A footnote tells readers what the Latin words are supposed to
mean: “The Great Illegitimate Decree.” A notice at the back of
the volume informs us that Gaskill has a Ph.D. from Trinity
Theological Seminary and is the director of the Stanford
Institute of Religion. But why did Dr. Gaskill include this
Latin in the title of his review? Roman Catholic decrees are
often issued in Latin. Perhaps Dr. Gaskill wanted to reflect
some flavor of this, as if to communicate his readiness to cross
swords with the Roman Catholic theologians, as it were, on their
own turf. But there is a problem. Maximus Nothus Decretum
does not mean what Dr. Gaskill says it does. Nor is it even
acceptable Latin. It looks, in fact, as if it was fudged
together by someone who does not know Latin armed with a
Latin-English dictionary. One can even make what is probably a
reasonably good guess as to which dictionary: the paperback
Cassell’s Latin-English Dictionary. Three points:
- The title is not acceptable Latin, first of all, because
Latin adjectives must agree in gender, number, and case with
the nouns they modify. As John F. Collins’s, A Primer of
Ecclesiastical Latin says:1
“adjectives agree exactly in gender, number, and case with
the nouns (or noun equivalents) which they modify.” English
speakers who try to make up things in Latin without knowing
any Latin are easily detected by their failure to follow
this rule. The reason they fail is that the dictionary form
for adjectives is usually the masculine form. The dictionary
form for nouns on the other hand varies depending on whether
they are masculine, feminine, or neuter. Pretenders get
caught when they link masculine adjectives with feminine or
neuter nouns. This is what Dr. Gaskill does. Maximus
and
nothus both retain their masculine dictionary forms,
even though decretum is a neuter noun.
- Second, English speakers are often unaware of the fact
that in Latin adjectives are not usually placed before the
noun as in English (we do not say “the dog big” but “the big
dog”), but rather after it. And so Dr. Gaskill’s placement
of the adjectives maximus and nothus before
the noun decretum, again seems to reflect a basic
lack of knowledge of Latin.
- Third, English speakers may easily overlook something important when hunting and gathering words in the English section of their Latin-English dictionary. So for example the entry for the English word great in the Cassell’s Latin-English Dictionary also includes the definition of the comparative greater (maior) and the superlative greatest (maximus). (Cassell’s does not have a separate entry for greatest). It is not surprising that Dr. Gaskill found maximus in the entry for great, and, not knowing any better, thought it meant great. And that in fact is what he takes it to mean. But maximus does not mean great, it means greatest. Magnus means great.
Here is how Dr. Gaskill’s title should have read:
Decretum magnum et nothum
The problems I point out here are not matters of advanced
grammar. This writer has taught in grade schools where Latin
students could have both detected and corrected what was wrong
with Dr. Gaskill’s Latin title. Let any who doubt me on this,
pause with me to consult G. M. Singleton’s Latin at Eleven
(London: Macmillan / New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964), which
treats the same things. On page 18 of that work we find the
explanation of the rule concerning the agreement of adjectives
and nouns:
Latin adjectives show what noun they qualify by ending in the
same case, gender, and number (singular and plural) as the noun.
Then on page 19 we find introduced the basic Latin adjective
great (magnus)
This leaves us with three questions:
- First, how did the Latin title make it all the way into
print? Was there no one at F.A.R.M.S. who knew enough Latin
to catch it? And if there was, how did it happen that they
did not catch it?
- Second, how do the people over at the BYU Classics
Department feel about it when they see F.A.R.M.S. doing this
kind of thing?
- Third, why did Dr. Gaskill attempt the Latin title in the first place? Was there a desire there to appear more learned than he really was?
If “Dr.” Walter Martin, then why not also “Dr.” Gaskill?
