Robert Kreich Ritner Jr. (1953-2021)

I just learned that Robert Kriech Ritner, Jr. passed away yesterday. Professor Ritner served as my dissertation advisor until Yale University removed him from the position. [This was not at my request.] An official obituary has been posted. This is very sad.

I do not think I ever held Professor Ritner in the contempt or disdain in which he came to hold me. Still, I will share some positive memories of Professor Ritner.

I met Professor Ritner for the first time at my first international conference. It was devoted to magic in the ancient world and was held in August 1992 in Kansas. I had already been accepted to study under him at Yale. 

One of the essentials I learned from Professor Ritner was demotic paleography. When he was a graduate student, Ritner worked on the Chicago Demotic Dictionary. One of his jobs was to take an exacto knife to photographs of papyri and to separate every demotic word. From that, he learned to account for every speck of ink on the papyrus and he taught us to do the same.

I appreciated how he tried to integrate the archaeology, texts, and art of Egypt. Too many disciplines fail to do so, and Egyptology is not as good as it once was in doing so.

Professor Ritner was an engaging lecturer. He knew how to entertain an audience. Professor Ritner was very skilled at turning a phrase. While this mostly came out in his more vituperative passages, he occasionally turned it with felicitous results into his translations. [Some of us have some measure of appreciation for well-crafted vituperation.]

Professor Ritner was very ambitious. Twenty-five to thirty years ago he intended to publish a number of unpublished texts, such as OIC 25389 and another manuscript of the Bentresh Stele, along with the definitive study of tribalism in the Libyan period and a demotic paleography. [I do not know what the publication status is, but one can always be hopeful that the manuscript is waiting at the editors.]

[It was always an informative experience to read a demotic text with Professor Ritner. I had previously had a class in demotic but not from someone who did paleography; there was a huge difference. The readings of the text would be accompanied with an erudite commentary on secondary literature related to the passage in the text. He also generously shared with the class Edgerton's Chicago House copies of the Setna I text, which were generally easier to read than photocopies of the photographs in Spiegelberg's edition.]

My condolences to his family.

[Updates in brackets]

The Tomb of Aratus

A news report discusses how the tomb of the astronomer Aratus was discovered at Zımbıllı Tepe in Turkey. Why is this important?

Aratus was an astronomer who wrote about astronomy in poetry. His most famous work is the Phaenomena. 

Astronomical poetry is out of fashion these days. Most people live in places in the world where light pollution blots out most of the stars in the night sky so they do not feel the need to wax poetic about the view.

Most of what makes Aratus important, at least to Christians, is that the apostle Paul quoted him in his discourse on Mars Hill (Acts 17:28). At the beginning of the Phaenomena (line 5 to be precise), Aratus says:

Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν.

For we are his [God's] γένος.

The term γένος can mean "offspring," or "descendants" in the biological sense. It can also be used metaphorically as "household." It can also mean "species," which is also a biological sense, and the modern biological term genus is related to it. 

The context of this statement in Aratus is this:

ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν 

ἄρρητον: μεσταὶ δέ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί, 

πᾶσαι δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα 

καὶ λιμένες: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες. 

τοῦ γάρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν:

We will start from God (Zeus), who, since we are men, should never go unmentioned. All roads, all marketplaces of men, are filled with God, all seas and lakes. We proclaim God always in all ways, for we are his γένος.

Aratus's expression takes a definite side on the relationship between humans and God and Paul cites it approvingly. It is not clear that Paul's thought corresponds well with the general view of post-Nicean Christianity. It does, however, work fairly well with Latter-day Saint thought.

Princeton Eliminates any Reason to Hire its Classics Students

A friend sent me notice of a (slightly garbled) news report from Princeton. Apparently it is true. According to the Princeton Alumni Weekly, Princeton has eliminated "the requirement for classics majors to take Greek or Latin." 

In classics, two major changes were made. The “classics” track, which required an intermediate proficiency in Greek or Latin to enter the concentration, was eliminated, as was the requirement for students to take Greek or Latin. Students still are encouraged to take either language if it is relevant to their interests in the department. The breadth of offerings remains the same, said Josh Billings, director of undergraduate studies and professor of classics. The changes ultimately give students more opportunities to major in classics. 

Since Greek and Latin are the basis for any major in classics, a classics major who graduates knowing neither does not qualify as a classics major.

Back in the nineteenth century, both Greek and Latin were required to be admitted to college. First, the general requirement for entrance was dropped, but one could at least expect a classics major to know them. Now, apparently, Ivy League classics graduates can graduate without knowing either. Does this mean that Princeton classics graduates are guilty of false advertising, or is it Princeton itself that is?

