Have not watched but sounds like the same issue with Rings of Power and later GoT - where the writers have to make stuff up because they don't have text to draw from.
35:38 Per: the Massacre of the Innocents. It’s obvious that the account of the massacre (in Matthew) is meant to be a parallel to the Moses story; but it’s also entirely plausible that it could have happened, as long as you remember a couple of points: • They would not have killed anyone above two, or younger than whenever the Magi arrived • They would not have killed any female babies • They would not have killed any babies not of a recognized “Davidic lineage” • They would not have killed anyone born from a distaff (female) line of a Davidic lineage I come from a large Irish family; I have something like 400+ living relatives within three degrees of separation (same great-grandparents). The number of male relatives I have within two years of my oldest brother’s birth (first son of first son of first son), ignoring every relative from a female line, is five, including myself and my brother. If we assume similar circumstances, and we assume that Joseph would have warned his relatives, then the “Massacre of the Innocents” would have had a single digit body count, perhaps as low as two or three children. Certainly it would have been in character of late-stage Herod’s paranoia, but still not worth writing about. Of course, the greater likelihood is that it simply didn’t happen; but there is a way that one could spin it into a story where one could be historically accurate, consistent with the character of Herod, and yet insignificant enough that no one would bother recording it for posterity.
Your points are ignoring what the text actually says though. The text says “he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under.” I don’t know Greek, but I assume the word for children is masculine, so it could be only boys, but it specifically says “all” of them under the age of two, which directly contradicts your claim that it only would have been a specific subset of boys under the age of two. It also says that Joseph got up, took the two, and they fled by night, they immediately took off running as soon as they got the warning from the angel, and it seems like there couldn’t have even been time to warn anyone else, nor is than any mention or hint that Joseph warned others.
@BobbyHill26 Great point! There's an immediate escape to Egypt, contradicting Luke who has Jesus circumcized and receiving birth rites in Jerusalem days later. We can try to harmonize the accounts but it requires leaving Jerusalem and traveling through the region they're avoiding Herod.
@@ryanrevland4333 to be fair, the night flight to Egypt seems to occur when Jesus is about 2, as Herod kills all the babies 2 and under “according to the time that he had learned from the magi” so it could be possible to go to Jerusalem for all the birth rites then go back to Bethlehem. That doesn’t solve any of the contradictions though, because Luke has them going directly from the Jerusalem temple and back home to Nazareth, while Matthew has them staying in Bethlehem for two years before fleeing to Egypt and staying until Herod died then went and made his home in Nazareth only because he was scared of Herod’s son ruling in Judea, but in Luke they already live in Nazareth before Jesus is born.
@BobbyHill26 You got me there. "In accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi." How did I miss that? Jesus has been there for over a year...according to Matthew. And though I do prefer his version, I'm frustrated by the way he quotes scripture. Out of Egypt I called my son? That is intentionally ripped out of context from Hosea 11:1.
Good comments. One problem that comes with minimizing the body count is that the cited prophesy should have been Rachel going, “meh, we have a blimp on infant mortality rates” rather than weeping inconsolably because her children are no more. Matthew implies that it was a big thing.
I'd like to point out that you're spreading a bit of misconception here. Catholics (and the Orthodox) didn't get our Marian and Infancy traditions from the Protoevangelium. Rather, the Protoevangelium is a compilation of preexisting Catholic and Orthodox traditions that someone put into textual form. Also, Catholics don't accept all the same traditions. Mary's temple residency is not preserved in the Catholic tradition. In this case it's actually safe to say that Catholics who know of it probably did get it from the Protoevangelium because they actually read it. Similarly, the Catholic explanation for the brothers of Jesus follows Jerome's interpretation that they're cousins (because he wanted Joseph to be celibate), unlike in most Orthodox traditions. With that out of the way, I'm kinda disappointed you didn't catch a bunch of stuff in the movie that came from apocryphal and even heretical text. Go watch it again guys. Whoever wrote the script has been hanging around religiontube's more "interesting" nooks and crannies. EDIT: Oh, almost forgot. Hannah the Prophetess in Luke being conflated with St. Anna the mother of Mary is also an old Catholic/Orthodox tradition that probably came from the same tendency that caused John the Evangelist to be conflated with John the Revelator.
26:40 I don’t think that most people understand what this passage is about. When the text says that Joseph was going to “put her away quietly”, it means that he was essentially going to say that *he* had sex with her, and now he didn’t want to marry her. It’s essentially the same as the Victorian gentlemen who hired photographers & witnesses to him having a fake “affair” so there could be a divorce without casting aspersions on the character of the wife. Joseph is planning to publicly “admit” to being an a-hole to portray Mary as an innocent victim of a bad man, because the alternative is calling her an adulterer, fit for stoning.
