Thursday, December 20, 2007

it's all bollocks, claims Grand Tufti

From THE TIMES:







Williams admits: 
Three wise men 
do not exist.


The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, dismissed the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men yesterday as nothing but “legend”. There was scant evidence for the Magi, and none at all that there were three of them, or that they were kings, he said. All the evidence that existed was in Matthew’s Gospel. The Archbishop said: “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. It says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that’s all we’re really told.” Anything else was legend. “It works quite well as legend,” the Archbishop said.

Further, there was no evidence that there were any oxen or asses in the stable. The chances of any snow falling around the stable in Bethlehem were “very unlikely”. And as for the star rising and then standing still: the Archbishop pointed out that stars just don’t behave like that.

Although he believed in it himself, he advised that new Christians need not fear that they had to leap over the “hurdle” of belief in the Virgin Birth before they could be “signed up”. For good measure, he added, Jesus was probably not born in December at all. “Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival.”

He said the Christmas cards that show the Virgin Mary cradling baby Jesus, with the shepherds on one side and the Three Wise Men on the other, were guilty of “conflation”.

Dr Williams was speaking live on BBC Radio Five to the presenter Simon Mayo.


COMMENT: Ironically, this little outburst from The Tufti shows just how snuggled up in bed he is with the fundamentalists. There is little difference between the liberal desire to hold everything in our tradition up for scientific scrutiny and the evangelical obsession with treating every jot and tittle in the Bible as if it's the unchallengeable word of God. Both are missing the point, both are blind to the big picture. Both are standing on the beach studying the pebbles when they should be gazing out upon the glorious ocean.

Although there is still plenty of overlap, there are two types of people living in the developed countries and so, also, in the churches - modernists and postmodernists. Those of us who grew up in our faith embracing the freedom of liberation theology and narrative criticism are predisposed to look first for the big picture. Unfortunately, because of snobbery and the old school tie network, those in positions of power within the Church tend to be academics, like the Tufti, who still cling to the modernism that was the defining theme of their education. Modernism is about laws and classical science. Postmodernism is about big ideas, dreams and quantum physics.

These two world views can be understood as two different languages and this is why there will never be any agreement between the lawyers and the liberationists. When they speak I stare blankly because there is nothing in my mind on which I can hang their words. I am sure the same must be true for them when I speak.

But I am happy to be where I am as the alternative is such a boring place to be. I really can't see what the point is in worrying about the reality of our mythology. I accept that things either happened or didn't happen but to deconstruct them without any intention of reconstructing them as new, more powerful myths is pretty pointless and a Grinchy thing to do. When you read a book to a child, that child is not thinking, "Is this a true story?" The child doesn't care. The child is listening to a story and a story exists outside of conventional reality.

Some Christians are children of the Book. Me, I snuggle up in bed with those Christians who are children of the Story - it's so much more fun.

40 comments:

Doorman-Priest said...

I know what you mean, but recognising myth and symbolism doesn't stop a childlike response to the story.

He's not actually saying anything that isn't taught at GCSE, A Level or in Universities, so it can't really be controversial.

Can it?

Lapinbizarre said...

Re your photo caption, remember Ann Richards comment, as reported by Molly Ivins, when she was Governor of Texas, that she was all in favour of a Nativity scene at the Texas capitol, since it was the only way she could see to get three wise men into the state legislature.

If you're a selective Biblical literalist - the only type of Biblical literalist I've ever seen - it can be as controversial asanything else pertaining to God's Word, as I think you know, D-P.

MadPriest said...

DP - That's the most (and probably only) boring thing you have ever written. And all because they won't let you take toys in to school on the last day of term!!!!

emmy said...

Amen. I think you may have just described why I work with children.

themethatisme said...

Can it?

The vast majority do not study such things in school etc. and indeed are increasingly removed from christian story whether literal or mythology. It can be controversial because; it plays with nostalgic attachment to childhhod experiences, it disrupts popular vicarious belief of the non-churched in the churched and because the popular press will say it is controversial.

Nina said...

Well posted on the day the Romans celebrate Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!

A sadly large number of people will say he is not a "real Christian" because of this, instead of looking at the true criterion of real Christianity: his actions.

MadPriest said...

When I'm doing assemblies I always start, whatever the Biblical passage is that I'm trying to bring to life, "This is a story about..."

Nina said...

The problem starts when we confuse truth with proof.

Ann said...

Did you actually read what he said? Look here. I can't believe you - MP - fell for The Telegraph blogger's version of it.

David said...

Some Christians are children of the Book. Me, I snuggle up in bed with those Christians who are children of the Story

That line right there is just feckin' brilliant! 'Nuff said.

Eileen said...

Agreed. Whole-heartedly.

Child of the story that I am.

Fr Craig said...

MP - can you (or anyone) reccomend a good 'all purpose' work on postmodern Christian thinking to an old (56) but very liberal liturgical curmudgeon (me)? thanks,
Fr Craig

Grandmère Mimi said...

