Rowan Williams: Three Wise Men are 'legend'

This is one of the short films that goes with the e-cards that the Church of England is promoting this year, through Facebook. It shows the magi, and it distinctly shows three of them. But according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the fact that there were Three Wise Men is nothing but 'legend'. The Christmas cards which show the Virgin Mary cradling baby Jesus, with the shepherds on one side and the Three Wise Men on the other, are guilty of 'conflation', he said. Dr Williams was talking to Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5. You can read our story on it here, with the additional commentary by Rev Jonathan Jennings. There was also lots about the 's' word.

By that of course I mean schism, not the other 's' word. And no they do not amount to the same thing. Unless by 's', you mean scripture of course. But I must resist the temptation to digress. Anyway, you can listen for yourself. Click on the Wednesday show. I recommend it, especially the first part, where he is being grilled by Ricky Gervais on whether it is really more illogical to believe in God than Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. To this, the Archbishop replied: 'The thing is, belief in Santa does not generate a moral code, it does not generat art, it does not generate imagination. Belief in God is a bit bigger than that.' This photo shows one of the CofE's Christmas ecards, available from the Facebook Christmas card application. Innocent as Doves is among the blogs that have followed the story. Retractiones has done a really excellent literary-theological analysis of the Archbishop's comments. Richard Perkins on Food4Thought is amazed to find himself agreeing with the Archbishop. The Sensible Bond listened for himself to the broadcast and found it much as I reported, 'only in some ways worse.' Absolutely No Spin found him 'not quite a Becket.'

He also talked about his Advent letter, and how one of his main objects was to try to get as many bishops as possible to Lambeth. Between two-thirds and three-quarters, including many conservatives, have already accepted, he revealed. My own view of the  Advent letter is here.  Links to other reactions at  Thinking Anglicans.

(Update: rather than do a new post, I thought I'd put this here. A copy of an email from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to her brother and sister bishops in The Episcopal Church is doing the rounds.

Bishop Katharine says:

'A number of you have asked about responses to one of the latter portions of our statement at the September meeting, in particular, about the status of an invitation to the Bishop of New Hampshire to the Lambeth Conference next summer.  I have asked the bishops of Wyoming, Northern Indiana, and Vermont to consult with the Archbishop about extending an invitation.  They hope to have a response to share with the House at our meeting in March.

A blessed rest of Advent, and a holy Christmas to you all.

Katharine')

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

Rick, please be sensible now. Our Lord's words in Mark 16:15-16 were instructions to his apostles, equipping them for their forthcoming mission to the nations.
In the first instance, they would be addressing adults, not children, even less babies. Adults can believe; young children can't. Both, however, could be in imminent danger of death and hence the necessity of baptism for both.

[Rick]

Geoffrey;

First Let me Inform you that it is NOT "Jesus Only" It is Rather "Jesus Everything".

Next I was not Being Evasive Geoffrey Regarding Just Why The RCC Teaching Regarding "Apostolic Sucession" Is A Complete Fallacy.

The Fact They Do Not Teach The Scriptures Regarding What Peter And Other Original Apostles Taught and Practiced As I Outlined Proves Peter Was Not Their First Pope.

Next; Water Baptism is For Beleivers Only (Mark 16). A Baby Has No Need to "Repent" nor Can a Baby Qualify as a Beleiver. Read again Mark 16 "HE THAT BELIEVES and is Baptized Shall be Saved......" Furthermore you will never find a Verse that tells Parents That They can Baptize Their Baby by Beleiving For The Baby by "Proxy."

[Geoffrey Smith]

I take note, Mr Beekman, that you have, apparently, declined to respond to my challenge to name the pope responsible for 'breaking away' from the teaching of the Apostles. How very wise of you! I applaud your perspicacity.
From the tone of your post you sound like a 'Jesus only' Pentecostal. I refer you to Matt. 28:19. Nor should baptism be restricted to adults only. I refer you to Luke 18:15-16.
Furthermore, I quote: "The Bible never says 'Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, except for infants'. It simply says, 'Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation'.
Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to Hell.
Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticise the Catholic for making the same exact exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation".
(Catholic Answers, "Infant Baptism").

