Pet Peeve: that BOGUS 'a sack of Gold for a loaf of bread' adage

Another popular variant of this is 'a sack of Gold for a loaf of bread' (or 'plate of food.') But that's not what Revelation 6:6 says! And nowhere else, either. So why do Paper-Bugs assiduously lie on this point?

This interpretive context of Revelation might be of some interest:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/mede/key.iii.i.i.i.iii.html

The relevant prophecy of the Apocalypse is in the Opening of the Third Seal. There are different versions and interpretations for dates, but here's what's described for measure & salary ("tough times"):

>>And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, 'A chœnix of wheat or three chœnix of barley for a denarius (day's wage); and spare the oil and wine.'<<

What's given is a daily food-allowance per salary in whatever 'troubled time,' we can calculate this. A chœnix (χοῖνιξ) was a dry-measure, where an (admittedly varying) 'quarter bushel' of wheat weighed ~1.16 kilograms. As barley weighed less, a chœnix weighed 0.93 and so (x3) 2.8 kgs of the cheaper cereal. (I’m not going to calc that, it’s not necessary to make my point.)

That amount of cereal for the daily wage (one Silver denarius) bought someone much more than “a loaf of bread” !
2.55 lbs avd of wheat ~ 7.65 cups of flour ~ 2 loaves of bread @ ~1.75 lbs each loaf.

Using the USDA table for calories, protein, carbs, etc. (for 1 lb avd. US Hard Red Wheat) we can easily convert the nutritional value of this chœnix:

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 137"]

[TD="width: 119, bgcolor: transparent"]Calories
[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]

3,822​

​

[/TD]

[TD="width: 119, bgcolor: transparent"]Protein (gr)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]

142​

​

[/TD]

[TD="width: 119, bgcolor: transparent"]Fat (gr)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]

21​

​

[/TD]

[TD="width: 119, bgcolor: transparent"]Carbs (gr)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]

830​

​

[/TD]
[/TABLE]



For the average small Greek male (Age 25-30, in Asia Minor AD 95) engaged in strenuous work only 2,450 – 2,550 calories are needed daily to maintain BMI. This was NOT a starvation diet folks. Let’s get real here! That daily staple diet cost ONE SILVER DENARIUS – not a “sack of Gold.” But the point of Revelation 6:6 was very clear to any literate or sensible Greek – you could NOT afford to raise a family on such poor economy - and no, singletons couldn’t afford “oil & wine” on a penny salary either. Bread was cheaper, much cheaper in olden days ... aren't people always saying that though?

Everything's relative in prices, but a "sack of gold" was never part of the equation. The Bible doesn't say your Gold won't buy bread, anywhere. fwiw

Coin-weights & Value:
In AD 95, a fair date for events in this part of Revelation, the Domitian Denarius contained ~3.85 grams of Ag (purity?) and valued at 1/25 an Aureus (AD 95: 7.6 grams of Au.)
So 3.85 grams of Ag bought about 4-5 lbs avd of bread, enough for an active man's sustenance but considered a very meagre measure. Famine prices?

The Denarius:


The Aureus:




Today, 3.85 gr Ag is USD$ 4. Obviously, it's almost impossible to live on $4./day in the USA foodwise, so we probably cracked that seal by the numbers awhile ago.
Recently met an old geezer who told me that back in 1931, when his parents married, a policeman's salary was $14./week (1931: USD$ 2.80 = 20.30 grams Ag per day?) you could raise a family on that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think you misconstrued the entire context of that (my) quote as it was referring to the same old SHTF scenario, not a paranoid biblical scenario. Both are hypothetical, if not plain fantasy at best.
Guy

 

No, one (your common expression) derives from the other (the biblical reference.) The original quote has been so warped/distorted/inflated by Paper Bugs it's utterly idiotic in the common-phrasing against Doomers. There's no event in recorded history when a bag of Gold was ever traded for a loaf of bread (or plate of food) at market prices. The suggestion otherwise is patently absurd, simply.

