A reader sent me the following story:
The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a ‘legend’.
Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings. Archbishop says nativity ‘a legend’
Dr Williams argued that the traditional Christmas story was nothing but a ‘legend’ He said the only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew’s gospel and the details were very vague.
Dr Williams said: “Matthew’s gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that’s all we’re really told. It works quite well as legend.”
The Archbishop went on to dispel other details of the Christmas story, adding that there were probably no asses or oxen in the stable.
He argued that Christmas cards which showed the Virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus, flanked by shepherds and wise men, were misleading. As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was “very unlikely”. advertisement
In a final blow to the traditional nativity story, Dr Williams concluded that Jesus was probably not born in December at all. He said: “Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival.”
Fr. Dwight Longenecker has some interesting comments about the Anglican Archbishop’s comments.
Archbishop Rowan Williams has publicly debunked the traditional Nativity as ‘legend’. Anyone who has read the New Testament in detail will know that the stuff of medieval paintings, crib scenes and Christmas cards include a good deal of non-Biblical ’embroidery’. However, one doesn’t need to deconstruct all of that to somehow prove one’s intellectual credentials.
The Archbishop presents himself as an intellectual Anglo Catholic, but all his recent comments do is prove his Protestant mindset. The liberal Protestant is essentially a critic. He is a critic of the Bible, a critic of tradition, a critic of traditional Christian morality, a critic of anything that is the received religion. The liberal Protestant feels obliged to pick it apart, reduce it to facts and submit the mysteries of the faith to human reason.
What interests me is that many of our conservative Evangelical friends want to distance themselves from the liberal intellectual reductionism of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but when it comes to Catholicism are they not just as critical, just as rational, just as reductionist as the ABC? In fact, Protestantism has in its very genetic code the same rationalism, reductionism, individualism and humanism which is exhibited by the Archbishop’s comments–it’s just that in Evangelicalism it comes to move ‘conservative’ conclusions.
It is certainly true as Fr. Longenecker said that there is a lot of non-Biblical ’embroidery’ on the Nativity story, but really what has happened over time is that events have been compressed just as what often happens when a book is turned into a movie. What we have in Matthew is a mentioning of wise men who first visited Herod, later gave gifts to Jesus and then being warned in a dream left without seeing Herod first. The great Catholic apologist Frank Sheed argues in his book "To Know Christ Jesus" that they must have appeared after Mary’s Presentation in the Temple since her and Joseph paid a poor mans sacrifice of "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons" which they wouldn’t have done if they already had the gifts given by the wise men.
So in reality the Christmas Card view of the Nativity doesn’t fit reality and we just don’t even know for sure the number of wise men. Though surely the traditional number of three wise men is because of the gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh along with the Trinitarian overtones. The ideas of them being Kings instead of astrologers though is surely an addition. But this type of reductionism would ruin great songs and who wants to sing "We undetermined number of wise men who are probably astrologers and not kings coming somewhere from the East though sometimes after Jesus’ birth are,"
What is so silly and needless about the Archbishop’s remarks is that surely he knows how his remarks will be portrayed and seen as not only casting doubt on aspects of the Nativity story, but also on the birth of Jesus. To make these remarks just before Christmas plays right into the media’s hands. The BBC has the audio of the interview with the caption ” Simon Mayo talks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and asks if he really believes that there’s a Big Wizard who lives in the sky?”
Early in my blogging career another Church of England bishop concerned about the accuracy of the Nativity gave me the opportunity to pun away.
A Church of England bishop has attacked "sentimental" Christmas card portrayals of the Nativity, saying that Jesus’s family were asylum seekers and the three Wise Men were part of an assassination plot.
The Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Keith Sutton, said the shepherds were not the lovable characters depicted in Nativity plays but were on "the fringes of society" and that, for most people, Christmas was a chore.
Did Herod the Great contract out a hit to three foreigners for plausible deniability? How did this assassination go awry? Did King herod say "Go and murder him" and they thought he said "Gold and myrrh to him"?, frankly that makes sense.
23 comments
You quote a Daily Telegraph report about the 2002 Christmas Message from the Bishop of Lichfield but don’t refer back to the source material, which is still avaiable online:
http://www.lichfield.anglican.org/pressr/articles/2002/021213a.htm
Which part of what he actually said do you disagree with?
I’m afraid you’re being rather unfair. The Telegraph article terribly misrepresents the Archbishop. It’s important to stress above all that these weren’t ‘remarks’ by Dr Williams – they were honest and nuanced answers to direct questions.
