Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 28

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 28

Type of artillery

Any idea what kind of gun is visible on the right edge of this picture? The scene is the Odd Fellows' Cemetery Mound near Cincinnati; my goal in taking the picture was the mound, and I only noticed the gun as I was preparing to upload the image this evening. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a 3 inch Gun M5, WWII-era. Acroterion _(talk) 03:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; what little I know of ordnance is WWI-era and before. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not based on particular personal knowledge, apart from judging it to be a 75/76mm weapon. I just compared it to the images in the WWII American artillery category. The angled gun shield with the cutouts appears to be distinctive to the M5. Acroterion _(talk) 03:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up question, it would be interesting to know why it is placed in the cemetary. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a cheap way to dispose of leftover equipment? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably in a veterans' section, or part of a veterans' memorial. Acroterion _(talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a veterans' section, because I remember that several gravestones on the edge of the mound (funny how often whites built their cemeteries around Indian mounds; see Mound Cemetery for a few examples) were simple headstones of couples and lacking the little US flag markers such as you see in this photo. Perhaps it's part of a memorial, however, since there's the flagpole with the US flag behind the gun and the big wooden sign to the right of it. Per its name, the cemetery itself was originally IOOF, and some of the cemetery's oldest gravestones (far older than World War II) are at the mound. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen some veterans' memorials in unlikely spots, although I'd think that an old anti-tank gun would be more at home outside the local VFW or Amvets than the Odd Fellows Cemetery. Still, maybe the influence of the old Indian mound made somebody think that it was a fine place for obsolete commemorative artillery. Acroterion _(talk) 18:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientific techniques for dating of stone inscriptions

What are the scientific techniques used by experts for dating stone inscriptions? I am under the impression that Radiocarbon dating is not of much help for stone inscriptions. Are there any tools ( geological/ chemical/ radiographical/ etc.) for dating stone inscriptions when palaeographical and relative dating techniques fail? Are such techniques used to check whether a newly discovered inscription is fake or not? 180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I think that most radiocarbon datings of this sort look for something biological that's obviously from the same strata or same area. If the stone is igneous there might be some other methods, for instance seeing the magnetic polarity of the stone... but that's a little different than radio carbon dating. You might have better mileage at the science desk. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One technique that may be of use is to analyse the surface 'glaze' or 'patina'. The term patina itself usually refers to metal and wood artefacts, but a surface 'finish' can also form on stone (partly from bacteriological activity) over extended periods (and I'm sure there's another term for it, but I can't remember what it is - something to do with wind? Anyone?).

Examination of the inscription may reveal, by the amount of patina (if any) that has appeared in the grooves or whatever, whether the inscription is new or roughly how old it is in comparison to the uninscribed surrounding surface. However, such patinas can be faked (as well as inadvertently altered or removed by cleaning), and the science of their analysis seems not to be as well developed as one might like.

There have been attempts to prove or disprove the authenticity or all or the latter part of the "Yaakov bar Yoseph Achui de Yeshua" ("James son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus") inscription on the James Ossuary by analysing its real or faked or accidentally altered patina, but the results are much disputed. The patina of the Jehoash Inscription has also been analysed. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Erich von Däniken had some South American carved pebbles which he claimed showed some ancient astronauts performing open heart surgery. IIRC, a Horizon (BBC TV series) documentary had one examined by the Geological Museum who said that it had been carved within the last century. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think lichenology can sometimes be used for this purpose. Our article is rather lacking though. Pfly (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"absurd" Jewish beliefs.