Many years ago, BYU had that problem (long ago rectified) and Hugh Nibley had a withering critique of it:

The indispensable key to the past is language, and in our Utah schools we have always affected a unique and intense interest in the ancient world. We have tried to open the lock without the key: only in Utah can you take advanced courses in the fine points of Greek literature from a man who does not know a word of Greek, but who, in the name of scholarship, has driven hundreds of young people from the Church (I have run into them everywhere); only here can you attend public lectures on the Dead Sea Scrolls by savants who cannot read a line of them; only here can you study classical and Near Eastern civilization and thought under experts to whom a line of Horace or the Talmud might as well be Chinese; only here can you listen to discourses on the philology of the Tower of Babel by authorities who know no language but English, and so on and so on--it is unbelievable. (Hugh Nibley, "Nobody to Blame," Eloquent Witness [Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2008], 132-33).

This may not necessarily be true of BYU now (though it is still true of Mormon historians), but apparently, this will now be true of Princeton and Princeton graduates.

You speak for others when you protest that you are wasting your time taking required courses that never go very deep and keep you from learning the things you should. Such courses exist in all graduate schools--for the sake of the teachers, not the students. The idea is that a large number of courses and a large staff teaching them make a good college. But forty sparrows do not make an eagle, forty house cats do not make a lion, and forty survey courses do not make a scholar. Moreover, if you bring together forty men, each of whom knows a little Latin or math, the result is not the equivalent of consulting just one person with a good knowledge of those subjects. (Nibley, "Nobody to Blame," 135.)

Apparently consulting forty Princeton grads will not be the equivalent of consulting just one person with a good knowledge of Greek or Latin.

Perhaps the Princeton alumni had the most interesting comments. Mark Davies noted:

“Classics lite” would be a good description of this major, but perhaps “classical civilization” would do, in order to distinguish the “classics” majors who are literate in both Greek and Latin. How elitist! Pardon my cynicism, but a classics faculty about three times as large as the one I knew clearly aims to increase enrollments for its own benefit. The paucity of minorities in traditional classics is a matter of economics, not racism.

Stephen William Foster claimed:

It is difficult indeed to understand how that change would “provide new perspectives” or “make the field better.” Apart from keeping these languages as our collective cultural heritage, attracting students who have not had Greek or Latin in high school is no argument for the change; many high schools have not offered those languages in decades, while this change would make that even less likely due to fewer people being able to teach it. . . .

Eliminating the language requirement is a deterioration of rigor rather than an improvement. It undermines Princeton’s mission as a standard-bearer of excellence in scholarly endeavor. Shame on the faculty for its shortsightedness.

J. David Garmon argued:

Undoubtedly, the humanities have faced increasing challenges over the years attracting students; and the rigors of even intermediate proficiency in Latin or Greek are well known to anyone who has attempted it. However, for the classics department to abandon the foundation of its discipline is like an engineering department abandoning mathematics and physics — two notoriously rigorous areas of study — in hopes of creating a “more vibrant intellectual community.”

A truly vibrant and intellectually honest community must always demand rigor and integrity in its self-examination, which in this case would require acknowledging, however heartbreaking it might be, that the classics department is no longer able to attract the intellectual horsepower it once did and that it is dumbing down its curriculum in keeping with the current “tastes” of undergraduates. Evading a clear statement of this difficult realty is a departure from the values of integrity and honesty that are the bedrock of any intellectual endeavor and is a disservice to the community of scholars who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth.

In my experience, "creating a vibrant intellectual community" is a euphemism for "a wholesale abandoning of intellectual rigor in pursuit of a political ideology."

Then again, this is the classics department at Princeton, whose classics professors have been involved in questionable conduct (here, here, here, here, and here), and accused of sexual harassment. So perhaps one should not be surprised.

I can list some of my own reasons why Greek and Latin are worth learning.

1. There are only a handful of languages which will unlock the key to thousands of years of history in multiple locations (which sadly eliminates Egyptian): Akkadian, Greek, Latin, Chinese, and Arabic.
2. If you know Latin, you can wander all over Europe and actually read inscriptions left at places.
   
3. When your child comes up to you and asks the meaning of this song that he is singing, you might be able to answer him.
4. In graduate school, we were assigned to read a particular manuscript, the introduction to which was written two hundred years ago, and so, of course, was in Latin. As the only Egyptologist in the room who had had any Latin, I had to provide a translation at sight.
5. I use Greek constantly. Working in Greco-Roman Egypt, Greek is simply a necessity.
6. While many of the texts are translated, it is usually more difficult to find a translation than the original text. For some texts, however, there are no translations.
7. Knowing the original language makes it possible to determine when some of the translations are wrong, or suspect. 
8. When working with a text like the Septuagint (which is an ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek), every reason that one would want consult the Septuagint is only available in Greek.
   

I recommend studying Greek and Latin given the chance. I cannot recommend doing so at Princeton.

My reaction to the news was to go do the one thing that a Princeton classics graduate will not be able to do. Go read some Latin.

Study as Complaining

The following quotation identifies what academics are doing when they engage in various disciplines that end in "studies." Note that the authors of this quotation are not the usual suspects. They come from the academy, not outside it.