There have been many, many time in recorded history when food became so scarce and Gold's relative value must have fallen. HOW MUCH, that's a fair question. But absolutely nowhere near 'a plate of food' even the most exquisite victuals.

 

As on the other parent thread, I have asked to stop the religious references. It has been stated and answered, the rest would be argumentation, so let it go.

Thanks

Jim

 

I'm sorry if it seems to have 'veered relgious' desertgem - that wasn't my intent at all. Purely price-related, sorry.

When was wheat (or some other staple) dearest in a Gold currency? I'll suggest a few dates/places when/where Wheat spiked highest, though Gold was admittedly scarcer most places in modern times. (Cultures w/o Gold as money - excluded.)

1215: Western Russia, extraordinary famine
1315-18: Worst European famine/climactic failure
1421-3: Western Russia, extraordinary famine
1436: Russia, extraordinary famine
1600-3: Russia, extraordinary famine
1630-2: India, extraordinary famine
1708-11: Prussia, extraordinary famine
1800, UK: Not sure that Wheat was 'highest during the Napoleonic Wars' because Gold was not circulating/ at higher value than putative 'Mint Ask.'
1870/1: Iran, extraordinary famine
1877: China, extraordinary famine
1921: Ukraine, extraordinary famine
December 1941 - Spring 1942: coincident with the starvation of Leningrad
December/ 1864 - January 1865: any beseiged Confederate cities

Here's an interesting blog-post on Gold, Greenbacks and commodity prices (1860s).
http://gentlemaneconomics.wordpress...rack-commodities-during-the-greenback-period/

I see that the highest recorded contract price for Wheat was $9.6525 (March 2008) but look for higher prices still:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d-prices-within-a-year-due-to-US-drought.html

You cannot ever 'outdo' Texas LOL: “It was reported this week that in Western Australia that they set the highest price for wheat in the world. It’s a little lower than what it is at the Texas gulf." (????!)
http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2012/10/00339_SUNUPPreview10182012d_155526.php

Most expensive foods (per pound avoirdupois):
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-expensive-foods-2012-5

 

Juan, you do know the concept of scenario, right? We weren't saying this has ever happened. We were hypothesising.
Guy

 

For the record, I'm really not interested in any religious question(s). The pseudo-Biblical adage above is well-known and prevalent online, but it's patently false & misleading not just 'textually inaccurate' (where 1 denarius becomes a "sack of Gold" LOL) See it for what it is.

To my thinking, the larger issue is the 'it'll-never-here' or 'it'll be different this time' lunacy of the Paper Bugs. Their insidious propaganda always relies upon some combination of deliberate obfuscation, manipulation, forgetting, and make-believe. Re-evaluating the Biblical price as an historical data point (outlined above) the antigold adage/"prophecy" should be seen as part of that deceit, particularly if directed at preppers.

In fact, over the last century or so, several hundred paper fiatsco failed already; Gold never did. If you didn't know it already, please read up:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/08/average-life-expectancy-for-fiat.html
http://dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00405

fwiw, the equivalent Price/Weights in USD$ should be calc'd retail:
1 lbs. Wheat = 1.51 grams Ag ... or 1 gram Ag = 0.66 lbs. wheat (1/3rd a kilo.) Since a pound of unmilled wheat can be store-bought for $ 0.40 what does 1.5 grams of Ag cost retail? Two pounds of wheat per worn Roosie ( eBay $1.) The demand for Silver MONEY is much greater on relative basis today, obviously. So it's early to horde food?

Where I am going with this:
As for the BoR 6:6 Wheat Price specifically, I presume it WAS a leptokurtic distribution or "fat-tail event" for it's day. Why? WHEAT BECAME ALOT MORE EXPENSIVE over the next 400 years.
Here is a chart of the debased denarius, which should illustrate this:



View attachment 214711
More here: http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/ROMLAS.htm

This appears to be a sigma-event, circa AD 95. But what sigma? Bread was suddenly sold dear, to be sure, but nowhere near a 'sack of gold.' Why? Were other commodities? Has there been any scholarship on this? I have not yet digested Kessler & Temin's paper (2005) to see what baseline or average 'famine' Wheat prices might have been - historical data is always the context.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/63816/moneypricesinear00kess.pdf?sequence=1

The other famine years (listed above) should likewise illustrate leptokurtic distributions. What I am wondering: do some of these events anticipate or predict financial systemic or monetary collapse?

