Researchers analyzing ancient cuneiform tablets recently unveiled a 4,000-year-old beer receipt — offering a rare glimpse into Mesopotamian beer culture.

The news was announced in a University of Copenhagen news release in April.

Mesopotamia, often called the “cradle of civilization,” was centered in parts of modern-day Iraq and Syria thousands of years ago.

‘EXTREMELY RARE’ 2,000-YEAR-OLD BREAD LOAF UNEARTHED AT ROMAN LEGIONARY CAMP

Researchers from the university and the National Museum of Denmark recently analyzed, identified and digitized the ancient texts as part of a joint project called “Hidden Treasures.”

The tablet had been sitting in the National Museum’s archives, and the release said the texts had not been studied in recent times.

Of particular interest is NMC 7962, a tablet detailing beer deliveries.

The beer tablet dates to the Ur III period, around 2112-2004 B.C.

ARCHAEOLOGISTS UNCOVER 3,000-YEAR-OLD BEER-LIKE DRINKS BREWED WITH UNUSUAL INGREDIENTS

NMC 7962 was previously published by Danish Sumerologist Thorkild Jacobsen before researchers re-analyzed it during the digitization project.

Beer receipts were common administrative records in ancient Mesopotamia, said Troels Pank Arbøll, an associate professor of Assyriology at the University of Copenhagen.

Arbøll — the only professor who specializes in Assyriology at the university — told Fox News Digital the records were intended “to record how much beer was delivered or distributed by an institution.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER

“Beer was a central part of Mesopotamian culture from the invention of writing in the late 4th millennium BCE until the end of cuneiform culture,” he noted.

“It was considered an integral part of urbanized life.”

The receipt differentiates between high-quality and “ordinary” beer.

“The concrete example lists different types of beer delivered on two successive days: 16 liters of high-quality beer and 55 liters of ordinary beer, followed by 12 liters of high-quality beer and 40 liters of ordinary beer,” he said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE LIFESTYLE STORIES

One liter of beer is just under three standard 12-ounce beer cans — meaning that the delivery totaled over 30 gallons over two days.

“It is not clear from the text who exactly it was intended for, although it was received by the provincial governor, as his cylinder seal is impressed on the clay tablet in question,” Arbøll noted.

As for what the beer may have tasted like, Arbøll said there are some clues.

“Early on, most beer was produced on the basis of barley, though it could in some periods include, for example, date syrup or emmer wheat in the production process,” he said.

The drink also contained some sediment, and depictions show it being consumed through hollow reeds used as straws, he said.

Some have attempted to reproduce Mesopotamian beer, particularly at the University of Chicago, Arbøll said.

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

Mesopotamian beer “was probably not high in alcohol, though it was nutritious,” he added.

A Pennsylvania woman accused of faking terminal brain cancer to scam friends, family members and supporters out of thousands of dollars is among the FBI’s most wanted fugitives after authorities said she used the donations to fund luxury travel and vacations in Australia instead of medical treatment.

The FBI said on May 23 that it is still hunting for Vanessa O’Rourke, who has been on the run for years since she was indicted in 2018 for her suspected scheme.

Authorities allege O’Rourke, now 37, spent months convincing loved ones she was dying from glioblastoma, an aggressive and often fatal form of brain cancer, while claiming she desperately needed money for treatment, daily living expenses and experimental medical care overseas.

According to the FBI, O’Rourke told supporters that traditional treatment options had failed and that traveling to Australia for an experimental procedure represented her best chance at survival.

WELLNESS INFLUENCER EXPOSED FOR FAKING CANCER DODGES AUTHORITIES A DECADE LATER: DOCUMENTARY

Friends and family members reportedly rallied around her, donating money and organizing fundraisers to help what they believed was a young woman battling a terminal illness. But authorities say the cancer diagnosis was entirely fabricated.

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

Investigators allege that between October 2015 and July 2016, O’Rourke used false claims about her health to obtain financial support from people close to her. Prosecutors say supporters provided money directly to O’Rourke and also helped organize fundraising efforts to cover what they believed were mounting medical costs.

FOLLOW US ON X

In April 2016, O’Rourke traveled to Australia, allegedly telling loved ones she was receiving experimental treatment unavailable in the United States. Instead, according to federal authorities, she spent the trip engaging in sightseeing and recreational activities and received no medical treatment whatsoever.

GOT A TIP?

After returning to the United States, investigators say O’Rourke continued the alleged scam by encouraging friends and family members to organize additional fundraising events on her behalf.

GET BREAKING NEWS BY EMAIL

Authorities say a donation webpage was launched online and a fundraising benefit was held at a Pennsylvania restaurant, where supporters gathered to raise money for what they believed was O’Rourke’s ongoing cancer battle.

SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER

Federal prosecutors allege the money raised during those efforts was later used to fund another trip to Australia in 2016, where O’Rourke again allegedly participated in leisure activities instead of receiving treatment for the illness investigators say never existed.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE US NEWS

The alleged scheme eventually drew the attention of federal investigators.

