Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 30

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.

March 30

Pleading "not guilty"

This past weekend, a local woman, Melissa Jenkins, was killed. The police caught a couple of suspects, <names removed as claim does not appear supported by source and for BLP reasons I'm not sure if they should be mentioned anyway Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)>. They both filed a plea of not guilty though the man has also admitted to the crime. So, why plead not guilty but also admit to the crime?

Note: I'm looking for information as to why someone would admit to the crime but plead not guilty. I am not related to the case at all. It's simply a local murder case. We don't get too many murders per year around here, so it's a big deal around here. I'm not looking for legal advice because, as I said, I'm unrelated to the entire case. Please do not delete this question. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, without having read your link at all, I'd just point out that "not guilty" doesn't always mean you dispute the overt facts. For example, the prosecution might have charged murder, but you think it was manslaughter. In general "not guilty" just means you insist that the prosecution prove its case. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean 'admit to the crime' since unless I missed it the source doesn't seem to mention anything like that. But speaking in general terms, presuming you mean someone confessed to the crime but later plead not guilty then it would seem there are many possible reasons. It may be the original confession is being withdrawn claiming it's a false confession perhaps given under duress or similar circumstances, or they confessed because they wanted to protect the real killer. It may be they're not denying they killed the person but claiming they are not guilty of the specific crime they're being charged with (this may seem unlikely in this case since the victim was strangled and the charge was second degree murder but there may still be possibilities, e.g. insanity or the person who confessed was forced to kill the victim by someone else). And remember that a not guilty plea can generally be fairly easily changed to a guilty one whereas it's more difficult to withdraw a guilty plea, so it may be they're trying to reach a plea bargain or even simply that their lawyer has advised them to plead not guilty for now while they familiarise themselves with the case. It may also be that the person who confessed is somewhat psychotic (many killers probably are to some degrees) and so wants to fight the case even if they have no hope of winning and have already confessed; remember a lawyer can't force someone to listen to their or plead guilty advice and ultimately has to follow what their client wants provided they aren't doing stuff which would violate their professional ethics or the law (like Subornation of perjury). You could basically ask the same thing in other cases without a confession. Why do people fight a case even when all parties likely including their lawyer would agree they have no hope of winning? Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

N.B. Given what I mentioned about the admission of guilty not seemingly being supported by the source, I've removed them. Even if you provide a source supporting the claim, I suggest they stay out for WP:BLP reasons as they don't seem to matter to the question Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says "But <male suspect's name>, 30, told investigators he and his wife committed the crime, according to the detective." There is, of course, more than one news story about this. I supplied the link to provide some background and so that people may read at least something about the case even though it may not back up every bit of what I said. The affidavit is online somewhere as well. Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• One thing one should note in a situation like this: admiting to committing an act is not the same thing as admitting to committing a crime. For example: Killing a person is an act, and even if I fully admit to killing someone, I may still claim to be not guilty of the crime of murder (for example, if the act was an accident, or in self-defense, or if I claim insanity, or some such thing). --Jayron32 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Zimmerman-Martin case in Florida is a stark example. That Zimmerman shot Martin is not at issue in any way, shape or form. The issue is whether a crime was committed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Helpful link to the case User:Baseball Bugs is talking about: shooting of Trayvon Martin. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 21:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find it remarkable that (according to the linked article) the police managed to search the defendants' residence without killing their dogs. —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament

In this article, there is no mention of when the book was written? If we don't know then someone should have written briefly in the article that we don't know. I'm sure some scholars have some kind of estimated guesses for when it was written. Hope someone would add that info into the article. I'm also curious about it too!65.128.165.20 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not just one book; it's lots of books, and they were written at different times. Read the article more carefully and you'll see at least some discussion of that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Authorship of the Bible probably provides a clearer summary of the information. It's disappointing that we don't have a timeline. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are times given at Old_Testament#Composition_of_the_Hebrew_scriptures. For the Pentateuch, there are also Documentary hypothesis and Mosaic authorship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also note that many of the writings may be based on much older fictional or real events. For example, the Black Sea deluge hypothesis is one possible source of the Great Flood myth. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And also that those who wrote-down the earlier books may well have been just recording an older spoken tradition, rather than actually composing them. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note — besides what's mentioned above, there was obviously some specific dates when the various forms of what's considered Old Testament (remember that Catholics and various types of Orthodox use an Old Testament different from that of the Protestants, whose Old Testament is the same text as the Bible of Judaism) were put together as a unified form for the first time. It's vaguely like an anthology: "when was this anthology written?" may mean "when were the individual stories of the anthology written?" or "when was the anthology put together?" Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Japanese strike