 

Interesting reading and link Juan, but as an ancient collector I will tell you for a fact there are serious errors in the linked article.


http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/ROMLAS.htm


This was just at a glance. If there are such serious errors I can spot in 5 minutes I am suspect of the entire piece.

I do not know who the author is, what his credentials are, but thought I would comment so others would be wary if they read it.

 

medoraman-
I read alot of stuff I totally disagree with, and might link to that too. For me, it's just food-for-thought. I also don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I do NOT doubt for a moment that you (and probably a dozen others or so here) know ALOT MORE about historical coin values than that Hungarian scientist. But he is legit. He's the past President of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomy Scientific Committee, Co-president of the Geonomy Scientific Committee, and Member of the Astronomical Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, etc. LOL

His webpage is long out-of-date, I must admit:
http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/lukacs.html

What do you think of the Kessler & Temin paper?

 

I understand sir, but its an economics paper and it is majorly off on the coinage metrics of the era. Just off the bat, it lists a denari as about 1 gram, when in fact its around 3.8 grams. In an economic paper that has such dramatic errors, and then tries to correspond these "1 gram" denari and talk about relative worth of metal, I am just saying I find the very foundation of the economic proposal flawed.

Btw, I find the second paper better, but have not read it thoroughly. Thank you very much for posting it though. I will try to read more later. The main concern I would have regarding wheat price comparisons would be:

1. Price reporting was sporadic and the ancient authors we have proven had their own viewpoints to voice. Due to this we have proven over and over again errors in contemporary accounts.

2. Egypt under Rome was a unique province with its own debased coinage system. The authors better be WELL aware of that and take it into account properly to get any useful conclusions.

Ardatirion would probably have better comments on these papers than I, but that is what I get from quick reads.

Again, I find this stuff fascinating, though, and love you linked them.

Chris

 

Pliny the Elder gives the Wheat Weight per modius (wholesale dry measure, 8.62 litres) at equivalence to 21 lbs. avd or 6.78 kgs. Kessler & Temin (2005) cite average wholesale Wheat Prices in the same region, and that leads me to definitively date Revelation 6:6 to AD 94 or AD 95. I am also happy to report that I found nothing online that links both the Grain Edict of Provincial Governor Lucius Antistius Rusticus (AD 93: Price & Location) to BoR 6:6 specifically. A CoinTalk FIRST? Maybe so.

For the Wheat Price @ 1 Denarius (16 Asses) we know the price had doubled. How? The Edict strongly suggests speculation on top of famine. Why? Domitian, on the return from a disastrous campaign against the Germans (AD92) "in order to increase the belief in his pretended victory, increased the pay of the army from 75 denarii to 100 denarii a month (3 to 4 aurei every four months)" ... 33% wage-inflation for legionaires. There's a great deal known about Domititian's mis-rule and presumed the more general association with the BoR:
The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse & Empire ; Leonard L. Thompson
The Emperor Domitian, Brian W. Jones

"In the ruins of Flaviopolis, in Phrygia, has been found a marble block having cylindrical wells marked with the names of different Greek measures. Of these the chœnix appears to have contained 1.5 liters. This seems to have been about the capacity of the Æginetan, Bœotian, and Pontic measures." The Roman modius was a dry measure of 8.73 litres.

Converting wholesale volume-weight equivalent of the retail chœnix (2.55 lbs) the wholesale rate normally have been a cost of 1 Ass, but doubled to 2 Asses. So the RETAIL price was 5x higher.

