Monthly Archives: January 2007

Charles Halton

Social Networking the Bible

by

The producers of the ESV translation used Many Eyes to map the relationships between biblical characters as described in the Bible.  I think this is a promising integration of technology with biblical studies that might open up some  new perspectives.  At the present, the social map that they created does not distinguish between people with similar names such as John the beloved disciple and John the Baptist.

One interesting facet that the blog notes occurs on their tree diagram.  The three most commonly linked names to Jesus are Peter, Moses, and Paul, respectively.  They state the reason why Paul shows up on this list is that he often introduces himself in the name of Jesus.  Does the fact that Moses pops up in this trio lend more weight to the interpretation that Jesus framed himself as the new Moses and the Sermon on the Mount was fashioned after Moses’ sermon to the people as they were about to enter Canaan?

Check it out for yourself and tell me how you like it.  Discover anything interesting?

(HT: The Macintosh Biblioblog)

Charles Halton

Jesus in the Talmud

by

Princeton University Press has released a new book concerning the view(s) of Jesus as represented in the Talmud.  Here is Princeton’s summary:

Scattered throughout the Talmud, the founding document of rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity, can be found quite a few references to Jesus–and they’re not flattering. In this lucid, richly detailed, and accessible book, Peter Schäfer examines how the rabbis of the Talmud read, understood, and used the New Testament Jesus narrative to assert, ultimately, Judaism’s superiority over Christianity.

The Talmudic stories make fun of Jesus’ birth from a virgin, fervently contest his claim to be the Messiah and Son of God, and maintain that he was rightfully executed as a blasphemer and idolater. They subvert the Christian idea of Jesus’ resurrection and insist he got the punishment he deserved in hell–and that a similar fate awaits his followers.

Schäfer contends that these stories betray a remarkable familiarity with the Gospels–especially Matthew and John–and represent a deliberate and sophisticated anti-Christian polemic that parodies the New Testament narratives. He carefully distinguishes between Babylonian and Palestinian sources, arguing that the rabbis’ proud and self-confident countermessage to that of the evangelists was possible only in the unique historical setting of Persian Babylonia, in a Jewish community that lived in relative freedom. The same could not be said of Roman and Byzantine Palestine, where the Christians aggressively consolidated their political power and the Jews therefore suffered.

A departure from past scholarship, which has played down the stories as unreliable distortions of the historical Jesus, Jesus in the Talmud posits a much more deliberate agenda behind these narratives.

Peter Schäfer is Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies and Director of the Program in Judaic Studies at Princeton University.

Charles Halton

Free Conference at the Oriental Institute

by

The Oriental Institute is hosting what look to be a very interesting conference, and best of all, registration is free. Here are the details:

RELIGION AND POWER: DIVINE KINGSHIP IN THE ANCIENT WORLD AND
BEYOND

3rd Annual Postdoctoral Symposium at the Oriental Institute,
University of Chicago

February 23-24, 2007

Breasted Auditorium
Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
1155 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637

For further information see the website
(http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/SYMPOSIA/2007.html) or contact
the organizer (Nicole Brisch, nbrisch@uchicago.edu)

Program:

Friday, Feb. 23, 9-5
Director’s Greeting
Introduction (N. Brisch)

Session 1: Divine Kingship in Mesopotamia and Egypt
Chair: Emily Teeter (University of Chicago)

G. Selz (University of Vienna), Mesopotamia ?The Divine
Prototypes?
P. Michalowski (University of Michigan) ?The Mortal Kings of
Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia?

P. Frandsen (Copenhagen University) ?Linguistics and the
Definition of Kingship in Ancient Egypt?
Discussion

Lunch break

Session 2: Iconography and Anthropology of Divine Kingship
Chair: Theo Van Den Hout (University of Chicago)

I. Winter (Harvard University) “Touched by the gods: Visual
evidence for the divine status of rulers in the ancient Near East”
E. Ehrenberg (New York Academy of Art) ?Dieu et mon Droit:
Kingship in Late Babylonian and Early Persian Times?
M. Gilbert (Sarah Lawrence College) “The sacralized body of
the Akwapim king”

Coffee Break

D. Freidel (Southern Methodist University) ?Maya Divine
Kingship: Archaeology, Iconography, Epigraphy?
C. Reichel (University of Chicago) ?The King is Dead, Long
Live the King–the last days of the cult to king Shusin at
Eshnunna?
R. Bernbeck (Binghamton University) ?Divine Kingship,
Ideologies, and Spaces for Resistance?