These fields vary widely, though they have enough in common to be readily identifiable: they are usually entitled "critical X" or "X studies," where X is whatever they want to complain about, disrupt, and modify, in accordance with the postmodern knowledge and political principles. (Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Cynical Theories [Durham, North Carolina: Pitchstone Publishing, 2020], 180.)

This leads to an important observation that those involved in such "studies" fields are engaged in "an approach that otherwise very much resembles that of a support group that asserts itself as rigorous" (ibid., 179). I have sat through a number of those "support group" meetings. Fortunately, my current position allows me to avoid them.

Rumaging Through Some Reports

I recently went through the 2020 SAT Suite of Assessments Annual Report. On page 6 of this document is a list of average SAT scores broken down by the proposed major that students claim to want to enter. What would really be interesting is to look at SAT scores of students based on what they actually graduate in. Nevertheless there are a number of surprises in the data.

It is no surprise that the average Math score for a presumptive math major (648) is higher than the average Math score for a presumptive English major (535). What might be surprising is that the average Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (ERW) score for prospective math majors (599) also beats that of the average prospective English major (587). One expects the English majors to own that category, but the average prospective Physical Science major (598), Social Science major (595), and Humanities major (589), all do better, though perhaps not significantly so.

The 2020 report was not as informative as the SAT 2016 College-Bound Seniors Total Group Profile Report. So the rest of this information will be taken from the earlier report.

If one wants to do well on the SAT, what sorts of classes help one prepare?

• Take as much English as you can. On average every year of English was worth an additional 25 points on the Mathematics portion of the exam. But it was also worth about the same on Critical Reading and the Writing. (The test has been restructured in the intervening time.) This is not terribly surprising since the tests have always been heavily weighted towards English majors.
• Every year of a foreign language was worth about 30 points on Critical Reading, 20-40 points on Writing, and about 40 points on Mathematics.
• The best language to take for Critical Reading was Latin, followed by Chinese and German. The best language for Mathematics was Chinese, followed by Latin and Japanese. The best language for writing is Latin, followed by Chinese and Greek.
• Taking two years of math is better for the average Mathematics score than taking three years, but it is much better to take at least four. More math courses also help on all other portions of the SAT.
• Surprisingly, natural science courses do not help in the Mathematics section but Social Science courses do slightly.
  

One can take the totals scores of prospective majors and rank majors by the perceived intelligence needed to get into the major. (Again, it would be more interesting to see the scores of those who actually graduated in a given major). This does not predict the intelligence of any given individual who proposes to major in a subject, but rather the average ability of an aspirant:

• In the 1700s range were: Interdisciplinary studies and Mathematics.
• In the 1600s range were: English, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, Foreign Languages, Humanities, Engineering, Computer Science, and Biology.
• In the 1500s range were: Library Sciences, Philosophy, Area Studies, History, Theology, Environmental Sciences, Law, Communications, and Business.
• In the 1400s range were: Performing Arts, Architecture, Psychology, Health, Education, Transportation, and the Military.
• In the 1300s range were: Agriculture, Administration, Family Science, Security, Recreation, and Culinary Services.
• In the 1200s range were: Construction and Technicians.

What should we make of the fact that prospective bureaucrats did worse on the SAT than prospective farmers?

Gordon B. Hinckley on the Hofmann Forgeries

For many years whenever the Mark Hofmann's story comes up, there is talk about how leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were duped. 

Two decades ago, I put together a manuscript examining the use of Hofmann forgeries in writing about Latter-day Saint history. I looked at what historians, Church leaders, and critics of the Church said about the forgeries and how they used them. I probably did not get everything, but I got a broad enough look at the subject that I had a feel for the lay of the land and how the various groups interacted and how they used the material.

In the Hofmann case, pretty much only Geroge Throckmorton comes out looking good. Mormon historians (which is what they called themselves then) looked really bad. But Church leaders actually do not look bad if one takes the time to actually read what they said. To illustrate this, I will list the public statements of Gordon B. Hinckley, originally a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, then a member of the First Presidency, and much later, President of the Church.

In the April 1981 conference, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quroum of the Twelve, decided “to say a few word this afternoon about the recently discovered transcript of a blessing, reported to have been given January 17, 1844, to Joseph Smith to his eleven-year-old son.” Elder Hinckley was cautious about the authenticity of the document making statements like: “The document is evidently in the handwriting of Thomas Bullock.” “Take for instance this man, Thomas Bullock, whose hand evidently recorded the document we are discussing. If he wrote that blessing, he knew about it. . . . Would he have been willing to pay so heavy a price for his membership in the Church and to have suffered so much to advance its cause as a missionary at the call of Brigham Young if he had any doubt that President Young was the proper leader of the Church and that this right belonged to another according to a blessing which he had in his possession and which he had written with his own pen?” Elder Hinckley reasonably concluded that the Hofmann forgery “is not a record of ordination to an office,” and “it does not seriously raise any question concerning the succession in the presidency through the Council of the Twelve Apostles.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Joseph Smith III Document and the Keys of the Kingdom,” Ensign 11/5 (May 1981): 20-22, emphasis added.)