Using Hebrew for antagonizing moments is absolutely a choice. Supersessionism is an inevitable consequence of Christian soteriology and (mis)understanding of the messiah and has been an essential part of the church since Paul.
On this point, Bob was wanting to highlight when/where/how Hebrew showed up in the movie. But the question of the languages (Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.) the communities would have been using and where/when is another good one.
My late grandma and her family members of the same generation could speak Latin despite living in Indonesia. This is because she was a devout Catholic who learned Latin simply by being raised Catholic pre-Vatican II. Similarly, many Muslims around the world know Arabic from learning to recite the Quran. I would posit that a 1st century devout Jewish family would have picked up enough Hebrew from going to synagogue to have some level of fluency in it.
@@bibleandarch Please address that question of the languages (Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.) the communities would have been using and where/when... It could very well consume more than one episode if you want to go back long before the time depicted in the Gospels. While I agree with @Darisiabgal7573 about Aramaic probably being Jesus' primary language and used in his ministry, I also suspect that Koine Greek and maybe some vernacular form of Hebrew may have been more commonly used than many assume, especially in Jerusalem due to the history between the Achaemenids and the Romans.
12:13 Actually, this is NOT a Catholic view of Mary at all. Look up any Catholic channel that discusses this movie to find out how different this movie is from the church teachings about Mary. This movie was terrible.
The first six and a half minutes are spoiler-free but at that point, we give the spoiler alert and discuss specifics from the plot. We don't walk through every scene but we do discuss characters, specific scenes, plot points etc.
The “stabbing Lucifer” scene was OBVIOUSLY a dream since it immediately jump-cuts to a startled Mary waking up. Come on guys, that one was easy. Also, the antisemitism you’re implying is realllllly a stretch 🙄. They certainly don’t portray the Jewish tradition as evil. There are legitimate things to critique in this film without having to grasp at straws
Thanks so much 😊
Have not watched but sounds like the same issue with Rings of Power and later GoT - where the writers have to make stuff up because they don't have text to draw from.
35:38 Per: the Massacre of the Innocents. It’s obvious that the account of the massacre (in Matthew) is meant to be a parallel to the Moses story; but it’s also entirely plausible that it could have happened, as long as you remember a couple of points:
• They would not have killed anyone above two, or younger than whenever the Magi arrived
• They would not have killed any female babies
• They would not have killed any babies not of a recognized “Davidic lineage”
• They would not have killed anyone born from a distaff (female) line of a Davidic lineage
I come from a large Irish family; I have something like 400+ living relatives within three degrees of separation (same great-grandparents). The number of male relatives I have within two years of my oldest brother’s birth (first son of first son of first son), ignoring every relative from a female line, is five, including myself and my brother.
If we assume similar circumstances, and we assume that Joseph would have warned his relatives, then the “Massacre of the Innocents” would have had a single digit body count, perhaps as low as two or three children.
Certainly it would have been in character of late-stage Herod’s paranoia, but still not worth writing about.
Of course, the greater likelihood is that it simply didn’t happen; but there is a way that one could spin it into a story where one could be historically accurate, consistent with the character of Herod, and yet insignificant enough that no one would bother recording it for posterity.
Your points are ignoring what the text actually says though. The text says “he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under.” I don’t know Greek, but I assume the word for children is masculine, so it could be only boys, but it specifically says “all” of them under the age of two, which directly contradicts your claim that it only would have been a specific subset of boys under the age of two. It also says that Joseph got up, took the two, and they fled by night, they immediately took off running as soon as they got the warning from the angel, and it seems like there couldn’t have even been time to warn anyone else, nor is than any mention or hint that Joseph warned others.
@BobbyHill26 Great point! There's an immediate escape to Egypt, contradicting Luke who has Jesus circumcized and receiving birth rites in Jerusalem days later. We can try to harmonize the accounts but it requires leaving Jerusalem and traveling through the region they're avoiding Herod.
@@ryanrevland4333 to be fair, the night flight to Egypt seems to occur when Jesus is about 2, as Herod kills all the babies 2 and under “according to the time that he had learned from the magi” so it could be possible to go to Jerusalem for all the birth rites then go back to Bethlehem. That doesn’t solve any of the contradictions though, because Luke has them going directly from the Jerusalem temple and back home to Nazareth, while Matthew has them staying in Bethlehem for two years before fleeing to Egypt and staying until Herod died then went and made his home in Nazareth only because he was scared of Herod’s son ruling in Judea, but in Luke they already live in Nazareth before Jesus is born.