In short, Mr Beekman, the Catholic Church, now as always, conforms to the original teaching and practice of the Apostles with regard to baptism.
One word of advice, old chap: dump that KJV Bible you use and get yourself a more modern, more accurate version, such as the one I use, the NRSV. Your apologetics will be all the better for it.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Matti, the Septuagint translator no doubt knew the literal meaning of the Hebrew text. Why do you suppose he chose the word parthenos for the Greek translation?

[Matti of Finland]

No serious Bible scholar would claim that the prophecy given by Isaiah to King Ahaz (Isaiah 7:14) actually meant that the ha almah in question would conceive or had conceived in any other than normal fashion. Now, Dr Marsh has suggested that anonymous Septuagint translators had devine inspiration to change the meaning of Isaiah's prophecy. He is not the first such scholar to do so, however it does not alter the fact that the passage in the Septuagint is neither what Isaiah said nor his prophecy.

[Rick Beekman]

Geoffrey;

Thank you for The Question on The RCC and not being the ORiginal Church.

In Matthew 16 (KJV) We read where Jesus Gave The "Keys" Unto Apostle Peter.
So Peter was given These Keys that would unlock the Way for someone to be saved if they did exactly what Jesus taught his Original Apostles.

Now Geoffrey when we read What Transpired on The Day Of Pentecost (The First Christian Conversion Service) Acts Chapter 2. Peter Preached the Very First Message Given to Potencial Converts. In Verse 37 Of That Message Those that Received Heart Felt Conviction Asked Peter; "Men and Brethren What Shall We Do"?

In Verse 38 Peter Told Them; "Repent and Be Baptized Everyone of you in The Name of Jesus Christ for The Remission of Sins and You Shall receive the gift of The Holy Ghost". As you continue Reading to the end of this Chapter you will read 3000 Converts took Peter's Advice and Were Converted. Also Read where it States They All Followed the Apostles Doctrine.

The Jews Received this Message First Geoffrey At Jerusalem just as Jesus instructed his Apostles. (Please Read Luke 24 V 46-47.)

Later We Gentiles were Given the Exact Same Instructions Beginning with Cornelius (An Italian) in Acts 10. Also The Ethopian Eunich in Acts 8. Even the Former Disciples of John The Baptist were Instructed by Apostle Paul to Also Convert same way in Acts 19.

Now Geoffrey My Question to You is This; Does The RCC Teach Repentance Prior To Water Baptism? Does an Infant or Small Baby Need To "Repent"?
Jesus Himself Tells us (Mark 16) "He That Believes and is baptized shall be Saved......."

Next Question; Peter said to be Baptized in Jesus' Name NOT Father Son Holy Ghost as The RCC and 95 per cent of Christian Churches Do.

Peter told us in Acts 2 V 38 If we did not Repent And be Baptized in Jesus' Name Our Sins Cannot be Remitted For Forgiveness Nor can Anyone Receive the Spirit of God.

Tell us how Someone can go against this simple command from Jesus and His Original Apostles and still claim The RCC is The "Church" founded by Jesus?? I always welcome a Rebuttal if You have One.

This Geoffrey is not meant to Make light of your Devotion...Jesus wants everyone to know and Believe his Truthful word.

[Chris Gillibrand]

PS Perhaps the Archbishop has been reading too much of the Mabinogion lately. Full of Welsh druidic myth and legend, perhaps he has begun to find it too satisfying for his own spiritual good. Different perspectives are however required when considering the Divine realities shown forth in the Gospels.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Pope St Gregory the Great who sent St Augustine of Canterbury, the first Archbishop of Canterbury to England would have been horrified.