Are there any beliefs held by religious Jews (ie from the Torah and Talmud) that are "absurd", in the way that Thomas Aquinas meant when he wrote (of his own faith) Credo quia absurdum est (loosely, It is precisely because what I believe is absurd that I say I believe in it)? For example, I mean "absurd" in the sense that an item is supposed to be 100% human (Jesus) and 100% Godly (his father). It's easy to believe in that, but it is "absurd" in the sense that I mean. So, my question is whether there are any beliefs held by Jews that are likewise "absurd" or require believing in a contradiction? 92.229.14.166 (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the full context on your definition of absurd, but something like the anomaly in creation stories in Genesis, would that apply? Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the OP, but I shouldn't think so. What would be absurd in this sense would be a belief that God literally created many humans as the first humans, male and female, at the exact same time, as well as believing that he literally created Adam as the first man from whom all humans are descended, and then later created Eve from Adam's rib. I don't know if there are many Jews that believe that: there aren't many Christians who do. That belief might be based on the Genesis, but (if I'm understanding the question right) it would be that specific, contradictory belief that would be absurd, not that writings exist that can be so interpretted. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a belief, Shadow + 86, is indeed maintained by many uninfored, ill-educated individuals of many faiths, Judaism included. But that would certainly not be a core belief of Judaism. See Natan Slifkin and his work The Challenge of Creation. Judaism prides itself on being reality and not subscribing to any belief which is contrary to such a premise. Christian beliefs such as transubstantiation and, as you mentioned, Jesus being 100% God and 100% man at the same time are completely foreign to Judaism. This is not to see that there are not controversies and disputes and many other similar issues that arise and require intense scrutiny, evaluation and assessment when facts about the world are realized (such as planet Earth orbiting the Sun -- the Talmudic scholars indeed mention that they maintained that they initially thought that the Sun half orbited the Earth and then returned "over" the sky to reach the eastern horizon for the next day), but in tune with Judaism's goal of being a reflection of reality, such intrinsic contradictions are highly undesireable and those who perpetuate them are rapidly neutralized if not by quantity then at least by a rational minority. Sometimes inane people must be left to preach as they will. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 09:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It was NOT Thomas Aquinas who said Credo quia absurdum, nor would he have endorsed it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of Jewish beliefs that at first glance are contradictions, but most have explanations, making your question hard to respond to. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I don't think "most have explanations." In fact, most defy explanation. Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Explanations exist in RS for any contradictions I can think of, Bus stop. If you choose to disagree with them, that's your POV, but it doesn't negate their existence. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

