LMLK: A Mystery!

LmlkWe’ve found something like 2000 clay seal impressions in Israel that contain the legend LMLK (lamed, mem, lamed, kaf).

This is a significant legend because it likely is to be parsed L-MLK.

L, in this case, being a preposition that means "to" but also can signal personal property.

MLK is probably to be understood as MeLeK, or "king."

LMLK thus probably means "Belonging to the King."

The king in question seems to have been King Hezekiah, who reigned about seven hundred years before Christ.

There are lots and lots of these seal impressions, but the thing is . . . we’re not sure what they were used for.

READ THE THEORIES.

Water & Wine

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy

I was listening of KIHM’s rebroadcast of Monday’s show this morning as I am

wont to do and enjoyed it as usual.  I liked your answer to the question

about why water is mixed with the wine at Mass and as I do know something

about the history of wine (I used to sell the stuff for a living) I do want

to expand on the subject if I may.

You said that wine in ancient times was concentrated.  This gives the

impression that it had a very low water to solids concentrate not unlike

juice concentrates that one buys in the grocery store today and to which one

adds water in order to drink.

But rather ancient wines were both slightly more alchoholic and considerably

sweeter than modern wines, cloyingly so.  Therefore it was part of all

Mediteranean cultures (all of whom were wine drinkers) to add water to the

wine simply to make it palatable.

Indeed the definition of immoderate drinker in Greco-Roman culture was not

one that drank to much, but rather one that drank unwatered wine.  The

implication being that if you did that you were too uncivilized to know

better.

Of course there were exceptions to the rule.  The wines of the Greek island

of Chios were considered to be of the highest qualtiy and it was considered

bad taste to dilute them.

So I suspect (and I admit I’m just making an educated surmise here) that in

the early days of the Church, when it was time for the Eucharist the

celebrant simply did what was the cultural norm and added the water to the

wine.  But I also suspect that fairly early on someone also realized that

this cultural norm also was a excellent symbol for the Incarnation and the

dvinization of man through the Eucharist as you mentioned and the prayers

were subsequently added.

Thanks much for the info!

(LINK TO THE READER’S BLOG.)

Water & Wine

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy

I was listening of KIHM’s rebroadcast of Monday’s show this morning as I am
wont to do and enjoyed it as usual.  I liked your answer to the question
about why water is mixed with the wine at Mass and as I do know something
about the history of wine (I used to sell the stuff for a living) I do want
to expand on the subject if I may.

You said that wine in ancient times was concentrated.  This gives the
impression that it had a very low water to solids concentrate not unlike
juice concentrates that one buys in the grocery store today and to which one
adds water in order to drink.

But rather ancient wines were both slightly more alchoholic and considerably
sweeter than modern wines, cloyingly so.  Therefore it was part of all
Mediteranean cultures (all of whom were wine drinkers) to add water to the
wine simply to make it palatable.

Indeed the definition of immoderate drinker in Greco-Roman culture was not
one that drank to much, but rather one that drank unwatered wine.  The
implication being that if you did that you were too uncivilized to know
better.

Of course there were exceptions to the rule.  The wines of the Greek island
of Chios were considered to be of the highest qualtiy and it was considered
bad taste to dilute them.

So I suspect (and I admit I’m just making an educated surmise here) that in
the early days of the Church, when it was time for the Eucharist the
celebrant simply did what was the cultural norm and added the water to the
wine.  But I also suspect that fairly early on someone also realized that
this cultural norm also was a excellent symbol for the Incarnation and the
dvinization of man through the Eucharist as you mentioned and the prayers
were subsequently added.

Thanks much for the info!

(LINK TO THE READER’S BLOG.)

Reuters Is Behind The Times

At least in

THIS STORY ABOUT COLORADO BAD BOY WARD CHURCHILL

Among other things, it says:

BOULDER, Colo. (Reuters) – A University of Colorado professor under fire for comparing World Trade Center victims to a Nazi war criminal on Tuesday refused to apologize for his remarks.

"I am not backing off an inch," said Ward Churchill, drawing an ovation from a standing-room-only crowd of about 1,200 students and backers gathered in a ballroom. "I owe no one an apology."

That much is fine, but it goes on to say:

Churchill, a veteran Native American activist, first attracted widespread notice last month after Hamilton College in New York canceled a scheduled appearance, citing threats against him and others who had been slated to appear.