In a news release announcing the so-called Salamander Letter on 28 April 1985, President Hinckley said that even though “there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged” because “no one, of course can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document.” (Gordon B. Hinckely, News Release, 28 April 1985, cited in Dallin H. Oaks, “Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents,” Ensign 17/10 (October 1987): 64.)

On 23 June 1985, Gordon B. Hinckley gave a fireside to the young adults of the Church where he addressed the issue of the Hofmann documents. Even “assuming that [the letters] are authentic,” President Hickley noted, “they have no real relevancy to the question of the authenticity of the Church or of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.” (“Fireside Counsel: Be Faithful, Clean, Strong in Prayer,” Ensign 15/9 (September 1985): 72.)

In September 1985, a month before the Hofmann forgeries literally blew up, Gordon B. Hinckley, then Second Councilor in the First Presidency, addressed the issue of the Salamander letter in his First Presidency Message (Gordon B. Hinckely, “Keep the Faith,” Ensign 15/9 (September 1985): 4-5, emphasis added.). The caution he used is noteworthy:

As most of you know, recently there have been great stirrings over two old letters. One was purportedly written in 1825 by Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell. If it is genuine, it is the oldest known product of Joseph Smith’s handwriting. . . . The other carries the date of October 23, 1830, and was purportedly written by Martin Harris to W. W. Phelps.
I acquired for the Church both of these letters, the first by purchase. The second was given to the Church by its generous owner. I am, of course, familiar with both letters, having held them in my hands and having read them in their original form. It was I, also, who made the decision to make them public. Copies were issued to the media, and both have received wide publicity.

I knew there would be a great fuss. Scholars have pored over them, discussed them, written about them, differed in their opinions, and even argued about them.
I am glad we have them. They are interesting documents of whose authenticity we are not certain and may never be. However, assuming that they are authentic, they are valuable writings of the period out of which they have come. But they have no real relevancy to the question of the authenticity of the Church or of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.

President Hinckley, in his last statement was very much prophetic. He also asked:

Shall two men, their character, their faith, their lives, the testimonies to which they gave voice to the end of their days, be judged by a few words on a sheet of paper that may or may not have been written by the one and received by the other?

Besides noting that the documents might not be authentic, President Hinckley also noted the use to which these documents had been put:

A few dissidents, apostates, and excommunicants have marshaled their resources in an effort to belittle and demean this work—its history, its doctrine, its practices. Some have stooped to falsehood, misrepresentation, and mockery. A few weak ones have been taken in by their sophistry. . . . They are poking into all the crevices of our history, ferreting out little things of small import and magnifying them into great issues of public discussion, working the media in an effort to give credibility to their efforts.

None of this is new, of course. From the day that Joseph Smith walked out of the grove in the year 1820, critics and enemies—generation after generation of them—have worked and reworked the same old materials. They have minutely explored the environment in which Joseph Smith lived in an effort to rationalize—some on the basis of folk magic and the occult—the remarkable things which he did. Early in this fishing expedition, one of them gathered affidavits from neighbors and associates in an effort to undermine the character of Joseph Smith. This old bale of straw has been dished up again and again as if it were something new. They have raked over every available word that he spoke or wrote, and they then in turn have written long tomes and delivered long lectures trying to explain the mystery of this character and his work.

There have been cycles of this during the past 165 years. They have ebbed and flowed. Now were are in another peak era, which also will pass. . . .

As I have mentioned, from the beginning of this work there has been opposition. There have been apostates. There have been scholars, some with balance and others with an axe to grind, who have raked over every bit of evidence available concerning Joseph Smith, the prophet of this dispensation. I plead with you, do not let yourselves be numbered among the critics, among the dissidents, among the apostates.

President Hinckley correctly noted that the effort to recycle the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits, or to connect Joseph Smith with “folk magic and the occult” was “an effort to rationalize,” and that some who claim to be scholars have “an axe to grind.”

After the forgeries came out, Elder Dallin H. Oaks wrote:

I hope some lessons will have been learned by the members of the Church and by historians, archivists, investors, and media personnel. I hope that we will all be less inclined to act and speak precipitously and more inclined to reserve judgment about the significance of so-called new historical discoveries.

I have appreciated the caution expressed by Church leaders during the succession of document discoveries, a caution not always followed by historians, investors, magazines, newspapers, and television reporters. President Gordon B. Hinckley repeatedly cautioned that the Church did not know these documents were authentic. (Dallin H. Oaks, “Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents,” Ensign 17/10 (October 1987): 69.)

That same month, in the Sunday Morning Session of General Conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley, then First Councilor in the First Presidency, summarized the Hofmann forgeries (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Lord, Increase Our Faith,” Ensign 17/11 (November 1987): 52-53):

As most of you know, in the last four of five years we have passed through an interesting episode in the history of the Church. There came into our hands two letters that were seized upon by the media when we announced them. They were trumpeted across much of the world as documents that would challenge the authenticity of the Church. In announcing them we stated that they really had nothing to do with the essentials of our history. . . . Now, as you know, these letters, together with other documents, have been acknowledged by their forger to be total frauds and part of an evil and devious design which culminated in the murder of two individuals.

