What happened to the Wise Men’s gold?
Robert Parham asks a question I’d never considered:
If the Magi/Wise Men/Three Kings brought gold, frankincense and myrrh to the newborn Jesus, then Joseph and Mary must have been pretty well off, and not simple laborers and peasants as they are often depicted.
Parham speculates that the treasure was a kind of stimulus package for the baby Jesus, as his parents “invested most of the gold in his education and future vocation, anticipating great things from their son (Luke 1:32-33 and Matthew 1:20-21).” He also suggests it could have been “startup” money for his ministry with all those working-class fishermen.
Moreover:
“If Jesus did indeed have access to the wise men’s gold – firsthand experience with wealth – then we can better understand why he knew the dangers of wealth,” Parham writes.
I thought Mary Magdalene and other female followers did some of the financing, and it seems that Jesus had a pretty low-overhead operation — eating where he was offered food, sleeping where he was offered shelter. In addition, there would have been opportunities for a bright and spiritual young man to go learn the faith, maybe even in places like Qumran.
Me, I’d like to think that Mary and Joseph shared that unexpected windfall with their wider family and community — and gave Jesus a lesson that he elevated in his own teaching and ministry.
Which is why I like Parham’s outro best:
“Imagining what happened to the wise men’s gold ought to spark our own moral imagination about what will happen with our own gifts at Christmas. What do we do with our own abundance?”
Frankly, this is why Christianity needs a more robust Talmudic and midrashic tradition.
Not sure why anyone would think Jesus was poor. The family traveled to Jerusalem every year for Pesach. He was educated enough to impress the elders in the temple. As a man, he preached in the synaogue. That would have required learning — Hebrew, etc.
A carpenter at that time worked at building trades in general, not just those involving wood (scarce in the region). They did tilework, etc.
Maybe Joseph used the gold to improve his business. With his sons, Jesus, Joses, James, and Judas, he probably worked on the massive project at Sepphoris, five miles from Nazareth.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/sepphoris.html
Maybe the beautiful woman pictured in the famous mosaic on the floor was Jesus’ wife.
Happy Solstice tonight to David and all! If you still need a Christmas/Hanukkah/Yule present for yourself, here’s a good site:
http://www.literatureinminiature.co.uk/
They will make a tiny doll house size model of your dog/cat/pony/bird, if you send them a picture.
They also have tiny doll house books, including the Book of Common Prayer, the Bible, et al.
In response to roadside signs that assured us that “Jesus saves,” someone posted one that read: “Moses Invests.” So maybe there’s a CD somewhere.
(A joke going around in the late 1950′s, when some were looking forward to the revealing of the Third Secret of Fatima, was that it was a bill for the Last Supper.)
A good thing the Wise Men rounded up their gift of frankincense when they did:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/story/2011-12-20/frankincense-endangered-ethiopia/52130102/1
It is an interesting question. As a kid, I always thought of the gifts as symbolic offerings, which were acknowledged and then the wise men packed them up and took them back home. Guess that’s what you get when you don’t think about these things after age six or seven!
A clue to the presumed lack of wealth of Jesus’ parents can be found the sacrifice they made when they presented him in the temple. Two doves was the offering of the poor. If you were wealthy, you’d have sacrificed a sheep.
If we are taking the infancy narratives as a bunch and leaving aside the question of the historicity of the magi and all the rest, don’t you suppose they’d have had to spend a few shekels during their sojourn in Egypt? ;)
I thought the Magi came when Jesus was a toddler. Bearing gifts they traversed afar.
The redemption of a first-born takes place on the 31st day of his life, so Joseph and Mary redeemed Jesus with turtledoves because they didn’t have the gold yet.
http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/pidyan.html
I think the gold is buried with his foreskin. Now, which church(es) is that in?
As to their expenses in Egypt, they could have covered that by selling the frankincense. Important to Egyptians as a mind-altering substance and for medicine, eye makeup, etc.
http://www.planetbotanic.ca/fact_sheets/frankincense_fs2.htm
To grow your own:
http://www.b-and-t-world-seeds.com/comm.asp?searchFor=frankincense
I think the most likely is when the author suggested that the gold funded the family’s business in Egypt until Jesus could return.