By RS you mean "reliable sources?" OK, some beliefs can have explanations. But I think many do not. I wasn't responding from a Wikipedia point of view. I guess I was responding from a "gut level" point of view. I don't perceive the posed question as calling for a specific answer, but rather at best a well-reasoned response. The halachot of kashrut I think would be a good example. Of course reliable sources exist in which explanations are offered. I don't think the "reasons" offered are the equivalent of rational explanations. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The laws of keeping kosher are not a belief, they're laws. See Statute#Biblical_terminology - Judaism doesn't require anyone to believe in them, just to keep them. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OP Here. I don't like the word contradiction, let's use "absurdity". I'm not interested in whether "absurdities" have an explanation: for example, there is a very good explanation for the "absurdity" that a certain living man (Christ) was at once a normal living man and at once God himself. I don't care if there's an explanation for it - I want to know what the absurdity itself is. So far in this thread no one really mentioned Jewish "absurdities" (or Christian "absurdities", for that matter). I don't want straw-man "absurdities" that nobodoy really believes. (That a priest/minister/rabbi etc will never mention in the same sentence). I'm not intrested in "plot holes" that are not thought of, but rather "absurdities" that are actively encouraged to be believed in. 92.229.14.166 (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Every faith has beliefs that are not amenable to rational interpretation. Christianity, because of its particular historical path, has had a lot of philosophers trying to rationalize its irrationalities (that's fairly unique - I can't think of another faith, off hand, that has put as much effort into explaining its own inner irregularities as Christianity has). Judaism largely doesn't do it: either you're in the camp that believes its tenets or you're not, and there's not a lot of debate between the camps over ontological or epistemological concerns. --Ludwigs2 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To build on that excellent answer, Judaism has always placed more weight on action than belief. But you may find Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith an interesting read. Bear in mind it arrived pretty recently in Jewish history - less than 1,000 years ago - and against a historical background of pressure from Islam and Christianity. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP says that it is "easy to believe" that "Jesus" is "100% Godly" and "100% human." I don't find that "easy to believe" at all. Therefore I don't understand the question. Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess no one should ever introduce you to the wave/particle duality of light, lest your head explode. Seriously: light is at once a hundred percent a wave, and if you test it as such (refracting off corners and shit, interfering it with itself) you'll see that it is 100% an electromagnetic continuous wave. It is at once 100% a particle, and if you test it for whether it behaves in a fully particulate way, for example, being blasted off in individual, discrete photons, you will find that it is. Being asked to accept that something is a hundred percent discrete and a hundred percent continuous is no more "absurd" than the statement about man and God. So, to phrase the question in a way you can understand: does Judaism include anything like the wave/particle duality, wherein one thing is simultaneously two, mutually exclusive, things? `92.229.14.166 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus died. But many people died. And many people died on a cross -- it had no significance prior to Jesus. Why do we care about Jesus? So Christianity maintains that he's God -- that God died. Now that's certainly significant -- but what exactly is that? How can God die? -- it's an intrinsic contradiction! So he has to be a man so that he can die but God so that it matters. What's more, Jesus is the son of God, but he's also God. Isn't the definition of God that he is infinite? So if the father is God and he's infinite, then what worthwhile portion does the son fulfill? And if the son is necessary, the father is clearly not infinite. And the entire thing vice versa. As explained above, such nonsensical contradictions are not present because Judaism maintains itself to be completely in touch with reality. And then there's transubstantiation. And there may be many more, but I'm not nearly a Christian scholar. But none of these types of cyclical dark paths exist in Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you suppose they invented the concept of the "Trinity"? Also, a lot of false messiahs popped up and were rubbed out. This story turned out differently somehow. That doesn't prove Jesus is the Messiah. But there was apparently something special about Jesus. Either that, or he just had a good agent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose they invented the concept of the Trinity because I do not sense that it is information derived from God. The concept of the Trinity was advanced for all Christians as part of the Nicean creed by Constantine, then a pagan. And I didn't promote anything as evidence of Jesus' Messiahhood. If anything, history is evidence that he is not the Messiah, as anything claimed by Christian scholars as fulfillment of Messianic tradition was either penciled in afterward (coming on a donkey, etc.) or patently missing (Davidic lineage, swords into plowshares, etc.) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That is light. I thought you were talking about Jesus. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he say he's the way, the truth, and the light though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.14.166 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's pretty clever. However, someday we'll have a better scientific understanding of light; the same is not true for Jesus. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

by the way, there's a lot of bickering going on here, but I guess the answer to my actual question is: no. 92.229.14.166 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on your definition that the religion instructs people to simultaneously believe that something is two different contradictory things, it's hard to come up with anything. As explained above, this may be because Judaism is more interested in people doing stuff the right way than believing stuff the right way. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, are there any simultaneous "prescriptions and proscriptions"? Are you asked to do A and to do B as well, whereas the two are plainly contradictory? 92.229.14.166 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Famously, Jews are commanded to keep the 613 Mitzvot. That's impossible. To give a few examples, you need to be a man and a woman, simultaneously a Cohen, Levite and Israelite etc. But I suspect that falls into what you described above as a "plot hole". Similarly, Henry VIII's canon lawyers had fun with seemingly contradictory laws about not sleeping with your brother's wife and the instruction to marry your dead brother's widow, but even a child could perceive the reconciliation between the two.