There might be some sense in which Churchill could be described as a Native American activist, but there are important facts that have been uncovered by the local Colorado media and the blogosphere that are relevant to this claim and that the story doesn’t mention. In fact, here are a number of interesting things you might want to know about Churchill, none of which are mentioned in the Reuters story:

  1. Churchill has claimed to be 1/16th or 3/16ths Cherokee, but genealogical research by the Rocky Mountain News failed to turn up any Cherokee ancestors [SOURCE].
  2. Churchill is disclaimed by the Cherokee nation as a member. He was given an honorary membership in the Keetoowah band of Cherokees. Honorary memberships of this type used to be given out to friends of the tribe irrespective of their genealogy (Pres. Clinton was another recipient), but when people started using these honorary memberships to claim they were Cherokees and enhance their careers, the Keetoowahs cancelled the program. They now accuse Churchill of being an opportunist abusing the honorary membership he was given [SOURCE].
  3. Churchill claims that the U.S. army created a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan tribe in 1837, but it appears that he has committed academic fraud in this regard: "One has only to read the sources that Churchill
    cites to realize the magnitude of his fraudulent claims for them. We are not dealing with a few minor errors here. We are
    dealing with a story that Churchill has fabricated almost entirely from
    scratch" [SOURCE].
  4. "Similar charges have been leveled against
    Churchill by University of New Mexico law professor John Lavelle, a
    Native American scholar who has documented what appear to be equally
    fraudulent claims on Churchill’s part regarding the General Allotment
    Act, one of the most important federal laws dealing with Indian lands.
    (Lavelle also accuses Churchill of plagiarism)" [SOURCE].
  5. Churchill has no doctorate but only a masters degree from a university that did not grade its students but awarded them academic credit on a pass/fail basis [SOURCE].

So what’s up, Reuters? Get with the program!

 

Pinker Is Seeing Red?

Y’know about that controversy over the president of Harvard being asked why there are fewer women in certain scientific fields and he conjectured that cognitive differences between the genders, as men score better on certain measures of cognitive ability (e.g., mathematical reasoning) while women score better on others (e.g., verbal reasoning).

Well, it touched off a firestorm of political correctness.

Soon as I heard about it, I wondered what Steven Pinker would say.

Pinker is a linguist and a cognitive scientist who has written a book attacking the regnant idea in much of academia that humans are blank slates whose behavior is exhaustively determined by environment (nurture) rather than genetics (nature). As more and more studies have shown, humans behavior is genetic in far greater degree than many would like to acknowledge.

One chapter in Pinker’s book is on the cognitive differences between men and women.

It’s rather brave of him to take on the subject as, from what I can tell, he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal and a secular humanist, but he’s a smart guy (one can learn a lot from his books) and willing to follow the facts even when they are contrary to the politically correct viewpoint.

So when I heard about the Harvard president controversy, I wondered what his reaction would be.

Now I know.

CHECK IT OUT.

Lenten Reader Roundup

As I ‘spected, yesterday’s post on Lent Resources put the cat among the pigeons.

I can’t respond to everyone without writing a monster post, but here are a few thoughts:

First, I appreciate the sentiment folks have of wanting to go beyond the law in terms of what is required for Lent. That’s good and meritorious. My job here, though, is to explain what the law currently requires, not what it used to say or what it ought to say.

Second, I also appreciate folks’ attachment to the 40 day idea. As I acknowledged, Lent at one time may have been forty days long. It also may have once excluded Sundays. That’s just not what the current regs say.

READER A writes:

Without getting too technical, what part of the mammal counts as
"meat" – flesh/muscle only? Would liver count (talk about penance)?

I haven’t gone to look this up, but I’m sure that the standard moralists would say that organs (liver, heart, tongue) do count as meat.

READER B writes:

Does the details regarding the Ash Weds/Good Friday fast differ
around the world? In other words do Nationial Conferences of Bishops
change anything regarding this? In particular: what is the law in
Poland?

Yes, the national conference does have a role in setting local requrements. Unfortunately, I don’t have any info on the regs in Poland.

READER C writes:

I think you are mistaken about gravies and sauces (and broths, etc.)
made with meat, at least according to traditional moral theology. These
do fall under the rules of abstinence.

It depends on what you mean by "traditional." (It’s also not moral theology but canon law.) If you mean matters as they were under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, you’d be right, as Canon 1250 prohibited the eating of "soups made from meat." However, in 1966 when this norm was revised in the apostolic constitution Paenitemini, the reference to soups was dropped. The way the law reads now, not only broths but regular soup with meat is allowed. (NOTE: I am not saying that I approve of this. As always, my explaining the law means that I’m explaining the law, not that I’m giving my opinion about what the law should be.)