His one-on-one discussion with Simon Mayo was preceded by a short impromptu discussion with Ricky Gervais, who describes himself as an evangelical atheist.
If you listen to the show you’ll see that he answers every question sensibly, honestly, fairly, and fully in accord with the Gospel accounts of Our Lord’s birth. He does a decent job of presenting Christianity as something that’s intellectually credible, and in truth his performance is a credit to his church.
The Dec. 20 edition of The Australian reports (headline: Anglicans need not believe in virgin birth)
He went on to say that while he believed in it himself, new Christians need not leap over the “hurdle” of belief in the virgin birth before they could join the church.
He said the virgin birth was “part of what I have inherited”. And on the timing of Jesus’s birth, he said the son of God was likely not born in December at all.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22954602-12377,00.html
This is a familiar theme to critical Bible reading. Critical scholars will call all nativity narratives in the Gospels legends. But that a bishop speaks it aloud to the liberal media is shocking.
I largely agree with Gavin, but there’s some issues. My take is here: catholidoxy.blogspot.com
At the risk of tooting my own trumpet, I think it’s pretty good, and would be curious to see what the rest of you think…
He doesn’t call the nativity narratives legends! When asked direct questions, he says that the Magi would not have been present at the same time as the shepherds, that we’re given no indication of the number of the Magi, that the notion of three Magi one of whom comes from Africa is a legend, and that the early Church decided December on pragmatic symbolic grounds that was a suitable time for celebrating the birth of Our Lord.
I’ve been typing up the relevant portion of the interview, so if you shuffle over to my blog later on you’ll see what he said.
For what it’s worth, talk of ‘the liberal media’ makes no sense here. The primary article cited here is from The Telegraph, the most rightwing by some way of Britain’s broadsheets, and the only one that tends to regularly treat religion as worthy of anything more than contempt.
“The great Catholic apologist Frank Sheed argues in his book “To Know Christ Jesus” that they must have appeared after Mary’s Presentation in the Temple since her and Joseph paid a poor mans sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons” which they wouldn’t have done if they already had the gifts given by the wise men”
If I may say so, what a load of old bollocks. Like so much historical-critical output this is nothing more than third-rate literary criticism.
Irenaeus,
Thank you for your commentary concerning the interview.
Why, do you think, the Archbishop of Canterbury reflected only on Matthew’s account and not include a reference to Luke 1:26 – 1:39? My RSV-2CE suggests that Luke interviewed Mary for the “Infancy Gospel” scripture (1:5-2:52). And is Luke as relevant as John on this matter?
MRP,
I’m not sure why Luke didn’t figure in the A’bishop’s remarks; I haven’t listened to or read the BBC interview yet. Perhaps it didn’t come up, or the chief issues discussed were the Magi and Star (& thus Matthew is at issue, not Luke).
I’m also sympathetic to the idea that Mary herself was a source for Luke (I’m not sure what 2CE means, btw). I’m also not sure what you mean about John…
Who really cares what he thinks? Even other Anglicans don’t care. Besides, he’s no more an “archbishop” than I am.
Because certain people take him seriously. because it can lead to scandal. because the truth can be clouded to outsiders. etc etc.
In Miles Jesu the magi are very important…
I’m not sure why Luke didn’t figure in the [Archbishop’s] remarks; I haven’t listened to or read the BBC interview yet. Perhaps it didn’t come up, or the chief issues discussed were the Magi and Star (& thus Matthew is at issue, not Luke).
An -edited- transcript of the interview can be read at this URL address:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nwise220.xml
Simon Mayo, the interviewer, was rather adept at focusing on Matthew’s account, while simultaneously bringing into question important theological dogma directly related to the premise of Incarnation.
But had Luke, chapters 1&2, been introduced, as well as John, chapter 1, that would have muddled Mayo’s and the ABC’s narrative, wouldn’t it?
And the ABC’s comment about not being “too fussed” about the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ “about thirty years ago” I find extremely disingenuous – Rowan Williams was ordained a deacon in 1977, and was ordained a priest in 1978.
I’m also sympathetic to the idea that Mary herself was a source for Luke (I’m not sure what 2CE means …). I’m also not sure what you mean about John…
“2CE” = “Second Catholic Edition”
I was referring to the commentary at your site on this matter. My reference to John is in this eloquent statement made by you:
Here’s why: the Virgin Birth really means the Virgin Conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. This doctrine guarantees that only God can be Jesus’ Father, and that in turn secures the Incarnation, that in Jesus Christ “The Word (the Son of God, second person of the Trinity) became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1.14). (“Incarnation” means “becoming meat,” …) It means Jesus Christ is the divine, incarnate Son of God, truly God and truly a human being. Without the Virgin Birth/Conception, Jesus is only a human being, a mere mortal, and thus at best a mere prophet or teacher.