An extract from his Tenth Homily on the Gospels

"As you have heard in the Gospel reading, dearest brothers, at the birth of heaven's King, an earthly king was troubled. For earthly grandeur is thrown into confusion when the majesty of heaven shows itself. But we must investigate why an Angel appeared to the shepherds in Judea when our Redeemer was born, but a star rather than an Angel, led the Magi from the East to adore Him. The reason seems to be this. It was fitting that a rational creature that is, an Angel, announce it to the Jews, as to those making use of their reason; but the Gentiles were led to seek knowledge of the Lord not by words, but by signs since they did not know how to use reason for this. To apply what St. Paul says: "Prophecies are given to the believing, not the unbelieving; whereas signs are for the unbelievers rather than the believers." And so the prophecies were for the Jews as for believers; while signs were given to the Gentiles, as to the unbelieving. We should note that when our Redeemer had become an adult, He was preached to these same Gentiles by the Apostles. But when He was still an infant, by human standards not yet ready for speaking, a star proclaimed Him. Obviously, common sense demands that once the Lord Himself had begun to speak He be made known to us by men's preaching, while the mute elements of nature bear witness to Him before He used the faculty of speech."

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Matti, much has been made of the different translations of Isaiah 7.14, beginning with that of the Septuagint.

Modern English bibles tend to use the word maiden or the phrase young woman but since such a statement ("a young woman shall conceive and bear a son") is entirely unremarkable it seems that the Septuagint supplied a translation which gives some force to what is, after all, a prophetic passage.

The Septuagint translator could not have known what lay ahead in the future in the life of Mary and her Son, but he chose deliberately to use a word, parthenos, for readers in his own time, which emphasises that there is a miraculous element to Isaiah's prophecy. It may therefore be that parthenos is actually a more accurate rendering of Isaiah's meaning than the very simplest term available.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Matti, I was dealing with the suggestion you made which would have resulted in the presumed Grandfather of Jesus being his father rather than Joseph.

[Matti of Finland]

To Dr Alan Marsh,

I stand corrected, I indeed misquoted Acts 3:37, when I really should've quoted Acts 7:37 ! I put it down to "lapsus lingua". It is interesting however that the esteemed Dr has not challenged me about Isaiah 7:14, where the word ha almah was misinterpreted in the Septuagint as parthenos (virgin) when the word should've been translated as "neanis" young woman !

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Fact of The Matter is The RCC Broke away from the Teachings of The Original Apostles Formed their own Religion then still claim They are The Original Church".
- Rick, 24 DEC 2007, 15:21:13
(his capitals, not mine)

Perhaps you would enlighten us on this point, Mr Beekman. Exactly when did the Catholic Church 'break away' from the teaching of the Twelve Apostles? Which Pope was responsible for the break and in what year? I await your revision of history with great interest.

[Rick]

Ruth;

I Believe The Recorded Biblical Account of The Birth of Jesus. I Believe Mary Conceived Jesus Through The Power Of The Holy Ghost as The Angel Told Her (Matthew 2 V 20). As Others Here have already Stated; There is no exact Number of "Wise Men" Mentioned Only Three Gifts. Interesting to Note

In The ancient Customs Of Middle Eastern Culture Gifts were always Given to Kings and Jesus is The King of Kings. Was Jesus Born on Dec 25?. Not Hardly since The Sheperds were in The Fields and Sheperds in Israel are not Tending Their Flocks in Late December Because of The Cold Weather. Then Where Did The Typical Manger Scene and the "Three Wise Men" Showing up on Christmas Eve Come From? What about "Santa"? "Christmas Trees" Lights...Giving Everyone Gifts? Where oh Where Did This All Come From?

From Pagan Customs Celebrating The Winter Festival Then "Christianized" By The Roman Catholic Church after they Officially Formed at The Council of Nicea Under Emperor Constantine.

Constantine was a very Astute Politician. First he signed the "Edict of Tolerance" Stopping all Christian Persecution. There were more Pagans Then Christians Then so Savvy Constantine Invited all The Pagans to join and bring their Pagan Beleifs and Traditions with Them. All this is carefully documented in a book written in 1856; "The Two Babylons" By Alexander Hislop. This book can still be Purchased.