Discussion

Saturday, Feb. 24, 9-12
Session 3: Divine Kingship and Imperialism
Chair: Adam T. Smith (University of Chicago)

M. Puett (Harvard University) ?Human and Divine Kingship in
Early China: Comparative Reflections?
B. Lincoln (University of Chicago) ?The Role of Religion in
Achaemenian Imperialism?
G. Woolf (St Andrews University) ?From Imperial Cult to the
Religious Construction of the Emperor: changing perspectives
on the Roman case?

Coffee Break

Session 4: Response and Discussion
Jerry Cooper (Johns-Hopkins University), Respondent
K. Morrison (University of Chicago), Respondent
Final Discussion

Charles Halton

Private Equity Circling Education Prey

by

If you’ve followed this site for any length of time you might have noticed how I tend to look favorably upon capital markets and efficient methods of trade and commerce.  That being said, private equity groups as a whole concern me very much.  No doubt there are some that beneficently help cumbersome organizations become more efficient and operate more competitively.  Some private private equity groups add real value to organizations through expanded networks, intellectual property and expertise, needed organizational changes, better management, etc.  But many private equity firms merely slice and dice companies all the while loading them up with the maximum possible debt so that they can issue themselves fat dividend checks and bloated fees.

With this in mind, the New York Times reports that a for-profit education company is getting its legal house in order so that it can possibly put itself on the auction block for private equity firms hungry for acquisitions.  Most other sectors of the economy have been picked over, so I guess education is the next logical step.

I’m generally not a fan of for-profit education companies, and I think that a for-profit education company that is absorbed by a private equity firm would be even worse.  I feel for the students that become entangled into this potentially unsavory mix.  I hope the Department of Education will monitor this whole sector more closely especially with the corner offices in New York and London waiting in the wings.

Charles Halton

Persian Drinking Horn Half-Off

by

The British Museum is having a sale on their Persian drinking horn replicas.  It formerly was 9 pounds, but now you can get this wonderful piece for only 4.5 pounds!  (Hey, they give free admission, they have to make some money somehow.)  For a picture of the horn, click here.  Here is a description of the horn:

This miniaturised model of a Persian drinking horn reproduces in faithful detail the decoration of the original.
The elaborate silver vessel would originally have been used both as a drinking cup and as a pourer for wine. It was made in two parts and is decorated with the head and forequarters of a griffin. The pair of holes in the griffin’s chest could be closed by the drinker’s fingers, or opened to allow the wine to flow through. The wings and other parts are gilded. Although vessels of this type were not depicted on the reliefs at the Persian centre of Persepolis, they are shown in use on Greek vases of the late fifth century BC, and indeed the form was copied by the Greek potters.

Charles Halton

Many Children Left Behind

by

For the past three days the Wall Street Journal has published a series of op-ed pieces by Charles Murray in which he calls for a reconfiguration of the educational system in the United States. His main points as I see them are: there should be no stigma for not going to college (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn’t graduate and many high paying crafts and trades do not require a college degree), a smaller percentage of the population should go to college (more like 20-25% instead of the present approx 40%) because many who go to college don’t really have the IQ for it, and the educational system should identify gifted kids and teach them not only intellectual skills but also character issues as well. Here is a quote from his third piece:

We live in an age when it is unfashionable to talk about the special responsibility of being gifted, because to do so acknowledges inequality of ability, which is elitist, and inequality of responsibilities, which is also elitist. And so children who know they are smarter than the other kids tend, in a most human reaction, to think of themselves as superior to them. Because giftedness is not to be talked about, no one tells high-IQ children explicitly, forcefully and repeatedly that their intellectual talent is a gift. That they are not superior human beings, but lucky ones. That the gift brings with it obligations to be worthy of it. That among those obligations, the most important and most difficult is to aim not just at academic accomplishment, but at wisdom.

