshua spend debating with them the way He did the Pharisees? Not much. He cleared out the Temple and He answered a few direct questions during the Passion Week, but other than that He avoided them. It was the cultural equivalent to a brush-off, to saying that they weren't worth His time (again, as a group, not as individuals).

Or to put it another way: Who do you argue the most with, your brothers and sisters, or the neighbor down the street that you have nothing in common with?

The rhetoric in the NT against the Jews is very typical Oriental (Near-Eastern) behavior between members of a wider family; unfortunately, we Westerners with our different culture are looking at this family argument from the outside, and passing judgment on the members without understanding the family culture.

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.