Your examples are irrelevant. It's like asking how cops can be employed to maintain highway speeds and also instructed to violate this very law that they are bidden to protect. There's no contradiction involved, and there's similarly no contradiction involved when Judaism maintains a hierarchy of regulatory protocols such that A is obligatory and B is prohibited and a clash between A and B yields a necessary kneeling of one before the other. Moreover, your strawman comment about each individual being obligated in 613 commandments -- it's just not a proposition, so there's no need to refute it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You might take a look at the story of Korach, who asked some needling questions about Jewish law, but they're not really contradictions as such. See Korah#In_Rabbinical_Literature:_.7BJewish_Encyclopedia.7D --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The answers above don't seem to address the actual OP question. Here's an idea that is closer (though perhaps not all there): One of the central narratives in Judaism is God's promise to Abraham and the patriarchs that he will be faithful to them and bless them and make their descendants numerous and prosperous. This narrative is central to the Torah, but is presented simultaneously with the narrative of the Hebrew nation as a "remnant" of survivors. Several times in the Hebrew Scriptures (and many times in history since then), the Jews are almost completely wiped out. Often in the Bible these events are said to be caused by God. So the Jews are God's favored blessed nation who will prosper with God's help, and at the same time they are constantly being decimated by foreign powers. These two narratives would seem to be in conflict, but the tension between them is one that Jews embrace rather than flee from. Staecker (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

God's faithfulness to the Israelites was conditional upon their faithfulness to God. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/psalms/37-28.htm; Deuteronomy 28)—Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There were a few different covenants, and some did indeed require Israel's faithfulness. Not all of them did. In particular God's promises to Abraham were unconditional: Gen 12. Staecker (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

After the natural Jews, as members of the literal nation of Israel, collectively disqualified themselves from inheriting the promises made to Abraham, God transferred the fulfillment of the promises from natural Jews to spiritual Jews, members of the Israel of God, including some literal Jews individually but also many Gentiles. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/galatians/3-27.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/galatians/3-28.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/galatians/3-29.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/galatians/6-16.htm) See also my related comments at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Jesus and the cross (permanent link here).—Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK- now you're talking about Christian theology. I was answering a question about Judaism and Jewish theology and world-view. In Judaism, the "natural Jews" are the only Jews and they have not "disqualified themselves" from God's covenants. Staecker (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Rome to Jerusalem route

In the Middle Ages what was the most likely route from Rome to Jerusalem - through what countries? How long would it have taken?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OR, but, I think the most likely route would have been by sea, which would take far less time than having to cross the Alps and then the mountainous regions in the Balkans. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There were a few routes. You could go by sea, say from Bari or Messina or some other port, and avoid most other countries, although there might be a stopover in some of the Greek islands like Crete or Rhodes, and maybe also Cyprus. This, of course, was much easier when all the islands along the way were crusader or Venetian possessions (in the thirteenth century and later). I think the sea route only took a few weeks in the best weather (or a few months in the worst). It was only a day from Cyprus to the mainland, anyway. But travelling by sea was proverbially dangerous; there were pirates, storms, shipwrecks, and Egypt usually had a capable navy. The land route took much longer, naturally. You could cross the Adriatic from Bari in Italy to Antivari or Dyrrhachium, then along the Via Egnatia to Constantinople, which, depending on the time period, would usually take you through strictly Byzantine territory, but was sometimes Hungarian or Serbian or Bulgarian, and for awhile that area was also ruled by crusaders or Venetians. The route from Constantinople to Jerusalem would go through Byzantine Anatolia until the late eleventh century, but after that Anatolia was controlled by the Seljuk Turks and later the Ottomans. Southeastern Anatolia also had an Armenian kingdom along the route in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and during that time the rest of the Mediterranean coast, Antioch to Jerusalem, was mostly part of various crusader states. Before the twelfth century, it was ruled by the Abbasid Caliphate or the Seljuk Turks (sometimes as clients of the Abbasids, sometimes not), and Jerusalem itself passed between the Abbasids/Seljuks and the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt. The Ayyubid and Mamluk dynasties in Egypt usually controlled Jerusalem from the thirteenth century onwards, and Christian pilgrims were usually allowed to go there, but not always. During the worst periods of warfare between the Ayyubids, Mamluks, crusaders, and Mongols, travelling there was extremely dangerous and sometimes did not happen at all. In the fourteenth century the whole coast was controlled by Mamluk Egypt and it was much safer, and as far as I know the Mamluks (and the Ottomans, in the sixteenth century and after) were generally tolerant of pilgrims. Anyway, travelling that route might take all year, certainly many months at least. One other route would involve no sea travel at all, by walking north from Rome around the Adriatic, then southeast through Hungary/Serbia/Bulgaria/Byzantine territory to Constantinople, and the rest is the same as above. That would add another month or two to the trip. You can check the routes of various medieval travellers who went to Jerusalem. Early pilgrims like Egeria, the author of the Itinerarium Burdigalense, and the German pilgrims of 1064/1065, although they didn't start from Rome, went in that general direction. Various contingents of the First Crusade went on these various routes (as did other crusades, the Seventh for example). Marco Polo also went by sea to Acre (although I don't think he ever went to Jerusalem). The Muslim Ibn Jubayr went by sea from Spain, although Mecca of course was his goal. I would recommend "Early Travels in Palestine", a nineteenth-century collection of pilgrimage accounts by Thomas Wright, as well as the more recent "Jerusalem Pilgrimage: 1099-1185" by John Wilkinson et al., and "Four Paths to Jerusalem" by Hunt Janin for more info. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A tighter definition of period may well help, as Adam suggests. Arguably, the "Middle Ages" stretch for about 1000 years. While technology has obviously changed faster of late, it is an interesting parallel for you to think about how someone would do that journey today (2010) and how they would have done it in the year 1010. Between c.500 and c.1500 (to take one definition that I don't like, but let's just make it easy with round numbers), the technology changed much less, but the relative safety or insecurity of different routes would have varied enormously.