The encouragement of wisdom requires a special kind of education. It requires first of all recognition of one’s own intellectual limits and fallibilities — in a word, humility. This is perhaps the most conspicuously missing part of today’s education of the gifted. Many high-IQ students, especially those who avoid serious science and math, go from kindergarten through an advanced degree without ever having a teacher who is dissatisfied with their best work and without ever taking a course that forces them to say to themselves, “I can’t do this.” Humility requires that the gifted learn what it feels like to hit an intellectual wall, just as all of their less talented peers do, and that can come only from a curriculum and pedagogy designed especially for them. That level of demand cannot fairly be imposed on a classroom that includes children who do not have the ability to respond. The gifted need to have some classes with each other not to be coddled, but because that is the only setting in which their feet can be held to the fire.

The encouragement of wisdom requires mastery of analytical building blocks. The gifted must assimilate the details of grammar and syntax and the details of logical fallacies not because they will need them to communicate in daily life, but because these are indispensable for precise thinking at an advanced level.

The encouragement of wisdom requires being steeped in the study of ethics, starting with Aristotle and Confucius. It is not enough that gifted children learn to be nice. They must know what it means to be good.

The encouragement of wisdom requires an advanced knowledge of history. Never has the aphorism about the fate of those who ignore history been more true.

All of the above are antithetical to the mindset that prevails in today’s schools at every level. The gifted should not be taught to be nonjudgmental; they need to learn how to make accurate judgments. They should not be taught to be equally respectful of Aztecs and Greeks; they should focus on the best that has come before them, which will mean a light dose of Aztecs and a heavy one of Greeks. The primary purpose of their education should not be to let the little darlings express themselves, but to give them the tools and the intellectual discipline for expressing themselves as adults.

In short, I am calling for a revival of the classical definition of a liberal education, serving its classic purpose: to prepare an elite to do its duty. If that sounds too much like Plato’s Guardians, consider this distinction. As William F. Buckley rightly instructs us, it is better to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University. But we have that option only in the choice of our elected officials. In all other respects, the government, economy and culture are run by a cognitive elite that we do not choose. That is the reality, and we are powerless to change it. All we can do is try to educate the elite to be conscious of, and prepared to meet, its obligations. For years, we have not even thought about the nature of that task. It is time we did.

* * *

The goals that should shape the evolution of American education are cross-cutting and occasionally seem contradictory. Yesterday, I argued the merits of having a large group of high-IQ people who do not bother to go to college; today, I argue the merits of special education for the gifted. The two positions are not in the end incompatible, but there is much more to be said, as on all the issues I have raised.

The aim here is not to complete an argument but to begin a discussion; not to present policy prescriptions, but to plead for greater realism in our outlook on education. Accept that some children will be left behind other children because of intellectual limitations, and think about what kind of education will give them the greatest chance for a fulfilling life nonetheless. Stop telling children that they need to go to college to be successful, and take advantage of the other, often better ways in which people can develop their talents. Acknowledge the existence and importance of high intellectual ability, and think about how best to nurture the children who possess it.

Murray’s writing will doubtlessly produce an emotional discussion, but on one hand, we should be having a discussion on how to best educate the next generation. However, I do have a couple points I would like to mention.

Why do we always begin the wisdom training with the Greeks? The Sumerians have their own wisdom literature as well as the Akkadian corpus. The Mesopotamian traditions used this wisdom literature in part to train those of high intellectual caliber, the scribes. Also, I think one of the greatest features in American style education is the fact that anyone who wants to go to college can pretty much find a way to do it. This doesn’t mean that they will be able to get into their top-pick school or that it won’t be hard to get the finances together to pay for college, but their chance of going to college will not be determined by their performance on a test–it will be determined by their own desire.

I think this is a huge advantage. Sure, some people will go to college and find out that its not their thing, but at least they have the opportunity to try. This is not the case in other educational systems and American citizens should not take this for granted.

What do you think about Murray’s argument? Is he on track or mistaken? How would you change the educational system for the better?