LISTEN TO THE NEW ‘CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO’ PODCAST

On May 3, 2018, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted O’Rourke on 15 counts of wire fraud. A federal warrant was issued for her arrest, and she remains wanted by the FBI.

LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? FIND MORE ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB

O’Rourke’s case is one of several high-profile “fake cancer” scams that have shocked communities in recent years, as fraudsters allegedly exploited sympathy, online fundraising platforms and emotional support networks for financial gain.

In recent years, several women across the United States and abroad have been accused or convicted of fabricating terminal illnesses while collecting money through fundraisers, crowdfunding pages and community events.

One of the most notorious cases involved California woman Amanda Riley, the subject of the hit “Scamanda” podcast and ABC docuseries, who admitted to faking cancer for years while receiving more than $100,000 in donations from supporters.

Like those cases, prosecutors allege O’Rourke’s scheme relied heavily on the trust and compassion of the people closest to her — friends, relatives and supporters who believed they were helping save someone’s life.

Authorities and fraud experts have warned that emotionally charged medical scams can be especially effective because they often target tight-knit communities eager to rally around someone they believe is fighting for survival.

The FBI is asking anyone with information about O’Rourke’s whereabouts to contact law enforcement.

Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae covers a variety of themes, both theological and anthropological, and has proved to be remarkably prophetic, and yet it is still, in the minds of most people, simply the “birth control” encyclical. Similarly, Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ ranges across a number of topics and provides a trenchant analysis of the philosophy that dominates the modern world, and yet, for most, it is simply the “global warming” encyclical. I am a bit afraid that something similar might happen to Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas, for it is already being characterized as the “AI encyclical.” But to reduce this extraordinary text to that single theme would be regrettable indeed. Leo does, of course, discuss AI, and with remarkable insight, but there is so much more going on in this letter, and it should not be overlooked.

The best framework for understanding the text is the title. Pope Paul VI famously said that the Church is an expert in humanity, and the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes commences with the reminder that the Church is concerned with all dimensions of human experience. One of the last texts composed by Pope Francis, Dignitas infinita, focused on the “infinite dignity” of the human being. The irreducible nobility of the human being is, I believe, the master motif of Magnifica Humanitas. In line with his recent predecessors, Pope Leo insists that we human beings are magnificent because we have been made in the image and likeness of God and even more wonderfully elevated through the Incarnation to a share in divinity itself. It is not the secular humanism that the pope presents, but a deeply theological and Christological humanism.

Magnifica Humanitas effectively commences with a contrast between two images drawn from the Old Testament, namely, the construction of the Tower of Babel and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem after the return of the exiles from Babylon. The first, driven by imperialistic hubris and undertaken without reference to God, led to calamity; the second, supervised by Nehemiah, predicated upon the cooperation of the various elements within Israelite society and undertaken for the glory of God, led to something beautiful. Pope Leo worries that many of the “new things” of today, including and especially AI and other forms of advanced technology, can have a Tower of Babel quality, that is to say, a tendency toward manipulation, domination, and the reduction of all forms of communication to a singular digital language. But he firmly believes that, rightly employed, these marvels can fit into a more “Nehemiah” framework and become a means of enhancing human dignity and community.

But before he treats these matters in detail, he pauses to consider the great principles that undergird Catholic social teaching. He wants to show that a proper consideration of contemporary technology must take place within a fundamentally moral context. And so, in the second chapter of Magnifica Humanitas, Leo provides an extremely concise and helpful overview of the Church’s social doctrine, emphasizing its satisfying ideological equilibrium. Thus, subsidiarity (the preference for more local forms of authority), typically favored by conservatives, is placed in healthy tension with solidarity (our moral obligation to one another), typically favored by liberals. And the dignity of the individual, typically stressed by conservatives, is balanced by an insistence upon the common good, typically stressed by liberals. The moral legitimacy of private property and the free market, dear to more right-leaning people, is placed alongside the universal destination of goods, a theme of importance to people of the left, and so on. This creative tension is the genius of Catholic social teaching and is precisely what allows its representatives to enter into constructive conversation with those on various points of the political spectrum.

POPE LEO XIV CALLS THIS A CHALLENGE TO ‘HUMAN DIGNITY’ IN FIRST ADDRESS TO CARDINALS

In chapters three and four, Pope Leo turns with acute attention to the particular issues presented by the revolution in communication technology underway today. His entire discussion is conditioned by a theme borrowed from Pope Francis, namely, the danger of a “technocratic paradigm.” By this term, both Francis and Leo mean the tendency to privilege efficiency, control, and practical results over the dignity of the individual and the development of real communion. Leo, in fact, references Romano Guardini, a favorite of Pope Francis, who, at the beginning of the 20th century, bemoaned the dehumanizing features of a technologically driven culture. AI and its attendant technologies are good to the extent that they function as tools in the hands of responsible agents acting for a moral purpose; they are problematic to the extent that they come to dominate both thought and action, bending the properly human in the direction of the machine.

Within the confines of this brief article, I cannot begin to cover the complexity of the pope’s analysis of AI, but I might draw attention to a few highlights. 