Other points worthy of asking - what religion/ethnicity is your traveller? how wealthy? what sex? what is the purpose of their trip? All will play a part in the answer. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you fellows. Let me ponder all that ....--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting map from the German wikipedia article on the First Crusade [1]. Three of the five armies crossed the Adriatic Sea to enter the Byzantine Empire at Epirus. Other than that, all armies took land routes.
Sleigh (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, embarking an entire army (and its warhorses, pack animals and other supplies) on ships is an altogether different question from a single traveller. Nonetheless, the land route would have had certain pros, as well as certain cons, as discussed above. Besides which, if I remember my First Crusade texts (which I probably don't) there was a strong element of trying to impress the Emperor/cajole him into supporting the project, which having the armies at his gate would certainly support. --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, all the resources of a port would be taken up transporting a whole army (even the tiniest fishing boats). In Constantinople they probably had some sort of ferry industry to get people across the Bosporus. As far as I remember the problem in Constantinople was not transportation (as it was for the Fourth Crusade when Venice basically disrupted their entire economy to build a fleet), but accommodation and food for an unruly mob of tens of thousands of people, many of whom were not professional solders. The emperor had asked the west for military support, but he didn't quite expect the crowd that showed up. The first group was sent across into Asia pretty quickly, so they probably had a lot of boats. The crusaders did want the emperor to join them, and that's partly why he was so eager to get rid of them. He did send some support, but they assumed he had abandoned them by the time they got to Antioch. (It's a little hard to tell what the emperor's motivations were, since the crusader sources are heavily anti-Byzantine.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Alexiad, written by the daughter of the Emperor, describes first-hand the Crusaders passing through the Byzantine Empire and the Emperor's feelings about them. 92.28.249.190 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It does, but Anna was only about 14 at the time, and didn't write anything down until many decades later. Still, it's a pretty good source, considering it's the only Greek one. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vellum

In the medieval period, was vellum usually manufactured by tanners, who more commonly made leather goods, or was it more a specialty process and had its own tradesmen specifically to make it? I suppose it might vary from place to place, but just as a general rule in 13th C England. Googlemeister (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't my specialty (and I should really ask the people I know who do specialize in this), but it does depend on when and where. Monasteries originally produced their own, since they owned so much land and had plenty of cows and sheep to use, and monks were the only ones writing anything anyway. It was a specialized process but the monks did it themselves. If you're talking about thirteenth-century London, then there probably was a special guild for that sort of thing, and eventually even monasteries bought parchment from elsewhere. I'm not sure where specialized bookmakers got their material though. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What did Amalek do?