He also wondered “what those whose faith was shaken have thought since the forger confessed to his evil work.”

President Hinckley then turned his attention to the historians:

Out of this earlier episode has now arisen another phenomenon. It is described as the writing of a “new history” of the Church as distinguished from the “old history.” It represents, among other things, an effort to ferret out every element of folk magic and the occult in the environment in which Joseph Smith lived to explain what he did and why.
I have no doubt there was folk magic practiced in those days. Without question there were superstitions and the superstitious. . . . There is even some in this age of so-called enlightenment. . . . The fact that there were superstitions among the people in the days of Joseph Smith is not evidence whatever that the Church came of such superstition.
Joseph Smith himself wrote or dictated his history. It is his testimony of what occurred, and he sealed that testimony with his life. It is written in language clear and unmistakable. . . . The present effort of trying to find some other explanation for the organization of the Church, for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and for the priesthood with its keys and powers will be similar to other anti-Mormon fads which have come and blossomed and faded.

For President Hinckley—who has been working with Latter-day Saint history for decades at that point—to include the work of Mormon historians with “other anti-Mormon fads” sends a particularly strong signal. Hinckley also recognized that the idea of connecting Joseph Smith with ‘magic’ came “out of” the Hofmann forgeries. 

Those who want to make accusations about Church leaders in the Hofmann case should at least read what they have written rather than baseless accusations by individuals who are either promoting an agenda, or trying to cover up their own mistakes.

The Generous Man

Recently a friend reported to me the story of someone who claims to be a full-tithe payer without actually paying any tithing. It reminded me of a story told about seventy years ago by George Albert Smith in the July 1947 Improvement Era (p. 357). This story has also been quoted in the Ensign in 1982, General Conference in 1986, and again in 2002.

One day on the street I met a friend whom I had known since boyhood. I had not visited with him for some time, and I was interested in being brought up to date concerning his life, his problems, and his faith, therefore I invited him to go to a conference in Utah County with me. He drove his fine car (the make of car I was driving had not been received into society at that time). He took his wife, and I took mine. . . .

As we drove home, he turned to me and said: . . . "You know I have heard many things in this conference, but there is only one thing that I do not understand the way you do."

I said: "What is it?"

"Well," he said, "it is about paying tithing."

He thought I would ask him how he paid his tithing, but I did not. I thought if he wanted to tell me, he would. He said: "Would you like me to tell you how I pay my tithing?"

I said, "If you want to, you may."

"Well," he said, "if I make ten thousand dollars in a year, I put a thousand dollars in the bank for tithing. I know why it's there. Then when the bishop comes and wants me to make a contribution for the chapel or give him a check for a missionary who is going away, if I think he needs the money, I give him a check. If a family in the ward is in distress and needs coal or food or clothing or anything else, I write out a check. If I find a boy or girl who is having difficulty getting through school in the East, I send a check. Little by little I exhaust the thousand dollars, and every dollar of it has gone where I know it has done good. Now what do you think of that?"

"Well," I said, "do you want me to tell you what I think of it?"

He said, "Yes."

I said: "I think you are a very generous man with someone else's property." And he nearly tipped the car over.

He said, "What do you mean?"

I said, "You have an idea that you have paid your tithing?"

"Yes." he said.

I said: "You have not paid any tithing. You have told me what you have done with the Lord's money, but you have not told me that you have given anyone a penny of your own. He is the best partner you have in the world. He gives you everything you have, even the air you breathe. He has said you should take one-tenth of what comes to you and give it to the Church as directed by the Lord. You haven't done that; you have taken your best partner's money, and have given it away."

Well, I will tell you there was quiet in the car for some time. . . .

About a month after that I met him on the street. He came up, put his arm in mine, and said: "Brother Smith, I am paying my tithing the same way you do." I was very happy to hear that.

 

In Memoriam: Rufino Rodriguez

I was saddened to read an obituary of Rufino Rodriguez, who died on 23 January 2021 of the coronavirus just a few months short of retirement. Rufino was a respiratory therapist at Utah Valley Hospital. I only knew him by his first name. He saved my daughter's life more times than I can count. The same is true for my son as well. When one of my younger sons was not breathing when he was born, I knew that he would be fine, because Rufino was there.

I do not know for certain, but I strongly suspect that Rufino caught the disease that took his life from someone that he was trying to save from it. He was certainly a blessing in our lives and I suspect has been a blessing in the lives of many others. We need more heroes like Rufino.

Each life that touches ours for good / Reflects thine own great mercy Lord . . .

 

When Protests Backfire

Two related points came to my attention over the past week. 