First, Leo, as befits an Augustinian, is deeply concerned with the truth, and he fears that the digital space is inhabited by people who are far more interested in power than in truth. The denizens of the AI world can propagate, for a variety of reasons, “fake news,” deeply distorted narratives, and misleading information. But the Tower of Babel story shows that when will is divorced from reality, disaster follows: “Such power should be constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and respect for human dignity, so that the culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization or dominance, but rather a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature” (136). 

A related concern is how AI can undermine the sort of slow, patient, and careful work required to uncover the deepest truth. The ease with which AI delivers data to us can deceive us into thinking that acquiring “information” is the same as coming to understand. Here is the pope’s pithy conclusion: “Many educators already report signs of dehumanization, where people may ‘know many things’ but struggle to find direction in their lives, partly due to an inability to connect information with deeper knowledge or maintain a sense of purpose” (146).

Leo is also deeply distressed by the negative psychological impact of the internet on those who are drawn into the digital space. Many studies have demonstrated a tight correlation between “screen time” and depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem. Moreover, the internet has proved to be a breeding ground for sexual exploitation, grooming, and blackmail, not to mention an environment in which the worst forms of pornography have become available to children. Accordingly, the pope calls for effective regulation of this potentially dangerous media space.

THE AI REVOLUTION THREATENS OFFICE JOBS, BUT REVIVES DEMAND FOR SKILLED TRADES

Another preoccupation of the pope is the way AI has begun to affect the arena of work. Following St. John Paul II, Leo maintains that labor is not merely a practical necessity, but rather an essential dimension of human flourishing. Through our toil, we engage our minds, wills, and bodies, and we actualize potentialities within ourselves that we did not realize we had. And therefore, when the speed and efficiency of AI effectively eliminate possibly millions of jobs, certain economic advantages might accrue to the powerful, but a moral and spiritual disaster would occur for the working class: “The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good” (152).

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I will draw attention, finally, to Leo’s deep anxiety regarding the addictive quality of social media. It has now been well established that the devices that give us access to the web were consciously designed to be addictive — and this is perhaps most evident in the “doomscrolling” practiced by so many today. 

Further, since AI tools capture so much personal data and information, all of us are deeply vulnerable to manipulation on the part of those who have less-than-savory economic and political motivations. Here are Pope Leo’s words: “When every action — movements, purchases, relationships and preferences — leaves a trace, a new form of power emerges, namely the power to profile, predict and influence behavior, often without individuals being fully aware of it” (171). Again, there is extraordinary richness in this fourth chapter of Magnifica Humanitas, and I would strongly encourage individuals and parish groups to engage in a serious reading of it.

The final chapter of Magnifica Humanitas finds the pope shifting to a somewhat different key, as he focuses on questions of war and peace. This might prove to be the most talked-about and controversial section of the encyclical, given the roiled circumstances of the political world today. 

In fact, I found this part of the letter the most thoroughly Augustinian. Basic to St. Augustine’s vision, especially as he articulated it in his City of God, is the contrast between the Roman society of his day, predicated upon the worship of morally ambiguous gods and goddesses, and the properly Christian society, predicated upon worship of the God whose name is love. In accord with the principle that we become what we worship, Rome was bellicose, violent, marked by what Augustine called the libido dominandi (the lust to dominate). And following the same principle, Christian society at least ought to be characterized by forgiveness, peace, and reconciliation. History, on Augustine’s reading, is an ongoing struggle between these two visions. 

Pope Leo is anguished because he sees the ways of war coming to dominate the polity of the world today. And he calls upon the Church to provide an alternative vision, a civilization of love. This City of God will not emerge, he says, from some grand plan imposed from above, but rather from the steady work of individuals producing, in time, a cumulative effect. Remarkably, Leo quotes the great J.R.R. Tolkien in this context: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till” (213, Gandalf in “The Return of the King.”). Especially in our time, when AI and other forms of advanced technology have made warfare more likely and more “efficient,” Pope Leo wants the Church to present to the world the path of peace.

I might remark on a certain irony in this context. In regard to questions of war and peace, St. Augustine is best known, not for his proposal of a civilization of love, but for his theory of just war. But we have to be eminently clear regarding the function of this device. One must never construe Augustine’s theory as some facile “justification” for war, a means of providing moral cover for the wanton use of violence. In fact, just the contrary is the case. The great saint saw his criteria as providing a severe limit to the waging of war, and the Church has always treated them as such. There is one line from this section of the letter that puzzled me a bit. Leo says that he feels the just war theory is “outdated.” I certainly understand that since the means of waging war have changed so dramatically from Augustine’s time, a hasty application of the just war protocols would be naïve today. But I do not think that the criteria themselves — declaration by a just authority, proportionality, discrimination between combatants and noncombatants, last resort, and so on — are outdated. Instead, I believe they should be applied with particular rigor in our present circumstance.

In conclusion, please read this letter and do so with care and in a meditative frame of mind. Consciously step away from the online world of shouted opinions, arrogant self-assertion, and verbal violence. And take in the work of this wise man, an expert in humanity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM BISHOP ROBERT BARRON