What’s unknown here is the normal retail price (and normal markup) off which that retail inflation occurred. Caveat: I can only presume the modius and chœnix were locally different and understood as such, and not subject to the BoR author's biased inflation, a possibility you've noted Chris.

 

I've read (and written) quite a bit on the ancient economy, so I probably could give some meaningful insight. But before I do, I must ask Juan Blanco - what is it you're trying to do? Your first post seems to start in medias res and the rest sort of rambles. No offense intended, I'm sure it makes perfect sense to those who followed the earlier thread.

A few points to make clear before we go further:
- The standard unit of account, until the mid 2nd century, was the sestertius (abbreviated HS). Everything was denominated in sestertii and, though the actual exchange rate with the denarius fluctuated, it was generally accounted as 3 HS to the denarius.
- The aureus was struck continually to the reign of Constantine I, when it was replaced with the solidus. The fineness and weight was reasonably constant throughout. Debasement happened only in the silver coinage.
- Prices fluctuated regularly throughout the empire. What costs x in Rome may cost 3x in Antioch, and .5x in Spain.
- Because hard data is so lacking, studies of the ancient economy are extremely difficult. Any attempts to apply an unaltered modern economic model to the ancient world would therefor be so inaccurate as to be nearly pointless.

 

I enjoy this thread. I do hope it stays open.

A couple of weeks ago, I sold a few ounces of silver bullion at a minor premium (2% or so). The individual purchasing the bullion told me that he collects mostly dimes, due to the coming economic meltdown, where you'll be forced to use PMs to purchase goods. His statement was that a silver dime could buy a bag of rice. I told him that bag of rice would be pretty small. Then I suggested that he stock up on bullets instead of silver.

 

Actually that would be quite easy, at least with prices where I live.

$1 = gallon of spring water
$1 = loaf of bread
$1 = 2 packages of processed lunch meat (equals enough for about 3 sandwiches total)
$1 = twin pack of granola bars

I could go on and on with different combinations....

While not preferrable, it's quite doable if one needed to. Now to feed a family, that would be difficult. But for an individual, it's easy to do. Then again, I feed a family of 5 for around $50 a week and we eat quite good. It's all a matter of planning your meals and looking for the best deals.

 

That's very impressive on the $50 a week thing. Even in Thailand, where a meal costs 50-cents at the shop outside the condo, I have trouble spending only $50 a week.

 

Never said it was easy! I've been doing it for 6 years so far. Inflation here lately has been a problem in my plan, but I'm still able to make it work.

 

The Kessler and Temin paper is quite well done. They set out to show that the Roman world was widely monetized and quite ingeniously use a statistical analysis of recorded grain prices to do so. Despite both mine and Medoraman's initial concerns, I feel that they counter the risks inherent in such a small statistical sample. Even if they don't, they repeatedly recognize that their model is not the be-all, end-all, rather another small lens through which to view the ancient world. My one criticism is that, throughout the paper, they tacitly assume that Rome is the center of the world and all grain flows there. That is a bit too oversimplified for me. I suspect that, if they had more data points from the east, they would find similar trends pointing to other major population centers, albeit to a lesser extent.

 

The Lukács paper doesn't need quite so thorough a review - it is rubbish. His grasp of the ancient economy is as poor as his grasp of the English language. Furthermore, Mr. Lukács appears to be an adherent to the theory of thermoeconomics, which is the belief that economic systems can be modeled as thermodynamic systems. The application of this controversial school to the study of the Roman monetary economy is frankly absurd.

 

I'm not sure that's a fair approach to the analysis. Within the context of the ancient world, they wouldn't have reliable access to data points from centers of commerce significantly to the east. Their assessment that Rome was the center of their world, and therefore the basis of price structure seems fair, and quite reasonable, in context.

 

Absolutely. Given what they had to work with, they did great work. But it wouldn't be a review without at least one criticism, now would it?

NorthKorea and Juan Blanco, if this is an area of interest to you guys, I strongly recommend that you read Coinage in the Roman Economy​ by Ken Harl.