Three Wise Men May Have Been Neither Wise Nor Men - Reuters

[tag]

Tue Feb 10, 9:12 AM ET


.....discuss

[Danny]

Forget something, Jim?

By Paul Majendie
LONDON (Reuters) - The Three Wise Men who followed the star to Bethlehem bearing gifts for the baby Jesus may not have been all that wise -- or even men.

The traditional infant Nativity play scene could be in for a drastic rewrite after the Church of England indulged in some academic gender-swapping over the three Magi at its General Synod in London this week.

A committee revising the latest prayer book said the term "Magi" was a transliteration of the name used by officials at the Persian court, and that they could well have been women.

"Magi is a word which discloses nothing about numbers, wisdom or gender embodied in the term," a Synod spokesman said on Tuesday after the revision was agreed by the Church of England's parliament which meets twice a year.

In the authorized 17th century King James bible used by up to 70 million worshippers in Anglican churches around the world, the gift-bearing visitors are referred to as "The Three Wise Men."

Now they are to be called just "Magi" and no longer gender-specific in the Anglican prayer book.

"Changing 'Wise Men' to 'Magi' seems to be an entirely sensible move," the Synod spokesman said.

The revision committee said: "While it seems very unlikely that these Persian court officials were female, the possibility that one or more of the Magi were female cannot be excluded completely."

There is no theological dispute about the gifts they brought -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- but the prayer has been changed to use the word Magi on the grounds that "the visitors were not necessarily wise and not necessarily men."

Synod officials denied that the Church of England, a pillar of the Establishment in Britain, was being seized by an attack of political correctness and pandering to feminists.

The decision was greeted by mocking newspaper headlines like "The Three Fairly Sagacious Persons" and "Is it unwise to call the Magi men?"

On Tuesday, the Synod will be turning its attention to "Gender Neutral Titles."

Anglicans are debating whether words like "Chairman" can be replaced at committee meetings by more neutral words like "Chair."

[efusco]

Intriquing...seems like a bit of an offshoot of the 'sacred feminine' theories made popular in Dan Brown's "Davinci Code".

[Bob Allen]

Forget something, Jim?

By Paul Majendie
LONDON (Reuters) - The Three Wise Men who followed the star to Bethlehem bearing gifts for the baby Jesus may not have been all that wise -- or even men.

The traditional infant Nativity play scene could be in for a drastic rewrite after the Church of England indulged in some academic gender-swapping over the three Magi at its General Synod in London this week.

A committee revising the latest prayer book said the term "Magi" was a transliteration of the name used by officials at the Persian court, and that they could well have been women.

"Magi is a word which discloses nothing about numbers, wisdom or gender embodied in the term," a Synod spokesman said on Tuesday after the revision was agreed by the Church of England's parliament which meets twice a year.

In the authorized 17th century King James bible used by up to 70 million worshippers in Anglican churches around the world, the gift-bearing visitors are referred to as "The Three Wise Men."

Now they are to be called just "Magi" and no longer gender-specific in the Anglican prayer book.

"Changing 'Wise Men' to 'Magi' seems to be an entirely sensible move," the Synod spokesman said.

The revision committee said: "While it seems very unlikely that these Persian court officials were female, the possibility that one or more of the Magi were female cannot be excluded completely."

There is no theological dispute about the gifts they brought -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- but the prayer has been changed to use the word Magi on the grounds that "the visitors were not necessarily wise and not necessarily men."

Synod officials denied that the Church of England, a pillar of the Establishment in Britain, was being seized by an attack of political correctness and pandering to feminists.

The decision was greeted by mocking newspaper headlines like "The Three Fairly Sagacious Persons" and "Is it unwise to call the Magi men?"

On Tuesday, the Synod will be turning its attention to "Gender Neutral Titles."

Anglicans are debating whether words like "Chairman" can be replaced at committee meetings by more neutral words like "Chair."

As a former theology student and near priest, I can offer this idea: the Nativity, as described in the Gospels, probably never took place. The Gospels were written years after the death of Jesus and much of "the life" of Jesus was creative writing intended to flesh out (so to speak) the person of Jesus for purposes of educating would-be converts. Put another way, the accounts of the miracles are probably no more literally true than the creation account in Genesis. The accounts were written to convey a poetic rather than literal truth. Jesus was a prophet, healer and caretaker (poetic truth), but whether he actually made a specific lame man walk or actually fed hundreds of people from 12 baskets of fish is seriously open to question. Isn't it odd that such a dramatic person appears nowhere in the secular literature/history of the times?
Bob

[Randy]

Bob Allen wrote:

Isn't it odd that such a dramatic person appears nowhere in the secular literature/history of the times?

I guess you have not heard of Josephus http://www.josephus-1.com/ who's work for centuries is more widely read in Europe than any other book than the Bible http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm.

[tag]

Forget something, Jim?

Geez, you're such a stickler for details!

[Bob Osgood]

[quAs a former theology student and near priest, I can offer this idea: the Nativity, as described in the Gospels, probably never took place. The Gospels were written years after the death of Jesus and much of "the life" of Jesus was creative writing intended to flesh out (so to speak) the person of Jesus for purposes of educating would-be converts. Put another way, the accounts of the miracles are probably no more literally true than the creation account in Genesis. The accounts were written to convey a poetic rather than literal truth. Jesus was a prophet, healer and caretaker (poetic truth), but whether he actually made a specific lame man walk or actually fed hundreds of people from 12 baskets of fish is seriously open to question. Isn't it odd that such a dramatic person appears nowhere in the secular literature/history of the times?
ote]

Do you acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?