The first was from a summary of the year 2020 published by the Barna group. The Barna group found that as the result of "the surge of racial justice protests and activism" in the summer of 2020 is that the number of people "not at all motivated" to address racial justice almost doubled from the previous year, with a corresponding shrinkage in the "somewhat motivated" category. The other categories stayed about the same. This means that the protests, rather than motivating people to change, completely alienated some of those who had been somewhat favorably inclined.

The Barna study also found that the number of people who say that race is not a problem almost doubled over the same period (from 11% to 19%). Obviously the majority of Americans think that race is still a problem in the United States, but almost one in ten who had thought it was a problem decided, on second thought, that it wasn't.

The second was that about a dozen years ago, two scholars surveyed the success rate of protests and published their findings in the journal International Security. They found that non-violent protest movements achieved their goals 53% of the time (slightly over half the time), but violent protests achieved their results only 26% of the time (only about a quarter of the time).

Thus, if you launch a non-violent protest movement, your success is likely to be a flip of the coin. Is it worth it? It depends on whether you are a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kind of person. If the protest turns violent, however, your odds of success will half. Resorting to violence alienates people who would be inclined to support you.

A couple of decades ago, I did my own informal survey about whether academic protests were actually effective. These were the sort of letter-writing campaigns that happen when a university decides to shutter an ancient studies program. Again, success has been something of a coin-toss. Indeed, the enthusiasm for this course of action seems utterly unconnected from its efficacy. You can see the latest variation on this theme here.

What does this have to do with the ancient world? Two things: First, protests have a very long history, and anciently were a risky proposition. Jeroboam's protest against Rehoboam turned violent and did prove successful (1 Kings 12:1-20), but that seems to have been more of the exception. Psammetichus I successfully threw off the yoke of the Assyrian empire, but most of those who protested against the Assyrians paid dearly for it in the long run, just ask Sidqa, king of Ashkelon.

The second, is an event that happened in a class on ancient languages: Years ago, when I was a graduate student at U. C. Berkeley, I remember looking with my professor out the window of his office in Evans Hall at a protest being staged for a cause that my professor had worked long and hard for. He shook his head and said to me: "They give the movement a bad name."

More Thoughts on Gratitude and Entitlement

Further elaboration of the thought I shared by Wilford Andersen was provided by Elder Dale Renlund:

The concept—“the greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement”—also has profound spiritual applications. Our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, are the ultimate Givers. The more we distance ourselves from Them, the more entitled we feel. We begin to think that we deserve grace and are owed blessings. We are more prone to look around, identify inequities, and feel aggrieved—even offended—by the unfairness we perceive. While the unfairness can range from trivial to gut-wrenching, when we are distant from God, even small inequities loom large. We feel that God has an obligation to fix things—and fix them right now!

This would indicate that those who characterize themselves as "woke" are actually better described as entitled. One might think that gratitude might encourage individuals to have the blessings that one enjoys shared more widely with others. In my experience, gratitude is more gracious than grating.

Gratitude vs. Entitlement

Wilford W. Anderson has been credited with the following observation: “The greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement.”

I have been able to witness this principle in action many times. I have seen colleagues who openly mock the individuals who so graciously and generously donated the funds that allow them have employment. On the other hand, I have been impressed by one colleague who deliberately buys the products of a company that funds part of his research.

In the Old Kingdom, a number of wealthy individuals set up a series of endowments. The purpose of these endowments was to provide offerings for the deceased in perpetuity after they were gone. The endowments do not seem to have been used for the intended purpose more than one generation after the death of the donor. This may provide some historical evidence for Anderson's observation.

Gratitude in Mesopotamia

In his Assyrian dictionary, Simo Parpola lists the term karabu as meaning "to thank." One of the definitions that the Chicago Assyrian dictionary lists for karabu is:

to invoke blessings upon other persons (for a specific purpose) before the images of the gods, to pray to the gods.

Parpola also list karibu as meaning "thankful."

So in ancient Mesopotamia, like ancient Egypt, to thank someone was to pray to the gods on their behalf. As in Egypt, gratitude involved god.

This seems a long way from the modern world, and would be were it not for the fact that a relative of this Mesopotamian term has survived into English in two different forms. One of the Hebrew words related to karabu is kerub or cherub. The actual Akkadian cognate is thought to be karibu "thankful." The cherubim (the plural form of cherub) were woven into the curtains surrounding the tabernacle of Moses. In the temple of Solomon they were erected in three dimensions and larger than life surrounding the throne of God. 

The general depiction of the cherubs throughout the West Semitic world shares similarities, even though Phoenician and Israelite cherubs were not identical in form. The Phoenician word and the general form was borrowed into Greek as the gryps, which is the origin of English gryphon or griffin.

In a way, gratitude allows the cherubim to be in the presence of God and behold his face.

Gratitude in Ancient Egypt

The ancient Egyptian expression meaning "to thank" is dw3-ntr. Literally, it means "to praise god (for)." If you wanted to thank someone, you would praise god for them. An early example of this (from the Old Kingdom) is the inscription of Ptahwash:

His majesty praised him because of it; he praised god for him (i.e. he thanked him) more than anything. (Urk. I 44.)