The antepenultimate mitzvot is "Always to remember what Amalek did". What did Amalek do? (And don't say you don't remember). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.14.166 (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you forgot to read Amalek --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, our article isn't very good yet, you'll find the answer in a few places there. It refers to the attack on the Israelites by the Amalekites, described in Exodus. It's deemed both cowardly (they attacked the weakest first) and as a theological challenge against God, coming, as it did, immediately after the crossing of the Red Sea, when Pharaoh's armies were destroyed. Oh, and incidentally, (hoping to be helpful, not merely pedantic) the singular of mitzvot is mitzva (or mitzvah - take your pick when it comes to transliteration styles). --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Read Rephidim. Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The historical nugget seems to be that in the immediate pre-monarchy period, the Amalekites lived to the south of Judea, and in various ways were in direct competition with the Israelites and/or generally allied to the enemies of the Israelites... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the story is that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites when they were defenseless and for no reason. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

However, the historical reality of Amalekite-Israelite antagonism which led to the story seems to be that in the immediate pre-monarchy period, the Amalekites lived to the south of Judea, and in various ways were in direct competition with the Israelites and/or generally allied to the enemies of the Israelites. AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, that explanation is true of many other tribes - Philistines, Edomites, Ammonites, Grizzites, Jebusites to name but a few, none of whom are subject to the same astonishing laws as the Amalekites. --Dweller (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It can't be known for sure, but there are a number of possible factors which might explain the difference -- such as that the Ammonites and Edomites were far enough away for most Israelites to be able to ignore them when there wasn't an actual war on; the Jebusites only had one city, and were apparently decisively defeated with a single attack when the time came, etc. The Philistines were certainly strong enemies of the Israelites, but they had a kind of different way of life than the Israelites, with more focus on maritime and coastal trade and less focus on dispersed hill-country agriculture. It may be significant that the tribe of Simeon, which originally seemed to be the leading Israelite tribe, but later on lost its political autonomy and almost seemed to vanish, had its tribal territory directly facing the Amalekites... AnonMoos (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The first mention of the concept of "the destruction of Amalek" is at the end of B'shalach (Ex 17:14), immediately after Amalek attacks the Israelites on their way out of Egypt -- by proximity, it's thus evident that our contention with Amalek stems from a time prior to the settlement of Canaan. The forefather of the nation of Amalek, Amalek himself, was the grandson of Esau, and the metaphysical destruction of Esau through Amalek can be thought of as the fight between good and evil for all time. So one can take the position that their existence and their "mission" is divinely ordained. From another perspective, R' Hershel Schacter (YU) has been quoted as saying that there is an opinion that Amalek refers not to a specific nation but to the arch enemy of Israel. In turn, the Nazis and radical Islam can be said to be Amalek, even though the latter originated from Ishmael, Mr. Amalek himself's grandfather's uncle. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you expand on, or provide a link for, "the metaphysical destruction of Esau through Amalek can be thought of as the fight between good and evil for all time"? I don't quite follow. Esau never came across as anything close to evil in my reading of Genesis, just rather hard-done-by and amazingly forgiving of Jacob. I always felt bad for him. Is there some tradition, or additional text, in which Esau is evil? 86.164.66.83 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

<- An excellent point, and one that the author of this article handles quite well. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote above is a quip from the ArtScroll Tanach on the verse I quoted (Ex 17:14). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DRosenbach -- If you're historically-minded, it would generally seem more likely that the mention of Amlekites in the Exodus account was inserted because the Israelites of the early monarchy period or immediate pre-monarchy period hated the Amalekites for other reasons, rather than that the Israelites of that period hated the Amalekites because of an authentic memory of an Exodus atrocity... AnonMoos (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dweller. That's informative. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

how can they sue a country?