What is a Japanese strike? (Note that the link is a redirect to strike and thus not very helpful). I'm gessing it doesn´t have anything to do with huelga a la japonesa. 85.55.197.138 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Labour law says "Strikes may be pursued by people continuing to work, as in Japanese strike actions which increase productivity to disrupt schedules, or in hospitals". That sounds a bit like a work-in. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like it is indeed huelga a la japonesa - the only place I've found a reference to it, apart from mirrors of our article, is a blog post that seems to have been translated from Spanish. The idea seems closer to work-to-rule, where workers stick to over-rigid rules that are normally ignored, than a work-in: the idea is to do the absolute maximum for a short period, but to cause problems with storage and distribution rather than to demonstrate the abilities of the workers. I can't find any evidence that a Japanese strike has ever actually happened, though. Japanese industrial action seems to be a bit feeble by European or American standards (generally consisting of short disruptions and brief pickets rather than drawn-out shutdowns), but otherwise ordinary. Smurrayinchester 18:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the redirect should be deleted - or at least redirected elsewhere. The article currently redirected to, doesn't mention Japan at all nor does it mention the type of strike described by Finlay. Astronaut (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, if nobody objects, tomorrow I will redirect Japanese strike to huelga a la japonesa and I'll delete the unreferenced bit that appears mentioned in labour law as there is no prrof it actually exist.85.55.195.46 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Journey audiobook

Is the Audiobook of The Journey by Tony Blair actually read by Tony? It seems to suggest it is but I can't imagine it. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it says "Read by the Author" on the front cover.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Purely for curiosity, AJP, why couldn't you imagine it was Tony Blair, given that as a professional politician he is by default a trained and experienced public speaker. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