As for the learning and confidence, that cannot come from paid teachers it can only come from a family – and specifically a father. Joseph always seems always to have a bit part in Jesus’ life but I suspect his contribution was in ensuring that his family had a stable, secure and safe environment in which to grow. Not a bad accomplishment!!!!
As for the family being well off – I doubt it but I think Joseph had to be shrewd with the modest amount they had and which was given to them and I think he probably was a good steward.
I think Mary had a pretty clear intuition of Jesus’ ultimate fate when the angel told her that a sword will pierce your heart and will be a sign that will be spoken against. Most Eastern icons show angels holding the instruments of Jesus death as he cleaves for protection to his mother. She had to make him feel safe in meeting the adversity that he was going to meet.
Her temperament (it seems) was basically contemplative and she probably taught that to Jesus and it was in contemplation that Jesus found his vision and understanding.
So with gold Joseph is basically able to secure a reasonably stable and secure environment for Jesus to grow.
Sorry … it was Simeon, later, who told her about the sword piercing her heart.
Well the infancy narratives are beautiful legends — not clear if they contain anything historical other than the names of some of the places and persons mentioned. But it does seem to be historical that Jesus’s father (legal father) was a carpenter and Jesus himself is called a carpenter (Mark 6:3).
So Jesus was not born in absolute poverty as John Paul II once claimed.
Luke’s remarkable concern with money, riches and poverty might shape his account of the presentation in the temple.
@Joseph A. Komonchak (12/20, 4:20 pm) New Englanders of a certain vintage will recall their own particular hockey-crazed twist on “Jesus Saves” back in the early 1970s: “Jesus saves…but Esposito gets the rebound and SCORES!!!”
The Espositos were from Sault, Ontario. I used to go to the Mall over there for Xmas shopping (big discount then on the U.S. dollar). I’d frequently hear over the P.A. system that “Mrs. Esposito [Phil and Tony's mom] is in the mall,” like she was Elvis. There would be a similar announcement when she left.
I never did get a look at her, but apparently, she was chauffeured in and stores would give her priority VIP treatment, possibly because she was elderly.
Thanks for the memories, Luke Hill.
Joseph S. O Leary
“So Jesus was not born in absolute poverty as John Paul II once claimed.”
…and Clare of Assisi considered the “Privilege of Poverty” in imitation of Christ.
bravo to Joe o’Leary on this one. Much too much acceptance of the biblical accounts as histiry as we understand it.
I’m with David on the moral, bu talso wouldm’t it be nice if all those who act as”other Christs” would share some of his lowliness as well.
What the Acton Institute could do with this thought experiment!
I’m probably missing something here, but isn’t the point that Jesus took a “vow” of poverty in becoming an itinerant rabbi? That is, he willingly became poor and extolled the “poor in spirit,” whence St. Clare’s “privilege of poverty.”
In my experience, poverty is ONLY a privilege if you take it on willingly. Those who have poverty thrust upon them, well, they don’t find it so fulfilling …
This time last year, Brent landau’s newly published edition of the Revelation of the Magi got a lot of press. That might be an interesting text for folk to read. It’s worth remembering that Christianity has expanded sparse or odd biblical passages with as much gusto as did the rabbis. Or almost as much, at least.
I don’t mean this in a negative way – but that is a bit of a pedantic point in the context of this discussion.
Afterall there is no extra-biblical historical evidence of a mass exodus of Jewish slaves out of Egypt. That has not stopped that mythology from being weaved into the narratives of the New Testament nor has it stopped in being part of the basis for Jewish identity.
The entire point of midrash and revelation is to appreciate the deeper allegorical truths that such literary devices point to. Trying to unpack and discern that meaning is an important component in good Christian discernment over Christmas.
A little Jewish girl, the niece of a friend, asked her grandmother, “Were you a slave in Egypt?”
:-)
I’ll bet the Magi just gave little samples of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Hedging their bets, just in case they’d read the stars wrong.
And l’ll bet that if somebody posted a message here that said this and this only: “2 plus 2 equals four”, that David would find some way to qualify it. Sigh.
The unbearable lightness of lightness, eh?