For many years Mormon apologists have referred to the late
author of The Kingdom of the Cults as “Dr.” Walter
Martin. Martin received his doctorate from a non-accredited
institution with no residency requirement. If they wish to
persist in doing this we would suggest that consistency demands
they also refer to the author of the erroneous Latin statement
discussed above as “Dr.” Alonzo Gaskill, since he too obtained
his doctorate from the same kind of institution. In the FARMS
Review volume containing the made-up Latin, Gaskill’s
credential is cited in the “About the Authors” section without
any qualification. He is simply listed as “Alonzo Gaskill
(Ph.D., Trinity Theological Seminary).” We are left to discover
for ourselves that Trinity is not an accredited institution. The
same is true of the information given on the dust jacket of his
new book The Lost Language of Symbolism (Salt Lake City,
Utah: Deseret, 2003). There we are told that Gaskill earned “a
master’s degree in theology and a Ph.D. in biblical studies.” In
addition, Gaskill’s dissertation is listed in the bibliography
of that book in such a way as to give the impression that it was
published in 2000 at Newburgh, Indiana, by “The University of
Liverpool and Trinity Theological Seminary.” The writer is
informed by Ronald T. Clutter, the chairman of the biblical
studies department at Trinity in Newburgh that “I checked with
our Support Services offices and they know nothing of any
publication by or for Alonzo Gaskill” (email dated 16 July
2003). The bibliography reference gives the impression that
Trinity’s publishing efforts represent the American branch of
the University of Liverpool Press, which they do not. According
to Dr. Clutter, Trinity’s publications are limited primarily to
the reprinting of books used by Trinity professors after their
original publishers have allowed them to go out of print.
When I say that Martin’s and Gaskill’s doctorates are from
“non-accredited” institutions, I really mean they are not
accredited by any of the generally recognized accreditation
agencies. Ironically the institution where Walter Martin got his
doctorate was, at the time, accredited by the same small
Colorado-based, non-accredited accrediting agency that now
accredits the institution where Alonzo Gaskill got his
doctorate: the National Association of Private Nontraditional
Schools and Colleges (NAPNSC). Robert and Rosemary Brown
declared in their 1986 exposé of Walter Martin’s doctorate that
the NAPNSC “is not an acceptable accrediting agency."2
We are inclined to agree. On a page from the 1979-80 California
Western University catalogue reproduced by the Browns we read
that NAPNSC “is engaged in an active ongoing process of seeking
recognition from the U.S. Office of Education, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, but has not yet achieved that
recognition."3
Trinity’s current online catalogue informs us that the NAPNSC,
is still “in the process of seeking recognition by the
United States Department of Education” (Italics original). In
other words, the NAPNSC has been “in the process” of seeking
recognition for over twenty years. As of the time of writing
(July 2003) the NAPNSC website lists, in addition to Trinity,
the following institutions:4
“Accredited Member Institutions as of May, 2002”
Cook’s
Institute of Electronics Engineering (Jackson, Mississippi), in
conjunction with Eco-M-Intellect, Ltd. (Sophia Bulgaria).
Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (San
Francisco)
Washington Institute for Graduate Studies
(n.p.)
Washington School of Law (South Jordan, Utah)
“Correspondent Member Institutions as of May 2002”
Doajing University (Harvard, Massachusetts, and Shangdong
Province, P. R. China).
“Applying Institutions in
Consultation as of May, 2002”
Bethany Bible College and
Theological Seminary (Dothan, Alabama)
Queen City Bible
College (Charlotte North Carolina)
It is hard, given this
handful of diverse institutions, to have much confidence in
NAPNSC accreditation as any real measure of institutional
legitimacy.
Trinity College of the Bible and Theological
Seminary is associated with the well-known Christian apologist
John Warwick Montgomery. Its main thrust appears to be to
provide practical ministry training at various levels. Gaskill
received his Trinity Ph.D. in Biblical Studies on 11 April 2000.
Prior to that he received an MA in Theology from Notre Dame on
19 May 1996. We certainly do not fault Gaskill for pursuing
additional education from Trinity. We do however feel that it is
illegitimate for his Ph.D. in biblical studies to be presented
as if it were in any sense equal to Ph.Ds granted by accredited
institutions. That it is not is seen, for example, in the fact
that there are no Greek and Hebrew requirements for any of the
Trinity biblical studies degrees, including their Ph.D. This
according to Ronald T. Clutter, chairman of their biblical
studies department.
We may ask what F.A.R.M.S.
apologists would do with the information I have just presented
if Gaskill happened to be an Evangelical. If we may take the
past treatment of “Dr.” Walter Martin by Daniel C. Peterson and
Louis Midgley (for example) as a pattern of things to come, the
answer is perfectly clear: we could expect an endless vindictive
stream of snide and triumphant guffaws for decades to come.
Given the fact that Gaskill is a Mormon, however, we do not
suspect that this will happen. We recommend that in future
Martin be referred to as Martin and Gaskill as Gaskill.
Notes
1 John F. Collins, A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America, 1985) 28.
2 Robert L. & Rosemary Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive (vol. 3; Mesa, Ariz.: Brownworth, 1986) 59.
3 3 Ibid., p. 58.