None of us was in the recording studio to be able to see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears who did the actual reading. We're told Blair did it himself. Like virtually all historical events, we have to trust what we're being told, unless there's some good reason to doubt the veracity of that statement (e.g. the voice sounds more like that of Sharon Stone ...). Are you suggesting they used a voice double? What's your evidence? (Btw, distrust of anything a politician says does not count as evidence.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone else reading Uncle Tony's deathless prose FreeMorpheme (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you watched The Hunt for Tony Blair? 86.167.12.239 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If it says "read by the author" on the front and it wasn't read by the author, then that's fraud. It seems unlikely they would commit fraud over something like that... --Tango (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A man called Jesus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Where in the Gospels does it say specifically that Jesus is physically a man?--LordGorval (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to what? A fish? A mushroom? A two-week holiday in Benidorm? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You've heard of John Q Allegro's The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, then? :-) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it says he had a human mother, and they didn't record anything unusual physically about him. Of course, the supposed fatherhood of God and his ability to do miracles would imply that he was at least part god, right ? StuRat (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because Jesus had a human mother does not confirm a human man. Looking where it actually confirms a human man. To imply is NOT what I am looking for.--LordGorval (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Biologically, I believe having a human mother does indeed make you human, as we aren't close enough to interbreed with any other species (although with recombinant DNA, some unholy offspring might now be possible) . StuRat (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the New Testament: Matthew 1:1 "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."[1]Anonymous.translator (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "son" has a meaning of "offspring" - so it could be the offspring of David, etc. It hasn't actually confirmed a physical human (blood and guts).--LordGorval (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hebrew word for son used in that passage, υιου, is generally used for the male offspring of men. Although it does carry the "offspring" meaning as you mentioned, that usage is very rare. Of course you can argue this is not a strong enough evidence, but the people who believe he was a human male generally do not require strong evidence per se.Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Hebrew word would have been בן, but I don't believe anything in the gospels was written in Hebrew. Greek, in fact. --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Jesus had a human mother, and there are many indications that his appearance was undistinctive. However, his exact nature was a central issue in Christianity for centuries; you can start with our Christology article. John M Baker (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As suggested, reading over Christology it says the "tender image of Jesus" as a friend and a source of love and comfort was developed. It also says Jesus as a loving figure "who is always there to harbor and nurture those who turn to him for help and take delight in his presence". Does NOT say anything of a physical human being. --LordGorval (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LordGorval, my point was more that the exact nature of Jesus is a long-standing area of dispute within Christianity, especially in the early centuries. I don't know that we can really draw more conclusions from the evidence in the New Testament than that he was the son of Mary and was entirely human in form. John M Baker (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A counter question could be where in the Bible it is attested that Abraham was a human being or that Jonah was or the disciples or any other Biblical person. Jesus is commonly assumed to be a human man because he had a human mother, he's described as appearing physically human (or at least had a beard, hands, feet, legs, blood, flesh, etc.), and there's no direct evidence to the contrary. However, I suppose you are correct in that there is no particular verse I can think of that specifically discusses Jesus' genetics or whether there was anything about him physically different from any other person. Certain variants of Christianity might believe he wasn't actually a man, but the predominant assumption, at least among most Protestant groups, is that he was physically a human. 151.163.2.8 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Stepping away from those who believe, since that sounds religious to me, I am looking for some phrase that specifically says he was human or a physical man. Why couldn't "Jesus" be something else. Why couldn't Abraham" be something else? Why couldn't "Jonah" be something else besides human or a blood and guts man?--LordGorval (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why couldn't Barack Obama be a lizard? Why couldn't Cyril Nutter of Guatemala (1738 - 2011) have written all of "Shakespeare"'s plays and his wife Dyspepsia have written his sonnets. Such questions verge on trolling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate said "Ecce homo", meaning "Behold the man" or "Behold, a man". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Verse?--LordGorval (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

John 19:5, as Ecce Homo states. That's from the Vulgate; as I'm not a Greek scholar, I can't assist you in comparing it with the original Greek. 151.163.2.8 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Homo" in Latin means both "human being" (e.g. Homo sapien) and "male human being".Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No - "homo" means a human being of either sex, a person. The word for a male human being is "vir". The Greek equivalents are anthropos and aner respectively. The phrase in question from John 19.5 is "Idou ho anthropos", meaning behold THE man. ---rossb (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you answer Andy's question - a man as opposed to what? The word "man" has a lot of meanings, what are you suggesting Jesus might have been if he weren't a man? --Tango (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A definition.--LordGorval (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not a definition. That's a list of biblical names starting with J. Please be more specific, or we will treat you as a troll and stop feeding you.--TammyMoet (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Jesus, savior; deliverer,[ref]Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names[/ref] The Greek form of the name Joshua or Jeshua, a contraction of Jehoshua, that is, help of Jehovah or saviour. Latin: Jesus, Iesus, Iesu, Josue. Greek: Ieous from Hebrew Yeshua. Also means safety, victory and who's help is Jehovah or it may be from the verb "Yasha", "to save," and = Jehovah Savior, or simply Savior; a late form of Hebrew "yehosua", the meaning of which is "YHWH is salvation" or "YHWH saves/has saved." Online definition of "savior." Latin term drove out Old English "hæland" which means "healer" as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. --LordGorval (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Abraham, father of a great multitude--LordGorval (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Jonah, or Jonas, a dove; he that oppresses; destroyer.--LordGorval (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