As far as gravies and sauces, these are condiments and are expressly permitted by Paenitemini. They are made principally from animal fat but may have some blood or meat elements mixed in in small quantities. Thus Henry Davis, SJ, notes in his Moral & Pastoral Theology (1938):

By condiment is meant that which is taken–whether liquid or solid–in a small quantity with food to make it more palatable. Butter made from animal fats, and margarine from palm kernel are allowed. Jellies also which are made from fish or animal bones are not meat. Lard, the rendered fat of hog, and dripping, the grease that has dripped from roasted meat [i.e., the principal ingredient of gravy, together with flour], may be taken, as condiments [II:435-436].

The change allowing soups made with meat also has collateral impact on how many meat tracings can be present in gravies and other sauces.

READER C continues:

Also, it’s worthwhile to point out that while fasting, meat can only be taken at the main meal and not at the collations.

This is not a requirement of the law. It may be a practice that some follow, but it is not in the law. (Also, as the two mandatory days of fasting are also days of abstinence, it wouldn’t apply then anyway.)

I’d like to see a citation for the claim about dolphin, too. My
understanding is that the "dividing line" (so to speak) is between
warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals, so that mammals and birds are
off-limits but alligators, turtles, and frogs (etc.) are fine.

Some people do use the warm-blooded/cold-blooded distinction, but this is seen as applicable to land animals. Aquatic mammals are commonly lumped under "fish"–even if they aren’t very fish-like.

The dolphin remark was thrown in as a semi-jest since dolphin meat is unavailable in the U.S. (to most folks). But it is permitted under the understanding of older moralists, who mention other water-dwelling mammals (even ones much less fish-like!) as permitted.  More from Davis:

What precisely is an animal, within the meaning of the law, cannot be completely determined. We need not take scientific definitions, but may have recourse to the common usage of the term. In case of doubt, the rule laid down by S. Thomas may well be taken, namely, that by the term are meant animals that are born on land and breathe [ST II-II:147:8]. S. Thomas meant, we believe, animals that are born, live, and mature on land. In the case of amphibians, their similarity to land animals must decide. In case of doubt the law does not bind.

Under fish are included frogs, snails, tortises, oysters, lobsters, otters, beavers, crabs [II:436].

READER D writes:

When did we stop including the Triduum, thus reducing Lent to 37?!?
Who’s brilliant idea was that? If the answer is Vatican II, I might
scream.

Don’t scream. It wasn’t Vatican II. Folks have a tendency to blame the Council for things that actually happened afterward. I don’t have the prior norms for the liturgical year, so I can’t verify that Triduum was part of Lent, but assuming it was, the change would have been made with the release for the new general norms for the calendar in 1969.

READER E writes:

I find it very hard to believe that it’s okay to eat a veggie-burger
during a Lenten Friday. Sure, it may not be technically meat, but it’s
a good enough approximation to it, and the whole point of this Lenten
abstinence is to deny ourselves the very taste of meat, not necessarily
to keep meat-substances out of our body.

As a matter of praxis, I agree with you: It violates the spirit of the day to eat faux meats (though the law permits it). On the other hand . . . you haven’t eaten many veggie-burgers, have you? (The ones I’ve had are only patty-shaped blobs of non-meat-approximating stuff.)

READER F writes:

Ya see, I am planning a very self-denying lent. I am going on a
juice/liquid fast. So I was kinda glad to hear about the boullion/broth
just in case the carrot and spinach juice doesn’t sit right with me.

Boullion/broth is indeed okay (as noted above), but be careful if you’re going to do a liquid fast for more than a day or so. Talk to your spiritual director and doctor about what is needed to do such things safely if you intend to do it for any appreciable time!

Happy Moveable Blogiversary!

This is my first moveable blogiversary!

A blogaversary, of course, is the anniversary of the day a blog went online.

I wrote my first blog entry on February 25, 2004. (HERE.)

So why is this my moveable blogiversary when it ain’t February 25th yet?

Because last year February 25th was Ash Wednesday, a movable feast on the Church’s liturgical calendar.

Today is Ash Wednesday 2005, so by the liturgical (as opposed to civil) calendar, today is my blogiversary.

Rejoice with me!

That’s one liturgical year down. . . . Hopefully many more to come!