Geoffrey Smith Refers to The RCC as The "Moral Authority" However I Beg To Differ With Mr. Smith. The RCC likes to refer To Non-Catholics as "Protestants".Fact of The Matter is The RCC Broke away from the Teachings of The Original Apostles Formed their own Religion then still claim They are The Original Church..Even Though They are also "Protestants" as well...John 4 V 24 Tells us WE Must Worship God In Spirit and Truth....Amen

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The Greek text of Luke 3.23 is actually, in modern critical editions such as Nestle, on huios, hos enomizeto, Ioseph, tou Eli which being translated means being son, as was supposed, of Joseph, son of Eli - in other words Eli was father of Joseph.

Matti of Finland has quoted (from the New Advent article) an opinion which relies on an inaccurate text of Luke 3.23. If he were to read down to the end of the paragraph he would see that the author of the article quotes this view in order to dismiss it.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I would also like to quote what Moses said...etc, Acts 3:37.
- Matti of Finland, 23 DEC 2007, 17:28:50

Acts 3:37? You even write Holy Writ, do you, Matti? Like I said, a self-appointed messenger from Mount Olympus, telling us all how to read the Bible.

[Matti of Finland]

I'm sorry to have to inform Geoffrey that the Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the truth. However, my information about Heli being the father of Jesus of Nazareth is based on the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Article:- St. Luke's Genealogy of Christ, which states as follows;- St.Luke's genealogy is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli. "being the son (as it was supposed,of Joseph, but really) of Heli". Refer to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm
! I also like to quote what Moses said about the coming messiah, "God will raise up a prophet for you from your own people, as he raised me up", Acts 3:37 .

[Geoffrey Smith]

Once again, we have a self-appointed interpreter of Scripture, in the person of Matti of Finland, telling us what the Bible really means and how we should undertsand it. Totally divorced from the teaching of the Catholic Church, of course, but then what can we expect from a guy who refuses, like Mr David Smith, to recognise the authority of the Church in all matters Biblical?
Mary had to be a virgin because God had to be the Father of Jesus, the Son of God. He did not have a human father. He was also born of the tribe of David because his mother was descended from the king.
Jeannie has got it absolutely right, Matti. It's a pity you can't accept what is so obvious to all Christians worthy of the name.

[Arthur]

Shall we await with avid expectation the Archbishop's Easter myth-debunking? Kyrie eleison!

[Matti of Finland]

I object to Jeannie's exhortation that Mary had to be a virgin when conceiving. The fact of the matter is completely the opposite as the expected messiah had to be descended from the line of David according to flesh. Mary having been a cousin of Elizabeth and thus a Levite, she could not without the participation of a man in the tribe of Judah, give birth to a son who could claim to sit on the throne of David. However, the line of Joseph was disbarred forever from sitting on the throne of David since Jeconiah (Jer.22:28 30). Luke names Heli of the line of David through his son Nathan as the father of Jesus, (Luke 3:23).
There never was a prophecy that a virgin shall conceive. What Isaiah says in the Hebrew Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14) "Look, a young woman is pregnant and will give birth to a son and name him Immanuel". Visit www.wallsofjericho.info

[Robert Easter]

Jim in Sydney, there is a principle outlined in Romans in which Paul draws from history to show that mankind, once turned away from faith in God, does not become a more enlightened mankind, or a noble savage, or yet a noble animal, but rather sinks below the level of the "brute beasts" in understanding (not to be confused with mere technology!). In nature, it is not "natural" to attack what is not understood, except in a state of panic. God does not want to panic us, but to bring us into His love!

[John]

What do we really know about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago?

But really didnt happen at all--the entire story being a work of imaginative religious fiction with many layers of meaning, both exoteric and esoteric.