I have to agree with David, I do like being part of the "children of the story" rather than the "children of the book". That is excellent

However, I'm with Ann. What the ABC said is hardly new. I've never been to seminary, but I have heard it all before. Of course, he could have gone on to offer something positive like, "Although we may not have all the facts lined up perfectly, that doesn't mean that the story is not true in the best sense of the word."

KJ said...

Well said, Mad One. I believe I shall continue to read your little blog in the new year.

MadPriest said...

Oh, KJ, you've made me feel all insecure. I've always though of you as a constant, something that was, is now and will forever be. Now you have introduced doubt into my thinking I think I'm going to have a thoroughly rotten Christmas.

KJ said...

No fear, Mad One. From my partner's family I am learning about the value of denial. You see, I don't have a blogging addiction AND I can give OCICBW up any time I should wish to -- I just don't yet wish to.

See? What a relief! Why didn't I learn about this convenience earlier in life? Well, of course there was that whole 'mo thing, but I don't know if that was so much denial as survival.

MadPriest said...

And another huge bonus, KJ, is that blogging has kept you off the streets. It has prevented you from becoming involved in petty crime and run ins with the police. Crumbs, KJ, if you hadn't stumbled upon the blogosphere you could easily have ended up as a drugs-runner operating out of Columbia, just like in the movies.

cryptogram said...

I haven't bothered to read what you wrote. The photo has been doctored - because it's got Sentamu wearing a dog collar.

Has Mugabe fallen?

Or has the tricky old archbish got TWO?

KJ said...

AND, there's that whole thing about starting wars. If more 'mos were online, wars could become virtual and the stuff of fantasy.


Scratch that "fantasy" part. Frank might be awake today.

MadPriest said...

The photograph was taken more than 10 days ago.

MadPriest said...

I have a feeling that Frank may have started a few wars in his time. Small ones, yes, and more than likely accidentally, but still wars.

Anonymous said...

Well, even if St. Matthew stretched the truth a bit, I do enjoy viewing the antique Neapolitan creches (the most famous example being the one at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC, which is featured on cards). See
http://www.metmuseum.org/
current front page for an image. In addition to the usual figures, there is an abundance of animals, workmen, and so on.

The other thing that is fun is to view a large number of folk creches from different cultures - many, many ways of welcoming Him.

NancyP

Freedom Bound said...

"the liberal desire to hold everything in our tradition up for scientific scrutiny"

and thereby rediscovered the importance of "myth" that had been covered by literalist preudo-science..... go on - say thank you to us nice Liberals for giving you back the power of myth MP....


PS: It is just a myth that you believed this journalistic scaremongering isn't it?? ;-)

KJ said...

"The photo has been doctored..."

Photo editing at OCICBW? Please tell me it ain't so!

Crescens said...

I think your calling the Tuft "modern" rather stretches the point. Wouldn't "pre-modern" do better?

johnieb said...

Eileen said...

Agreed. Whole-heartedly.

Child of the story that I am.

20 December, 2007 15:11

And well worth the snuggle, Fluffikins.

Binx said...

The collection of books we refer to as the Bible are all and only about our relationships with God and each other.

One could of course, as an example, begin Genesis(1:1-5) with an encycloepdic version including quantum mechanics and string theory to explain the big bang.

What is easier?

A reading of the complete definition of the phyics involved
or
In the Beginning when God Created the heavens and the earth God said "Let there be Light."

Church would indeed be a very boring place if we had to hear the detailed scientific explanation of what happened instead of the poetic mythic version.

Matthew says there were three wise men who came to visit baby Jesus, is there anyone alive today who can say for sure that there were fewer or more wise men?

Matthew says when Jesus left Jerusalem he went down to Jericho. Jericho is to the East of Jerusalem not South. Matthew was not talking about walking south but about the walk down the hill to Jericho.

One has to hope if the Gospel authors can get the inmaterial points of geography, or the jots and tiddles, right one should accept that he who was the author was closer to what went on, even within the human remembering of some of those involved.

The Bible IS NOT a book of biology or astronomy or astrology or plate techtonics or geological systems or archiology or history or anything beyond our relationship with the creator and with each other.

Yes there will be somethings that historically match up, and archiologically match up, the authors did not work in a vacume, they, just as authors do today, wrote about what was going on around them and they saw God's hand in those events.
Or
They were divinely inspired to put down the situation on paper.

When we attempt to do more with the book than was intended we get ourselves into trouble.

It is a very heavy book so we should not be throwing it around someone may get hurt, should it hit them.

MadPriest said...

It amazes me that after all this time some of you still believe I give a damn about the veracity of the sources I quote. In any case The Time's article does state the Tufti's hermeneutic.

And yes, FB. Liberals made postmodernism possible. I would call myself a post-liberal in that I believe the liberal quest was of the utmost importance in the development of true religion. I also believe that it has now done it's job of deconstruction and it is time for us to reconstruct. This does not mean, in the slightest that we dump what liberal theology has taught us. It just means that it becomes a component of a new theology rather than the main, defining philosophy and method for radical Christianity.

