Myrrh

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Look sonship, I was stripping God out of the narrative in order to view a Gospel as a piece of writing involving plot development, and to explain why the inclusion of myrrh might have been inserted at the beginning to tie in with the ending.

I understand that. And it is good imo to one day ask oneself - "Why am I so fidgety about hunting out reasons to extricate God from that narrative?"

Yes, on occasion it seems kind of obvious that sometimes the writer is enthusiastically adding some confirming commentary.

1.) Sometimes is not always.
2.) That in itself does not prove the account false.
3.) Truth and editorial enthusiasm are not necessarily opposites.

It is not denied by many that the Gospels are a kind of propaganda.
There is also such a thing as true propaganda.

I was stripping God out of the narrative in order to view a Gospel as a piece of writing involving plot development, and to explain why the inclusion of myrrh might have been inserted at the beginning to tie in with the ending.

But God is part of the whole "plot". From the first verse we are told about God being central to what we are about to read:

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Matt. 1:1)

Ie. You are about to read all about the Anointed One, the Messiah of Israel. This involves God Who anointed Him.

You are about to read about the kingly descendant promised to David. This too involves God's promises.

You are about to read about the seed of Abraham who was to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. This too involves God and His words to the patriarch Abraham.

God has to be involved in the story. The main character is "the Christ" and "the son of David" and "the son of Abraham". The account cannot be told without reference to God.

@divegeester said
Do you agree that it is healthy and useful to be able to examine biblical text in the context and juxtaposition of God existing, and of God not existing?

Exactly.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Look sonship, I was stripping God out of the narrative in order to view a Gospel as a piece of writing involving plot development, and to explain why the inclusion of myrrh might have been inserted at the beginning to tie in with the ending.

I understand that. And it is good imo to one day ask oneself - "Why am I so fidgety about hunti ...[text shortened]... by many that the Gospels are a kind of propaganda.
There is also such a thing as true propaganda.

If the Gospels have integrity (especially historically) then they should be able to stand on their own two feet even if the God element is removed.

@suzianne said
That was not the only purpose of myrrh, said to have medicinal qualities, along with frankincense. The purpose in scripture was to mention these things as highly prized and expensive items, fit for gifting to a king. Some have opined that the gold was the least valuable of these three gifts.

Hearing the story my entire life that wise men brought 3 gifts, fit for a "king", was about as far into it as I got, without giving any sort of examination of *why* these particular gifts were given.

Hearing that myrrh was used when a person died, and that it was given to Jesus as an infant, makes these gifts much more profound, and important to the story of the wise men bringing gifts.

It is either true, or it's a brilliant piece of continuity that Ghost suggested.

Either way, I no longer view the gift of myrrh as something 'nice' given to a king.

@divegeester said
Interesting thread.

I had a quick read up on myrrh and on thing which caught my imagination was how it used to be gathered.

Myrrh is produced by a certain tree when it is injured. The sap produces the healing substance from which myrrh is gleaned, so what the farmers do is repeatedly injure the trees dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of times causing them to creat ...[text shortened]... or our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

It's discussions such as this that help my belief in the Bible, because either the stories are true, or there have been many, many times that writers have used the continuity method to wrap it up neatly.

I tend to lean on faith, which has obviously frustrated me in the past, but asking questions doesn't hurt.

Your Isaiah parallel is interesting.

@hakima said
Some thoughts:

I am speculating that the myrrh mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible that was presumably brought by the nomadic wise men from the East was in resin form and burned.

The OP makes the correlation between the gift of myrrh and the funerary processes during Jesus’ time. Both Myrrh and Frankincense were used in the process of mummification. If the wise ...[text shortened]... d mentions myrrh..

https://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/exhibits/online/mummification/materials.html

Great post.

The resins you mention appear to indicate that myrrh can last for 30 years, no problem, if used correctly.

@chaney3 said
Great post.

The resins you mention appear to indicate that myrrh can last for 30 years, no problem, if used correctly.

30+ years seems an awfully long time for Mary and Joseph to hang on to something without using it for a different purpose.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
30+ years seems an awfully long time for Mary and Joseph to hang on to something without using it for a different purpose.

Unless..... Mary knew.

I need to investigate, but I think there are theories out there believing that Mary knew what was coming. So, she would have saved the myrrh.

(Your post initially made me laugh, I must admit)

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

If the Gospels have integrity (especially historically) then they should be able to stand on their own two feet even if the God element is removed.

For two thousand years the "God element" has remained in the Gospels though many have attempted to splice God out. The God element is there to stay.

Since it is God's will to blend, intertwine, and unite with man it is vain to protest and try to stop Him. The "organic" life unity of God and man is an anvil in this universe that has worn many hammers of human protest down to nothing.

One man who dedicated every breath to separating God and Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ turned around and used him to write 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament.

There is nobody here who was more dedicated to keeping God "over HERE!" and man "over THERE!". That's the Apostle Paul.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

If the Gospels have integrity (especially historically) then they should be able to stand on their own two feet even if the God element is removed.

For two thousand years the "God element" has remained in the Gospels though many have attempted to splice God out. The God element is there to stay.

Since it is God's will to blend, i ...[text shortened]... edicated to keeping God "over HERE!" and man "over THERE!". That's the Apostle Paul.

I think you are slightly circumnavigating the point. For example, how do 'you' account for the dubious plot twist of Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think you are slightly circumnavigating the point. For example, how do 'you' account for the dubious plot twist of Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem?

I believe the 'census' was the culprit, along with the rule of having to return to your initial hometown for the census. (That rule is a logistical nightmare, which was shrugged off in the story).
Not to mention, Joseph should have had family there to stay with?

@chaney3 said
I believe the 'census' was the culprit, along with the rule of having to return to your initial hometown for the census. (That rule is a logistical nightmare, which was shrugged off in the story).
Not to mention, Joseph should have had family there to stay with?

But there is no record of any such census and if there were you wouldn't have to return to your hometown. That wasn't (or isn't) how a census works.

'There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history. Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level.'

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm

@ghost-of-a-duke said
But there is no record of any such census and if there were you wouldn't have to return to your hometown. That wasn't (or isn't) how a census works.

'There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes aga ...[text shortened]... the various governors at the provincial level.'

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm

In today's society, requiring people to uproot their entire life and go back to the hometown of the father for a census would obviously NOT be tolerated, and rightly so.

But wasn't that the rule of Rome 2,000 years ago? Like I said, this logistical nightmare was merely brushed off in the story, and just accepted.

Note: I just saw your edit.

@chaney3 said
In today's society, requiring people to uproot their entire life and go back to the hometown of the father for a census would obviously NOT be tolerated, and rightly so.

But wasn't that the rule of Rome 2,000 years ago? Like I said, this logistical nightmare was merely brushed off in the story, and just accepted.

Check the link I provided.