how can they sue a country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.14.166 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. The only other place I've seen this happen is related to terrorist attacks, but that is because there is a specific U.S. law which allows this to happen. As this Congressional Research Service report explains: "Ordinarily, foreign States, including their agencies and instrumentalities, may not be sued in U.S. courts unless they waive their sovereign immunity or an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq.) applies. The FSIA provides a list of circumstances where U.S. federal courts will not recognize foreign sovereign immunity. In these circumstances, U.S. courts may exercise jurisdiction over a dispute and treat a foreign state as if it were a private entity. It does not establish liability or a cause of action; it merely removes foreign sovereign immunity as a defense to the courts’ jurisdiction." However our article on FSIA makes pretty clear that this is not the first time that states have been sued as a result of artwork seized during the Nazi era — see Republic of Austria v. Altmann. Looking at FSIA's exceptions directly, my guess is that this falls under "property taken in violation of international law," but I am no lawyer. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That exception only applies if the property is involved in commercial activity by the foreign state within the US, so it doesn't seem to apply. I don't see any exception that looks like it applies to me. Even if the court does claim jurisdiction, I don't see how it can enforce any rulings anyway. --Tango (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The CRS article discusses enforcement options, which are indeed very weak. (As probably they should be—forcing other countries to recognize laws in ones domestic jurisdictions is problematic in terms of sovereignty, and trying to enforce rulings like this through diplomatic means seems like a division of powers problem... the judicial branch generally does not make foreign policy.) Anyway, it would seem that whatever Austria v. Altmann used would be sufficient, exception-wise. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside of the US, it may be noted that countries that accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg are regularly sued there by their own citizens. My own home country, Bulgaria, has been sued and sentenced there numerous times.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's different, though. The ECHR only has nation states as defendants and those are nation states that have signed up for it. And I don't think its rulings are enforceable, either. --Tango (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't different from the specific US case, but it's covered by the formulation of the OP's original question: it is possible to sue a country. I don't know if there is some obligatory mechanism that would punish a state that doesn't respect the ECHR's rulings, but in practice they generally are respected, at least by EU members, as far as I know (Bulgaria hasn't been able to get away with it, at any rate, and we would have if we could). By the way, there's a broadly similar (yet, in another sense, reverse) case at this very moment: the country's ex-monarch Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is suing Bulgaria for refusing to hand over to him some property that used to belong to the Crown but was confiscated (or, from the state's viewpoint, retained) by the new republican (and communist) government after WW2. Indeed, I wonder why the Herzog heirs chose to sue Hungary at a US court instead of the ECHR, Hungary being a EU member.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Coleco Adam scholarship

In Coleco Adam it says that they offered a $500 college scholarship along with each computer. Did they ever pay? Ariel. (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I remember that ad campaign! Good question. Although I have no direct knowledge of this, according to the article itself, Coleco declared bankruptcy 3 years later, and the offer was to small children; so I'm going to suggest the answer is "they paid none of the scholarships". Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Josephus reference to James brother of Jesus