Charles Halton

Mona Lisa in Abu Dhabi?

by

The Louvre has apparently signed a deal to rent their name, “expertise,” and some of their backlot loot to an upstart museum set to open in 2012 in the United Arab Emirates. This phenomenon is not really new, the Guggenheim has been doing this for years and the High Museum of Art in Atlanta is also getting into the action.

However, the figures, all unofficial as of now, have never been so high. The estimates range from $800 million to $1 billion for the UAB to rent the Louvre name plate for 20 years–after that France takes back the name and the UAB is on its own. Here is a likely breakdown of the payments:

Over the next 10 years, Le Monde noted, this agency is to provide management expertise for a fee of $91 million; four temporary shows a year, worth a total of $195 million; and up to 300 artworks on “permanent” display in exchange for $260 million. Abu Dhabi authorities will, in turn, commit to spending $52 million a year to build their museum’s own collection. After 20 years, the Abu Dhabi Louvre will adopt its own name.

Presumably, the Louvre will loan out a few higher profile pieces on a temporary basis to make a splash and the rest will be stuff that’s gathering dust in storage. Hey, not bad for a cool $1 billion.

There have been some high decibel shrieks emanating from various quarters of France over French treasures lent out to other countries. But, wouldn’t it be ironic if some of the lent artifacts were ancient Near Eastern pieces–the Louvre certainly has a few truck loads of those.

So, what do you think about this? Is it legitimate for educational/not-for-profit institutions to extend their brands in this manner?

Charles Halton

The New Arms Race in Higher Education

by

The New York Times reports on a new Democratic plan to half the interest rate on government subsidized student loans. The assumption is that the reduction in interest rates will reduce the cost of higher education and therefore enable more people to take advantage of this opportunity, or at the least help recent college grads more easily pay back their debts. In other words, this plan aims to make a college education cheaper. For instance:

According to the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit group, the bill would save a student who graduates from college with $20,000 in debt about $4,000 over the 10-year life of a loan.

I don’t know what kind of economists the Project on Student Debt employs, but let me explain why I think reducing interest rates on gov’t loans will actually raise tuition and other associated costs of a college education and thereby wipe out any hypothetical savings from this plan on the part of indebted students.

First things first. Much of the money borrowed by college students does not pay for tuition, books, or educational fees. In fact, much of borrowed money pays for iPods, clothing from Urban Outfitters, luxury apartments, car leases/payments, concert tickets, and eating out. Furthermore, a large proportion of increases in monies flowing into colleges as a result of tuition increases are funneled into luxury dormitories, fancy recreation centers, free iPods or laptops for incoming freshmen, new buildings, etc.

You see, there is an arms race in higher education. Schools compete against each other for the same defined set of potential paying students. According to Yahoo’s directory, there are more than 6,800 colleges in North America. This is a tremendous amount of competition. Therefore, colleges are pulling out the stops at trying to lure new, paying students. The only limitation to what colleges will do is the buying power of their potential new students. At the present this buying power is largely funded through student loans.

I had hoped that the arms race in higher education to build new rec centers, etc. was nearing a peak. I think the high decibel shrieks of students and parents concerning the level of student loan debt was evidence that we had reached the outer limit of what people would feel comfortable borrowing to finance their education. This would mean that the spiraling costs of college would flatten out since the market would no longer absorb higher tuition payments by resorting to ever higher debt.

Therefore, I am disheartened to see the new plan to lower interest rates on gov’t sponsored student loans because this will not lower any costs at all. It will only enable students to borrow a few thousand more dollars and will enable colleges to raise prices even more. Furthermore, apartment owners that surround colleges will likely raise rents, cover charges at night clubs will increase, etc.

If this legislation is passed, I expect it will usher in a second wave in the higher education arms race–at the least, tuition prices will keep increasing at their present rate. If this legislation does not pass, I expect tuition prices will plateau in the next two years and increases will be slightly above the rate of inflation.

We need realistic economics to guide our legislation not politics as usual. While this legislation might warm the heart, it will likely bruise the pocketbooks of a new crop of bright-eyed students by heaping even more debt upon them.

What do you think?