When I heard a version of that on Prairie Home Companion a few years ago, the words were " I, a king of Orient is . . ." and the final verse was “Former kings of Orient are”
I don’t remember the details, but something about “I, a king of Orient is” gave me the giggles so bad . . .
So, you’re saying the son of God is mundane and pointless? You heathen! What about the Pit, I mean we’re told that he was in hell for 3 days after being crucified…fine fine, I’ll quit digging my hole now…
My mother told me that when she was young, she thought her next door neighbor, John Burges, was Santa Claus. He looked the part, and he was in that Christmas carole ('round John Burges…") but he clearly wasn’t Jesus. Who else could he be?
I raises hand am the one who hadn’t heard the rubber cigar version; I LOLed. The version I always heard was “We three kings of Orient are/Trying to sell some cheap underwear/So fantastic, no elastic/Just $3.99 a pair.”
Now would a family of carpenters be prosperous or not? I would have thought they would sell the GF&M and live high off the hog (well, not the hog) for a while.
Meh. Historians agree that these later “gospels” – including the infancy gospels – have little or no historical value. The only one that might have signficant historical merit is the so-called Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is the text that you described).
That depends on how you define “historical value.” The non-canonical Gospels are perceive as having a great deal of historical value in the kind of information it gives us about the development and diversity of christianity in the first three centuries. It is true that historians do not regard the narratives themselves as being historical but they don’t think much of the Canonical narratives are historically accurate either.