In the first paragraph of the article Josephus on Jesus it states - "The second passage mentions James as the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), possibly James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine." and cites - Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990. I hoped to find this book on Google Books in order to verify exactly what Feldman has to say, and how he came to a conclusion that merits the assertion in this article. Unfortunately Volume 3 does not appear to be online (and I don't think the volumes that are online have a preview facility anyway). So I cannot make this verification. I would like confirmation that the cited page supports the assertion made in this article. So would it be possible for someone to track down this book and insert the relevant quote either into the body of the article, into the references section or into the relevant talk page? I have found a few references to the same source on the websites of various Christian apologists which quote variations of the phrase "almost universally acknowledged.", but I would like to know the context of this phrase and how this 'near universal acknowledgement' was determined. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help you with the book, but I can say that, contrary to these claims of "almost universally acknowledged" authenticity, my past reading around this subject suggests that a substantial proportion of scholars in the relevant fields think the passage is probably at least partially a later insertion, most likely by a Christian copyist who genuinely thought that an ambiguous reference must be to 'the' James or Jesus, and added a marginal or interlinear explanatory gloss that was later taken to be Josephus's original words - such accidental incorporations are not uncommon from the era when all writings had to be hand copied. James and Jesus were of course very common names in 1st-century Palestine. If I can recall specific references for this viewpoint in the near future, I'll come back to add them, but it's midnight and my brain is approaching shut-down mode :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis H. Feldman, is quoting the Gospels here. ".. mentions James as the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ)". When he said: "possibly James the Just", it is because there were two James: James the Greater and James the Less. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are actually two separate passages in Josephus; everybody agrees that one has been subsequently elaborated by Christians; however 87.194.131.188 was referring to the other passage, which is a brief unelaborated passing mention embedded in a narrative, and therefore doesn't raise any particular suspicions on textual grounds. AnonMoos (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Per wp:rs, the reporting of the majority position is sound. Feldman is a reliable source and reputable scholar, and he is not alone in his consensus statement. Feldman in ABD

• "The passage about the death of James the brother of Jesus (Ant 20.9.1) has been regarded as authentic by almost all scholars, since the language is thoroughly Josephan; yet it sharply diverges from the eulogy of the high priest Ananus, as found in JW 4.5.2 §319–20."
• "Moreover, the fact that Josephus refers to Jesus in his reference to James the brother of “the aforementioned Christ”(Ant 20.9.1 §200)—a passage the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged—indicates that Jesus had been mentioned previously."

Feldman in another source:

• "The passage about James (A XX, 197-203) has generally been accepted as authentic." L.H. Feldman, "A selective critical bibliogrpahy of Josephus" in L.H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, Josephus, the Bible, and History. p.434

Other scholars:

• "The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words "the brother of Jesus called the Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found." Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An introduction tot he ancient evidence. p.83
• "Though a few scholars have held this passage to be a Christian interpolation, the vast majority have considered it to be authentic." Richard Bauckham, "For what offence was James put to death?" in Eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, James the Just and Christian Origins. p.199
• "It is not surprising, therefore, that, in the words of Louis Feldman, "few have doubted the genuiness of this passages on James." Craig A. Evans, Jeuss and his Contemporaries: Comparative studies. p.44.

--Ari (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"A Novel"

When did novels start printing "A Novel" on the cover, and is this a requirement either by law or merely a heavily practiced "clarification" in the industry? Novel (the article) hints the practice began around 1760, but I seem to recall suddenly seeing the words "A Novel" appear on more and more hardcovers back in the 1990s, and novels before that don't all seem to say "A Novel" on the covers; I wasn't really paying attention though, I may in fact have just started noticing the phrase back then. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not all novels have "a novel" written on the cover, so it can't be a legal requirement. I expect publishers include it if the title is something that makes it unclear whether it is a work of fiction or non-fiction. You sell your product better if people that want that kind of product can find it. --Tango (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that lots of novels began as novelettes, in the form of weekly installments in a local/widely distributed newspaper -- Great Expectations is a good example of this type of serial publication. Perhaps the term "a novel" developed as a way of differentiating small, discrete works of literature from those apparently small, apparently discrete works of serialized (long) stories. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This may be a regional thing. I'm in the UK, read a lot of novels, and haven't noticed this on more than an occasional cover. Where do you live? --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the OP, but I see it frequently here in S. Ontario. FWIW, I think Tango is correct; I don't read much fiction, but my recollection is that it's mostly on stuff either with a title that could be confused with non-fiction or with a title that's very short and therefore ambiguous. "Tango: A Novel" lets you know that the book is a work of fiction and not, say, a documentary about the dance (or the unauthorized biography of a WP editor!). Matt Deres (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'm in the US. Maybe I've just been seeing more novels with "A Novel" printed on it recently—I've been looking up a few cover images online and I'm not seeing "A Novel" on every single hardcover either. Looks like a clarification thing then. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)