These 2 references provide a completely different understanding of the myths surrounding Saint Jesus of Galilee.

http://www.dabase.org/exochrist.htm

http://www.dabase.org/spiritw.htm

And what relevance is any of that when faced with ones inevitable mortality? See

http://www.adidam.org/death_and_dying/index.html

[Ramon Rodriguez]

Dear Ruth:
His exegesis could be correct, but there is no denying that his timing is atrocious and reflect badly on his overall leadership skills (trying to save Lamberth).
PS. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Ramon

[Peter]

Congratulations on your front page spread, Ruth, but this is one of the oldest chestnuts in religious journalism !!

This story has surely appeared every Christmas in one form or another every year since the bible was translated into the vernacular!

Merry Christmas!

[Julia from Illinois]

There is a difference between the concepts of virginal conception and virginal birth.

I can see the necessity of believing that Jesus was conceived by Mary by the power of the holy spirit - thus virginal because no physical intimacy between humans was involved.

What's the need for a virginal birth? Is it still the old proof of virginity requiring an intact hymen?

That's silly. Hymens are broken in lots of ways other than by intimate physical relations. So physically giving birth (and thus the breaking of the hymen) doesn't say anything about how Mary got pregnant in the first place.

Lots of girls and women in the old days were castigated as not being virgins for physical reasons. We surely know better now. Women are still virgins if they haven't had sexual relations, not because of a bogus physical "proof".

[Chris Sugden]

G.K. Chesterton observed, wisely:
"The place that the shepherds found was not an academy or an abstract republic; it was not a place of myths allegorized or dissected or explained away. It was a place of dreams come true."

[Jeannie]

I just took the time to post a very brief but comprehensive explanation of the Virgin Birth, the Wise Men, the Shepards and the animals, but it returned a message to me that my posting registered as SPAM -- which it is not.

If you take a minute to read it, you might find it is the best thing you will read all of this Christmas season. Remember, researching and writing about a thing may not be the same as knowing about a thing.

Best Regards.

Jeannie

(rg writes: thank you for this Jeannie, now I understand what Irene was trying to tell me the other day about this crazy new spam filter. Anyway I've found out the place for the spamalost where loads of comments have been ending up, including your own, and posted all but one. Apologies to all affected!)

[Jeannie]

The reason it was important that Mary was a virgin was because the father of Jesus IS GOD,and there can be no question of that.

When Adam sinned, he became a marked man -- such as if there were a scratch on the dollar bill plate at the US Mint -- every dollar made from that plate will have the same flaw. So it is with us.

We are all born from Adam and have the same flaw Adam received. Therefore, we cannot redeem anyone else from sin since we all have the same sin. It is why we cannot help ourselves from doing wrong things.

Only Jesus, who was born without Adam's flaw IS sinless -- He is the Son of the PERFECT GOD. He could exchange HIS perfection for our sinless state, which is what he did.

Doesn't matter what gender, race, creed, nationality, ANYTHING any of us are. He died for all of us and for EACH of us. He exchanged our imperfection for His perfection. All ANYONE on EARTH needs to do is say, "Yes Jesus, I accept your gift". It is really as easy as that. Religion makes everything so complicated.

If there were any question of Mary's relationships, then we would not know that Jesus is indeed Devine.

That is what the whole matter of Mary's virginity is all about. Not really about Mary, but about the supernatural conception of the Son of God, and the reason He has been the only SINLESS MAN on earth since Adam.

Also, the wise men did not visit Jesus at the manger. Matthew 2:11 reads "And they came into the HOUSE and saw the Child with Mary His mother;" It could have been up to 2 years after the birth of Jesus, since Herod had all the male children killed who were up to TWO YEARS OLD.

About the shepards, they DID see Jesus in the manger. Luke 2:16 says "And they came in haste and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger."

I don't know about the animals. Since it was a barn, there probably were animals in there. Don't think that the shepards brought any animals in with them though, since they had just seen ANGELS, and were undoubtedly not very concerned about the sheep at that time.

