Ummm…How early is this art?
The brittanica estimates the art to be from Rome in the 2nd century.
Pretty late but its the closest image we have so…
The brittanica estimates the art to be from Rome in the 2nd century.
Pretty late but its the closest image we have so…
Poor editing skills.
That is more gold than I can eat, but YMMV.
When you were way younger, someone should have suggested you try Gold Sambuca.
Now you are a little older, I suggest you do not.
Well, gold is an established food additive; in the system of E numbers that assigns unique numbers to all approved food additives in the European Union, it’s E175. As a noble metal, gold is chemically inert, which means it is not absorbed by the human body but rather simply excreted. So it’s safe to eat.
Since you asked for people to correct your math: 6 fluid ounces (American, not imperial) is about 177.4 cubic centimetres. And gold has a density of 19.32 grams per cubic centimetre, so that should result in about 3.4 kilograms of gold. Also, we shouldn’t forget the constraints of the significant figures we have. The starting point of the calculation was a very rough guess of six fluid ounces, so any result with several decimals suggests false precision.
Thanks!
What was the gospel of Matthew written in? Wikipedia says it was written in “synagogue Greek”. Wouldn’t that person know the difference between gold and some aromatic substance. ( “this stuff is great! It’s like pure gold!”)
Yeah, but Matthew was probably written circa 80-90 A.D. Fifty years for telling and retelling could switch two words that sound similar fairly easily, especially if we’re talking about two different languages: Aramaic and Koine Greek.
But you’re assuming that the story of the magi and the gifts is part of the pre-existing narrative tradition that Matthew is documenting, rather than one of the spectacular literary flourishes that he inserts to make or underline a theological point. In actuality, it looks much more like the latter.
I am a big believer in Jesus the Teacher, and that generally the Gospels can be trusted. But … this doesnt seem legit.
I have read Zealot by Aslan, and also there’s the Marginal Jew series by Meier (a Jesuit) which try to tease out the details we can figure out about the historical Jesus from the small clues and details about the times.
However, many of the details surrounding his birth seem to be constructs (embellishments) from standard “humble origins to greatness” legends - the return to Bethlehem for someone poor from the north is highly unlikely. The “so poor he was born in a stable”, the wise men recognizing his importance, his peril at a young age and fleeing danger, displaying precocious learnedness…
There are quite a few other stories weeded out from this collected narrative; some silly, like the apocryphal story of young Jesus zapping a teacher that annoyed him. I presume too many “just so stories” were made up about his childhood and the persons responsible for setting the official gospels a century later simply took out the too absurd ones or those inconsistent with the official doctrine. Recall there was some fairly vicious infighting about assorted heresies in the early days of the church - the gospels were “updated” to ensure they toed the party line.
Granted. Brown in his work offered the note as an aside, in the interest of completeness. He wasn’t promoting it as a likelihood.