Archbishop of Canterbury calls Nativity 'a legend'.

That's the headline spreading fast and far around the world. Unforutnately, as with most things in the media these days, it's an exaggeration and a fabrication. According to the London Telegraph (self-described as Britain's #1 quality newspaper website):

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.

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."

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. As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was "very unlikely".

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."

You can read the full transcript of the interview the Archbishop of Canterbury gave to BBC Radio for yourself to see just exactly what the Archbishop said. But, the only portion of the nativity story that he said 'works well as a legend' was the three kings showing up, and few of the other comments he made were nearly as 'damning' as the Telegraph would like to make it seem.

And, for the record, I'll agree with the Archbishop.

The gospels give scant information about these 'kings'. They're not described at all in Luke, the book most commonly read as the Christmas story. In Matthew 2:1, they're said to have shown up at King Herod's palace at some point after Jesus' birth, following what they described as a star.

They're not described there as kings. Given their penchant for stargazing, I'd say that it's likely that they weren't 'kings', as the 'legend' holds, but astronomers and astrologers.

We're never told how many of them there are. We're only told what gifts they brought, that they found Jesus as a 'child' at a 'house,' and that they ignored Herod's orders to report back when they'd found Him.

Nothing in the story indicates that the 'traditional' image that you see of the three kings kneeling at Jesus' manger opposite the shepherds is anything more than just that -- tradition. Or, as the Archbishop is now being roundly criticized for stating, a 'legend'.

And, whether or not there were three of these wise men, whether they were kings, and whether they were present immediately after the birth or a few days, weeks, or even years later shouldn't distract from the message of the story: That God became man, was born into the cold and dark of our world, so that He could die for our sins.

Unfortunately, in his effort to make sure that we weren't distracted from that story by the three men in crowns kneeling beside Jesus on our Christmas cards, the Archbishop has managed to become himself a distraction from that story and has made a statement that will become fodder for anti-Christians everywhere -- like, for example, the London Telegraph -- and as a leader of the Church of England, he should've been a bit wiser about his word choices.