I am not Catholic, but someone should tell the Bishop that the matter of Mary's virginity is VERY important. First of all because it is given great emphasis in the Bible -- the Word of God. And additionally, because Jesus was not conceived of a mortal sinful man.

Merry Christmas, and Peace be to all who receive HIS great FAVOR and GRACE.

Jeannie

[Lila Fenton]

Our school nativity play curiously featured two white children as Joseph and Mary with a very black baby Jesus. Was this an example of mis-placed multicultural goodwill or were they trying to tell us something else?

[Tom Jackson]

It is not Christian to be over-critical, to condemn those who share your faith but who express themselves or analyse the fundamental aspects of your shared beliefs in a different way. But. pleeeese..! Where is the Archbishop coming from?

As someone who is continually questioning and analysing his beliefs, I am fully aware of those aspects of our faith which provide fodder from the intellectually and theologically minded Christians. And it is healthy and vital that such debates take place.

But the majority of believers have a faith and a trust in God which does not come from detailed, exhaustive research and analysis. They believe because of their own spiritual need and experience. Maybe they have found themselves in situations where reaching out to God was the only course of action or they allowed the spiritual dimension that exists in all of us to surface, unencumbered by those influences which oppose such spirituality.

Many who contribute to these debates would label these Christians, weak, brainless sheep, mindlessly following instead of reaching the same, empty and pointless conclusions about life that they have. This simplistic characterisation couldn't be further from the truth but I guess if you cannot believe in something unless it meets the inflexible criteria of the godless community, nothing will convince you otherwise.

You only have to read a comment such as that from Jim in Sydney to identify the damage resulting from the Archbishops theological foray into his doubts and uncertainties or his self-indulgent portrayal as the Christian man of wisdom and insight. There is enough of that out here amongst us laymen without the leader of our Church indulging himself in publicly exposing and exploring his theological meltdown.

My Christmas message to the Archbishop? KISS; keep it simple stupid!

[Peter Farrington]

I think it is very sad that +Rowan has essentially denied the Virgin Birth. If he is not aware of how important and central a doctrine this is to Orthodox Catholic faith then he should not be Archbishop of a Church that claims to be Catholic. Indeed if he is able to continue as A of C while denying the importance of this doctrine then how can the Anglican communion be called Christian in any meaningful sense?

[brian roberts]

Not very controversial, is it? Matthew's Gospel doesn't mention number of wise men, just that there were three gifts. there only needs at least two wise men and any number up from there!
Similarly the 'conflation' bit is not very controversial. The shepperds came when Jesus was born and the wise men sometime in the next two years. presumably not straight away or only newborns would have been killed in the slaughter of the innocents, not those under two.

[Peter]

Haven't listened to the broadcast, but I imagine ++Rowan was trying to say that the tradition that there were three, as opposed to six or twenty, wise men was legend.

Matthew's gospel, where the tale is recounted, only uses the plural word 'magi', and doesn't say how many there were.

The idea of three magi presumably came about because there were three types of gift: gold, frankincense & myrrh.

[stephen clark]

Oh dear you have to do better than this both you Ruth and +Rowan
But according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the fact that there were Three Wise Men is nothing but 'legend'. .
You Ruth, because I would have thought that the idea that "myth" and "legend" do not equate with 'untrue' is basic theological and literary criticism.
If we don't understand this then we are doomed to narrow textual fundamentalism in which only bland narration of events is possible.
+Rowan should also know better, because he should appreciate that this is a sophisticated idea and that most people don't want sophistication, they want a hippopotamus for Christmas....forget about the truth!
I hate to plug my own homily but it deals with this
http://coromandelpreachings.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-want-hippopotamus-for-christmas.html

[jim, sydney]

At last some honesty and common sense about some of the obvious myths that comprise the birth legend
Next we need the same admission concerning the virgin conception, angels announcing that Mary was with child, angels announcing the resurrection, and every other fantasy within the bible legend................

[David Cohen]

Archbishop Williams should visit Cologne Cathedral, where he can view the heads of the Three Magi...