Nearly three thousand years later the same expression is used in late Ptolemaic period manuscripts of the Book of Thoth:

May I praise god for you (i.e. let me thank you). (P. Berlin 15531 8/5)

Expressing thanks by praising god for someone centers the action on god rather than on the individual involved.

In the Ptolemaic Period, another expression for gratitude appeared: šp šms. Literally, it means "to receive service (from)" or "to receive worship (from)." This expression, while still related to the divine realm is not as centered on god as the previous one.

In Coptic, the idiom has changed again to šp hmot, meaning "to receive grace (from)" or "to receive a favor (from)" or even "to receive a gift from." The background assumption is that gratitude would always accompany the reception of a gift or favor. To do otherwise is unthinkable.

At least as framed in the Egyptian language, entitlement is culturally unheard of. Gratitude was automatic and acknowledge God. This is something worth pondering and applying in modern times.

Grace and Gratitude

Protestant Christianity emphasizes the concept of the grace of God, some even elevating the role of grace to preeminence by the slogan "by grace alone." This is a more recent development. As the scholar, Edward Schillebeeckx, noted that when one looks at

the theology of grace (charis and gratia) in the patristic writers, it is immediately evident that ‘grace’ did not formally become the centre of theological reflection until the later works of Augustine in his polemic with Pelagius. (Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord, trans. John Bowden (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 83)

In fact, Schillebeeckx observes that “the explicit theological use of charis in the New Testament is restricted almost exclusively to Paul and his school.” Jesus's use of the term, on the other hand, is “usually not with a theological meaning” (ibid.)

In most English versions of the New Testament, the term grace is a translation of Greek charis. One of the major definitions of charis is "thanks, gratitude" and this is the way that Jesus uses the term (as discussed in this article). As an exercise, try substituting "gratitude" for grace in New Testament passages (it may not always be the best translation, but it is food for thought). Here are some examples which I pulled off a Protestant site discussing grace:

We "grow in the gratitude and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 2:18).

"Be strengthened by the gratitude that is in Jesus Christ" (2 Timothy 2:1).

"God is able to make all gratitude abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may about in every good work" (2 Corinthians 2:8).

"The abundance of gratitude and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17).

In this season of gratitude, perhaps we should remember the way that Jesus used the term grace.

The Thank Offering

One of the basic offerings of the Law of Moses was the peace offering. A subcategory of peace offering was the thank offering (Leviticus 7:11-13). This offering, which was made of grain made into some sort of bread, or cake, or pastry, which was unleavened, Unlike the costly sacrifice of an entire animal, a thank offering did not need to be expensive. It was relatively simple expression of what came from the heart.

One of the things about this category of offerings that I have always appreciated is the name that they are given in the Septuagint: θυσίας σωτηρίου, the sacrifice of salvation. There is thus a connection between gratitude and salvation. That is something to be grateful for.

A Familiar Hymn

 

For two weeks in a row I was treated to hearing a favorite hymn from my mission days. It seems fitting to share.

 

Ολοι εμπρος μαζι

 

Ολ’εμπρος μαζι στο εργο του Θεου

Να κερδισουμε βασιλεια ουρανου.

Στου δικαιου τον αγων ας υψωθει

Της αληθειας το σπαθι.

 

Δεν δειλιαζοθμε κι ας μην ειμαστε πολλοι,

Συγκρινομενοι με τη δυναμη τ’εχθρου.

Μια αορατη δυναμη οδηγει

Στην αληθεια την λαμπρη.

 

Δεν φοβομαστε, βοηθαει ο Θεος

Ολους που ζητουν να κανουν το καλο.

Στις δυσκολες στιγμες χαροποιει

Κι η αληθεια θα τιμηθει

 

Μη φοβασαι κι ας χλευαζει ο εχθρος.

Θαρρος, στο πλευρο σ’ειν’ο Θεος.

Των κακων λογια καθολου μην ακους,

Μονο τον Θεο να υπακους.

 

Μη φοβασαι κι ας χλευαζει ο εχθρος.

Να’χας θαρρος, γιατι στο πλευρο σ’ειν’ο Θεος.

Μη φοβασαι τις απειλες απ’τους κακους,

Παρα μονο τον Πατερα και Θεο να υπακους.

 

Sacrifice, Entitlement, and Higher Education

I have noticed two trends in higher education that may be correlated.

The first trend has to do with the exorbitant cost of higher education which has been generally rising at a much higher rate than inflation, and has been for decades.

The trend I am interested in, however, is a by-product of this larger trend. Because the cost of higher education, particularly of an advanced degree, has been rising so quickly it has resulted long ago in the phenomenon that individuals who got advanced degrees in certain subjects, like the humanities, being incapable of getting a job upon graduation that would allow them to pay back their student loans. The problem became so severe that many graduate schools did something about it.