You didn’t mention Luke once, either 🙂
[Text edited to cooperate with filter program]
OK, I see. Thanks!
Is the purpose of this post to trash Anglicans?
There’s a noticeable smug “We are ***The Church***, We’re Superior, and This Proves It” aura here.
It’s been interesting to note that there’s a certain fascination those in the RC Church have with advertising/exposing/amplifying anything negative that someone in the Anglican Communion does. Yet they take no such interest in Baptists, Presbyterians, Universalist/Unitarians, etc. ad nauseam. Would *you* like to have the same PR for each and every priest and bishop that says/does something contrary to the Magisterium, or who contradicts Christian theology? (It can be arranged, quite easily……….)
Just asking. (And I’ll lay odds of 1,000,000 to 1 that either a) my comment gets deleted, or b) I’m turned into the whipping boy for anyone/everyone who has an issue with non-RC’s.)
LOL!!! That’s already happening in case you didn’t notice. Most of the media only quotes and publicizes statements from dissident priests and theologians. And when quoting the Pope usuallin spin it negatively, so yes we already know how it feels.
I’m with the Gargoyle. This is routine stuff every Christmas and Easter: some uninformed pressman presents clips from a nuanced statement as if they constituted a daring act of denial. Apparently they have to have some attention-getting story to fill the space, even if nothing special is really happening.
“Apparently they have to have some attention-getting story to fill the space, even if nothing special is really happening.”
Or to distract us from all the special things that are happening quietly and will continue to happen, despite all their superior knowledge.
I am no scholar. But I read, I believe and I think.
Mary and Joseph weren’t told everything about Jesus. But they knew their scripture. They knew that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem and probably believed that he was to be raised there also.
It is probable that they had intended to live in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth.
They were poor. When the Angel told Joseph that he was to take Mary to Egypt because King Herod wanted to kill Jesus, he did so.
He had no Amex Card. But, conveniently, three visitors had given him “Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh” that would have done nicely to finance a two year stay in the Jewish community of Alexandria (or vicinity).
With God, all things are possible.
Joey Wiliams:
It’s been interesting to note that there’s a certain fascination those in the RC Church have with advertising/exposing/amplifying anything negative that someone in the Anglican Communion does.
I think it’s because it’s pretty mutual. The Anglican Communion has a *long* history of dogged obsession with us. Those Roman Catholics in the English-speaking world reflect back that complicated history.
And then there’s the whole Irish vs. English context. A lot of American Catholics in particular have historical grudges, at least in our subconsciouses. Definitely I do, though Ive come to appreciate the better points of the Anglican tradition.
Anyway, yeah, I think Archbishop Williams has been portrayed poorly here. He doesn’t go about bashing Christmas imagery as a matter of habit. It really was an answer to questioning on specific details, and except for the December question, I’d have said the same thing.
Archbishop Williams is actually a quite orthodox Christian, as a survey of his work will show, and a good friend and encourager of the work of the great Anglican scriptural scholar, Tom Wright, now bishop of Durham. On the other hand, he favours an open-tent definition of the Anglican communion in the hopes of keeping everyone together till they reach a resolution.
As far as we can see, that’s not going to work out. The dissenters will only get more heterodox, and drag the rest of the church down with them. But I don’t doubt his good will, or his basic theology.
Joey,
Part of it is that there’s such spectacular heresy going on in Anglicanism; in the last several decades, it’s been Anglican bishops who have been the most radical in their denials of fundamental Christian tenets. (But here I think Williams is being misrepresented.)
And part of it is the episcopal structure of the Anglican church: it’s a lot easier to take note of things an individual who is an visible leader in a denomination says than it is to take note of what some Presbyterian committee says.
Father Joseph von Goerres, when defending the lives of early saints, used, in part, the adage: ‘It is better sometimes to believe what can not be established as truth, than to lose a single truth by want of faith’. Saint Leo commenting on the three wise men wrote: ‘In the adoring Magi let us acknowledge the first-fruits of our own calling and faith:’
So as much as I respect scholarship its place cannot be above faith.
In Christo,
Anthony B
Who made Christopher Hitchens an Arch Bishop and more importantly, why?
Comments are closed.