@BobbyHill26 You got me there. "In accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi." How did I miss that? Jesus has been there for over a year...according to Matthew. And though I do prefer his version, I'm frustrated by the way he quotes scripture. Out of Egypt I called my son? That is intentionally ripped out of context from Hosea 11:1.
Good comments.
One problem that comes with minimizing the body count is that the cited prophesy should have been Rachel going, “meh, we have a blimp on infant mortality rates” rather than weeping inconsolably because her children are no more. Matthew implies that it was a big thing.
I'd like to point out that you're spreading a bit of misconception here. Catholics (and the Orthodox) didn't get our Marian and Infancy traditions from the Protoevangelium. Rather, the Protoevangelium is a compilation of preexisting Catholic and Orthodox traditions that someone put into textual form. Also, Catholics don't accept all the same traditions.
Mary's temple residency is not preserved in the Catholic tradition. In this case it's actually safe to say that Catholics who know of it probably did get it from the Protoevangelium because they actually read it. Similarly, the Catholic explanation for the brothers of Jesus follows Jerome's interpretation that they're cousins (because he wanted Joseph to be celibate), unlike in most Orthodox traditions.
With that out of the way, I'm kinda disappointed you didn't catch a bunch of stuff in the movie that came from apocryphal and even heretical text. Go watch it again guys. Whoever wrote the script has been hanging around religiontube's more "interesting" nooks and crannies.
EDIT: Oh, almost forgot. Hannah the Prophetess in Luke being conflated with St. Anna the mother of Mary is also an old Catholic/Orthodox tradition that probably came from the same tendency that caused John the Evangelist to be conflated with John the Revelator.
What primary source are you referencing that suggests that the traditions from the Protoevangelum existed prior to that work?
26:40 I don’t think that most people understand what this passage is about. When the text says that Joseph was going to “put her away quietly”, it means that he was essentially going to say that *he* had sex with her, and now he didn’t want to marry her.
It’s essentially the same as the Victorian gentlemen who hired photographers & witnesses to him having a fake “affair” so there could be a divorce without casting aspersions on the character of the wife.
Joseph is planning to publicly “admit” to being an a-hole to portray Mary as an innocent victim of a bad man, because the alternative is calling her an adulterer, fit for stoning.
Using Hebrew for antagonizing moments is absolutely a choice.
Supersessionism is an inevitable consequence of Christian soteriology and (mis)understanding of the messiah and has been an essential part of the church since Paul.
Why would an Aramaic speaking family and communities be speaking Hebrew. By this time Hebrew was pretty much a liturgical language?
On this point, Bob was wanting to highlight when/where/how Hebrew showed up in the movie. But the question of the languages (Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.) the communities would have been using and where/when is another good one.
My late grandma and her family members of the same generation could speak Latin despite living in Indonesia. This is because she was a devout Catholic who learned Latin simply by being raised Catholic pre-Vatican II. Similarly, many Muslims around the world know Arabic from learning to recite the Quran. I would posit that a 1st century devout Jewish family would have picked up enough Hebrew from going to synagogue to have some level of fluency in it.
@@bibleandarch Please address that question of the languages (Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.) the communities would have been using and where/when... It could very well consume more than one episode if you want to go back long before the time depicted in the Gospels. While I agree with @Darisiabgal7573 about Aramaic probably being Jesus' primary language and used in his ministry, I also suspect that Koine Greek and maybe some vernacular form of Hebrew may have been more commonly used than many assume, especially in Jerusalem due to the history between the Achaemenids and the Romans.
It wasnt. Hebrew was still spoken as a language, but Aramaic was the dominant one.
@ No one said it wasn’t, I said its use was largely liturgical. Nazareth was entirely a Galilean Aramaic speaking community.
12:13 Actually, this is NOT a Catholic view of Mary at all. Look up any Catholic channel that discusses this movie to find out how different this movie is from the church teachings about Mary. This movie was terrible.
Is this spoiler free? /s
The first six and a half minutes are spoiler-free but at that point, we give the spoiler alert and discuss specifics from the plot. We don't walk through every scene but we do discuss characters, specific scenes, plot points etc.
“Trappings of a Catholic setting”… you guys exposed your biases.
I talked to God so you don’t have to. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
speleologists without a flashlight :D
hilarious
I wanna see a comedy and Jamie Foxx needs to be here and Anna Kendrick needs to be married and who should be Josef…
The “stabbing Lucifer” scene was OBVIOUSLY a dream since it immediately jump-cuts to a startled Mary waking up. Come on guys, that one was easy.
Also, the antisemitism you’re implying is realllllly a stretch 🙄. They certainly don’t portray the Jewish tradition as evil.
There are legitimate things to critique in this film without having to grasp at straws