About fifteen to twenty years ago, most graduate schools moved to the model of not accepting any student unless they could fully fund them. This seemed to be the socially responsible thing to do. It is, on a certain level. There are two problems with it, however.

The first problem is that a number of students are denied the opportunity to get an education that might otherwise benefit them because the graduate schools will only admit students it can fully fund. These students cannot reach their full potential because access to the education is denied them.

Unfortunately, not all graduate schools are wise in their selection of graduate students. For example, during the time that I was a graduate student at Yale, every student selected to receive the top scholarship failed to finish their graduate program. There were all sorts of reasons given for the problem and probably a different reason could be given for each student. I mention it merely to point out that the track record of selecting graduate students to receive money at that particular school at that particular time was not great.

The second trend I am interested in is the much discussed sense of entitlement supposedly found among millennials. I do not think this is necessarily accurate because I do not think it is necessarily a generational thing. I know a number of individuals from earlier generations (including early boomers) that also manifest a sense of entitlement disproportionate to their accomplishments. Whether the sense of entitlement is increasing or not, those who have the misfortune of working with those who are entitled generally agree that having a sense of entitlement is not a good thing.

I do not have data at the moment to support a correlation, but it seems to me that the first trend directly feeds into the second trend. That is, fully funding graduate students without their having to work for it might promote a sense of entitlement in them. It is a hypothesis that at least can be tested.

With that in mind, some time ago, I encountered a little essay about the sacrifices that some people still make to get an education. Having made some sacrifices for my education I appreciate stories like this of the sacrifices made. We need more of them.

Announcing: Saving Faith

Almost three and a half years ago, my book An Introduction to the Book of Abraham was announced by Deseret Book. When it was announced a certain individual or group of individuals launched a campaign to have the book suppressed. This delayed the release of the book a number of months (it was over a year from the announcement of the book to its actual release). To forestall something similar happening I have waited to announce my new book, Saving Faith, until it has actually come off the press.



The book is physically in print. I received a physical copy on March 18, but have delayed the announcement until it was actually released. You can order it here or here. Although the book is scheduled to be officially released May 11, I have heard of people already receiving copies.

The book deals with the narrative that youth are leaving the Church in droves. The data do not support this narrative, but those promoting the narrative sometimes seem to be more interested in telling tall tales than telling truth. A more careful examination of the data shows important information about not only the numbers of those who lose their faith, but how and why they do so.  The data also show what factors are statistically correlated with keeping faith, and that a host of proposed solutions have no data to back them up or worse can be shown to be counter-productive. Readers of this blog will have noticed that I have tackled some of these issues here before. We have probably passed the point where we should be doing apologetics without good data.

Those who know me will not be surprised that I also have provided a few scattered references to history, archaeology, and philology. The book, after all, did have its origin at an international archaeological conference where I was giving a philological paper.

New Data on Ulisum

Just this morning the Journal of Near Eastern Studies posted a new issue with an article by Nashat Alkhafaji and Gianni Marchesi called "Naram-Sin’s War against Armanum and Ebla in a Newly-Discovered Inscription from Tulul al-Baqarat."

The inscription gives us much more information about Naram-Sin's campaign into the area around Ebla. The information it provides is material we had not even dreamed about knowing before.

The new inscription published in the article is also important for the on-going discussion about the location of Ulisum, about which I once wrote an article. The inscription gives us one clue about the location of Ulisum that we did not previously have, but it does not supply enough information to positively locate the site.

Congratulations to Alkhafaji and Marchesi for publishing this important inscription.

An Ancient Plague

A few notes on the Hittite plague:

It begins after the Hittite prince, Zannanza, was assassinated on the way to Egypt.

Dismissing the protestations of innocence from the new pharaoh Ay, a bereaved and angry Suppiluliuma immediately took punitive action, sending Hittite troops into the Egyptian-held territories. Ironically, the Egyptian prisoners whom they transported back to Hattis from these campaigns were blamed for the pagues that wreaked havoc in the Hittite heartland for the next two decades. Six years after his conquest of Karkamis, Suppiluliuma died, probably from this very plague. His son and successor, Arnuwanda II, also succumbed to it after little more than a year on the throne.

(Billie Jean Collins, The Hittites and Their World [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007], 49.)

It continued to be a problem for Suppiluliuma's successor, Mursili:

The plague that Suppiluliuma had brough home from his conquests in Syria continued to rage unabated throughout the kingdom well into the latter half of Mursili's reign. There was no question that this scourge had been brought on by an angry deity, but Mursili had to find the source of its anger. Oracular inquiry identified three possible causes, each attributable to Suppiluliuma. Among the possibilities was a retaliatory attack Suppiluliuma had made on Egyptian-held Amka, which, it turned out, was a violation of an old treaty between Hatti and Egypt. Wile maintaining that the responsibility for the plague did not rest with him personally, Musili promptly made restitution for his father's lapses.

(Collins, The Hittites and Their World, 51-52.)

 Here's hoping the current plague does not last two decades.