The Headline on THE DRUDGE REPORT read "Archbishop of Canterbury says nativity 'a legend'...", which was enough to grab my attention quickly. The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't believe in the Christmas Story? What The . . . ????
Clicking through to the Linked page brought me to the British newspaper THE TELEGRAPH, where the headline read similarly " Archbishop says nativity 'a legend'." The story that followed, however, read very differently, and showed just how little the reporter knew about their Bible:
Archbishop Says Nativity 'a Legend'
By Sophie Borland: 1:25pm GMT 20/12/2007
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.
(John's Note: That is certainly supported by the 2nd chapter of Matthew:
2:1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem 2:2 saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
2:11 As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
So there were an unspecified number of wise men, who gave three types of gifts. Not necessarily three wise men -- the text is not specific.)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."
(John's Note: well, it only says "wise men" -- which could mean anything. But I'm still with the Archbishop so far.)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.
(Okay; here we part ways a bit. In Biblical times it was common to have an "upper room" area to the stable for the stable staff to bed down in for the night. It was elevated above the livestock to take advantage of the heat generated by the animals - so there may have been animals present -- just not in the face of the baby Jesus. And nowhere in Matthew of Luke does it mention the shepherds met the Wise Men. So we're still in general agreement here.)As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was "very unlikely".
(Agreed. Whens the last time you saw snow in the near-desert of the the Holy Lands?)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."
(This is probably true, as Luke notes:
2:8 Now there were shepherds nearby living out in the field, keeping guard over their flock at night.
The footnote to NetBIBLE says:
Some argue that shepherds were among the culturally despised, but the evidence for this view of shepherds is late, coming from 5th century Jewish materials. December 25 as the celebrated date of Jesus’ birth arose around the time of Constantine (ca. a.d. 306-337), though it is mentioned in material from Hippolytus (a.d. 165-235). Some think that the reason for celebration on this date was that it coincided with the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia, and Christians could celebrate their own festival at this time without fear of persecution. On the basis of the statement that the shepherds were living out in the field, keeping guard over their flock at night it is often suggested that Jesus’ birth took place in early spring, since it was only at lambing time that shepherds stood guard over their flocks in the field.)
now, for the despicable part. He was debating
a comedian on the BBC. Whose brainless idea was that?
His comments came during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live with Simon Mayo yesterday. Later on in the show, the Archbishop was challenged by fellow guest Ricky Gervais, the comedian, about the credibility of the Christmas story. Gervais told Dr Williams he was concerned about "brainwashing" of children who are sent to faith schools at an early age, comparing teaching that God exists to belief in Father Christmas. Dr Williams said faith schools expose children to the full range of human experience and values and he did not believe they indoctrinated people.
"Brainwashing???" Wotta maroon! Sounds more to me like t
he BBC set up the Archbishop, and the
Telegraph ran around spreading the story that 'the Archbishop doesn't believe?'
Typical. Why doesn't this surprise me? No, No -- no media left-wing bias here -- nothing to see, Move along, Move along . . .
~~JD~~