www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall In time for Christmas: Anglican Head rejects WiseMen

It�s all a Christmas tall story [timesonline.co.uk]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, dismissed the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men yesterday as nothing but �legend�.

[continued..]

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad"!

Fr. Serge

"Matthew�s Gospel doesn�t tell us there were three of them, doesn�t tell us they were kings, doesn�t tell us where they came from."

If bound to scripture, he is right to say this. A careful read does leave out the number from scriptures and is rather vague on their origin. There were three gifts, that is clear. But three kings? Three wise men?

It is difficult to answer some questions with only the Bible and science as authority. Especially when certain interpretations of scripture and applications of "objective standards" are dismissive of theology.

Terry

Of course it is true that Scripture doesn't say there were three of them, but it does mention more than one and Tradition has it that there were at least three that we know.

Despite protestant objections and disdain for Tradition, every church play I've seen from pentecostal to non-denominational to mega-church have accepted this one. Perhaps reminding a few of them of that fact this year will open them up to some other Traditions they've unwittingly believe.. (cough) worship on Sunday.. etc

Once again, Mark Shea:

http://www.mark-shea.com/magi.html

Anglican rejected wise men long ago. All wise men among them have become Orthodox or Catholic.

Fr David Straut

Ha!

Twenty-five years ago yesterday (St Nicholas' Day, as it turned out, though knew it not then) I became a wiser man by leaving the Via Media and embracing the True and Living Way and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The strange thing was that I had been Orthodox doctrinally (in all things except ecclesiology) for many years, but I knew I could not make the claim to be any more authentically Anglican than those who denied anything from baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to those who rejected prayer for the departed or prayers to the Mother of God and the Saints, to those believed in the ordination of priestesses or disbelieved in the Apostolic Sucession of Bishops, to believed that Scriptural morality was as outmoded or who elevated sodomy to the status of a sacrament, to those who felt that the Virgin Birth of Our Lord was a fable or those who adopted "inclusive language" in addressing the Holy Trinity. In Anglicanism practically everything was up for grabs. I should have left sooner than 1982. I knew it was all over in 1977. I guess I needed time to wise up!

Fr David Straut

LOL!!! Well said, Father!

Gordo

Ha! Great post, Father David!

God bless and keep you....

Well, my faith would not be shaken if this passage from Matthew's Gospel was not historically accurate.

And certainly, the popular imagination about the entire event exceeds, by far, what we read in the passage.

There is no reason to affirm they were three or that they were royalty.

But beyond that, I find it interesting that Luke makes no mention of the entire passage, even when his account of the Nativity is much more detailed than Matthew's.

Of course, there is the distinct possibility that this event did not happen in the days following the birth of Our Lord, but maybe up to a couple of years after that (hinted by the age limit set by Herod for the execution of Bethlehem's male children).

All in all, the entire passage is very heavy with symbolism, so, although I am inclined to think it is based on a historic fact, I am open to the possibility that it might not.

Shalom,
Memo

The criteria of "my faith would not be shaken if" to determine whether something is historically accurate or not is modern invention. Personally, I like the tried and true method of "I believe something because it's True"?
It seems to me that there are some who disbelieve every Tradition and Scriptural support for nearly everything in the Christian faith, but their faith "isn't shaken" - is that fantasy or just relegating religion to some small compartment of one's life.

I wonder if the Wise Men would reject the Anglican Head?

I don't think that he meant it in this sense, but the word 'legend' is not normally synonymous with 'fable'.

From the Merriam-Webster:


The Roman Breviary frequently uses the phrase 'for the legend' for the lessons at Matins relating the Lives of the Saints.

As for a few of the other things, he is correct. The Magi wouldn't have arrived exactly at the birth of Christ. Holy Scripture never says so. As for their number being three, while not in the Holy Bible, this tradition dates back to the earliest days of Christianity, if I'm not mistaken.

The star miracle has been shown by some astronomers to have been a unique alignment of three stars at that time--no less miraculous even with an explanation for it.

But I'm confused as to why there would have not been snow (presuming Christ was born in the winter). Clearly Dr. Williams is unfamiliar with the climate of the region.

[Linked Image]

We do not know the exact date for the birth of Our Lord, but chances are it was NOT during the winter time.

The key indication is that, that very night, there shepherds tending to their flock out in the field. This happened usually only during spring.

Shalom,
Memo