And don't try it on with me, FB. You're a liberal when it suits and a supernaturalist when it suits. You're nothing but an anarchist and controversialist like the rest of us.

MadPriest said...

Photo editing at OCICBW?
Yes, and real photoshopping. Some complete **** bought me a copy. Oh yes, it's very good. It's absolutely brilliant, in fact. But it's doing my brain in. I'm sure it was designed for women, not men, because you have to read the instructions.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and Adobe instructions are as useful to me as classic Japanese-English instructions. Everything is a f*cking Big Deal, and in Photoshop, one gets confronted with a great many unfamiliar terms ("gamma"? minutiae regarding masks? virtues of RGB vs. CMYK or whatever?). I only do a very rudimentary job with it.

Paul said...

Binx, Matthew does not say there were three wise men. It does say they gave "gifts gold and frainkincense and myrrh" (δωρα χρυσον και λιβανον και σμυρναν). One may punctuate that variously. It is usually read as gifts: gold and frankincense and myrrh. With three named categories of gift the legend has assumed three individuals. It is a leap from the text that one may view as reasonable or fanciful but Williams is quite right that the Bible does not say there were three magi. While it is true that none alive can say there were more or fewer than three, neither can anyone say there were three using only the biblical text. There are some good scholarly reasons to assume there were none and this is hardly news. Brown's "Birth of the Messiah:" covered this ground many years ago.

That was not an attempt to throw the book at you. I just have a thing about letting legend overtake the text and asserting the Bible says things it doesn't. (Reaction to my days among the genuine fundies).

Frankly, my personal piety is more of a "folk piety" that celebrates the stories and can't be bothered haggling over details, but my intellect demands the best interpretive work possible and has little patience with nonsense. One might say that I have transitioned from literalistic naivete to critical scrutiny and now into post-critical naivete. I am uninterested in the modernist controversies (which is why I find Spong boring, he's fighting modernist battles in a post-modern era).

Sorry, I rattle on.

Counterlight said...

That's the problem with living in the world post-Isaac Newton; everyone is so damned literal minded about everything.
Watch the dander rise and the tempers flare when I say this:

The Gospel narratives are myths!

We literal minded moderns automatically associate myth with fabrication. Myths are the stories we live by. Ultimately, their literal truth just doesn't matter. This is why earlier paintings of Gospel narratives disconcert us. The Renaissance and Baroque artists, and their audiences, didn't give a damn about 1st century Palestine under Roman occupation. What mattered to them was not literal history, but the story and its meaning. For Masaccio, it made perfect sense to set the gospel narratives in the streets of Florence (and in the streets of the Oltrarno district, the "wrong side of the tracks" in the 15th century). It made sense for Roger Van Der Weyden to set the Nativity in a 15th century Flemmish barn. Caravaggio won both scorn and admiration for setting Biblical narratives in the Roman street life of the early 17th century, down to the dirty toenails. The demand for the historically accurate renditions of the Gospel narrative only appear in the later 19th century, coincidentally with the first arguments over the literal truth of the Biblical narratives.

Tracie the Red said...

::basks in serenity::

See, the part that sucks is, all this time I thought I had to have permission from someone in a Roman collar to think this way.

Must be my Methodist upbringing, I'd guess.

Tracie the Red said...

I'll sing along with Counterlight:

The Gospel narratives are myths!

I thought only pagans and heathens thought that way. I thought we were the only ones who'd seen that series "The Power of Myth" with Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers and figured it out.

johnieb said...

Paul,

you rattle very much as I do. Speaking of the best interpretive work, do you know Jane Schaberg's *The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene*? I'm about half way through, and am finding it wonderful. I also recommend her *The Illegitimacy of Jesus* highly.

Counterlight said...

As Hannah Arendt once pointed out, the best live by legends, the average live by ideology, and the worst live by conspiracy theories.

Paul said...

No, johnieb, I will have to check those out. Thanks.

Sorry about the rattling.

This has led to some great discussion!

Yes, myths! Absolutely.

And, limited as we are in the face of the transcendent, all we can do is speak in metaphors. None of it "captures" the reality or expresses it precisely. Not even in the pages of Holy Writ. So much energy is wasted and so much blood has been spilt over thinking we fully knew what we are talking about. Such hubris.

Binx said...

This is probably what Jesus was talking about when he said we had to be like little children.
We shouldn't over analize it.
We should with faith accept the story of salvation as we received it.
So if there were no wise men where did the Gold, Myrrh and Frankincense come from, the shephards? the inkeeper?
It sure wasn't delivered by one or more Fedex, DHL or UPS drivers that doesnt happen for another 2000 years.

Myth is not about untruth. Myth is about explaining those truths we understand at the core of our being for which we have no words or no specific factual information.

Anonymous said...

Yes, myths, or metaphors if you like. How else can one understand, even a little?

Peace and Love of the Season

Alice in Phoenix

Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold) said...

You missed the bit where the Archbishop said, "Nevertheless there is only one way to read the accounts, that there are three wise men (etc.) and that deviation from this by a Church could mean it is a failed Church, but it is up to the Instruments of the Communion to decide....