When Jesus was presented in the temple to Simeon, Simeon said "Behold, this child..." Luke 2:34 Why would Simeon have used the word "child" if Jesus wasn't a child? The "Ecce Homo" reference is John 19:5. I too wonder what else Jesus would have been. I think the OP needs to complete his reasoning here. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Luke 2:21 says Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day after He was born [as customary for Jewish males]. That's a clue. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is said that God originally made man in his image, so even if God was Jesus' father, one would still expect his and Mary's offspring look like an ordinary man. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mary = Miriam = rebellion, rebellous, bitterness, their rebellion.--LordGorval (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LordGorval has entirely missed the point of the Christology article. That is, this question was of deep concern for religious scholars for hundreds and hundreds of years, and minor differences in interpretation are basically responsible for some of the different denominations of Christianity that still exist today. The question was whether he was a human man, a completely supernatural being, some combination of the two. (So, if this trolling, which it probably is, it's a particularly stupid kind, since this is actually a very interesting question.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to hear his rationale for how a non-male would be given ritual circumcision under Jewish law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bugsie, I would like to answer your question. The Biblical names are NOT people. They are meant to be the definitions of these names. Just my belief. As they say: "Everyone is entitled to their belief." Some believe in Christianity and other do not. I say the answer is that you use the definitions of these Biblical names. Just an idea. Definitely a new idea! I won't discuss this new idea anymore, since it looks like the Christians want to throw me to the lions. You all have answered my question.--LordGorval (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if His name is Charlie Brown. The Bible says He was circumcised. Unless you've got evidence that Jewish ritual circumcision involves anyone other than males, that basically settles it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LordGorval -- This is really not a "new" idea. In fact, the idea that Jesus did not have a physical human body was the heresy of Docetism, which was condemned long ago... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

But every name has a meaning, aside from being someone's name. Cicero was a human male, but his name means "chickpea". In any case, why didn't you just say that's what you believed to begin with? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In John 15, Jesus refers to himself as "a man": (v12) "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. (v13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (v14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." (KJV) We also have an article on the phrase Son of Man which Jesus repeatedly uses. Alansplodge (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this question is starting from the wrong place. In how many novels (fantasy novels aside) does the author bother to tell us that the protagonist is a 'real flesh-and-blood human'? Some, but not all. We are expected to infer from the character of the narrative that that's the case; it goes without saying. And the expectation that the Bible provides literal answers to all such questions is mistaken. Moreover, several people have provided good answers to this question, and the OP has responded by proposing counter-intuitive metaphorical interpretations of those verses. This obviously undermines the insistence on a literal statement in the text.

But since the question has been asked, here are some verses which do carry the required meaning:

In John 9:11, a man cured by Jesus says: "A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes";

"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7);

"And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" (John 6:42);

And in Acts, which is not part of the Gospels, but is thought to be by the same author as Luke's Gospel, we have "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles" (2:22).

But I rather think that the church fathers who gathered at the Council of Chalcedon had thought of all of this; because they were the ones who decided that the church would acknowledge the true and full humanity of Jesus, at a time when competing views depicting him as God and not human, or as some kind of demigod, were widespread. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

However, most of those early arguments, such as Nestorianism, were about the exact relationship between Christ's human nature and his divine nature. LordGorval (the OP) seems to be sugesting that Jesus wasn't human at all, which is a rather novel approach as far as I can see. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's only novel insofar as it doesn't fall under Docetism or related tired old heresies... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! I missed your link above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

new novel idea

When you say, 'The Biblical names are NOT people. They are meant to be the definitions of these names', what do you mean? Or more specifically, to what is that "they" supposed to refer? Anyway, at Luke 24:19, Jesus is described as "ἀνήρ", the standard ancient Greek term for a male human. Also, I wouldn't be so afraid, there aren't so many Christians here, and the ones that are cannot actually throw you to lions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Atethnekos: It looks like you have an interest in Philosophy and you asked a logical quesion, so I will attempt to answer your question. There will be a lot of controversy since it is a new novel idea.

• First: let me say that as I see it (remember, everyone is entitled to their beliefs) the New Testament was NOT written some 2000 ago as some believe, but perhaps in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. So that means that any definitions of any ancient Greek has no meaning.
• Second: Jesus as a definition is "saviour" (not religious) or "deliverer" (a vehicle to deliver something). The Biblical names of the New Testament each have a definition.
• Third: The story of the so called man of "Jesus Christ" is just that, a fiction or myth "story". Now we just have to figure out from this what the real story is - which has nothing to do with any ancient Christianity. I believe the real story is behind the New Testament story. How's that for a philosophy? It certainly will get you thinking.--LordGorval (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you display some strong ignorance there -- no one has EVER claimed that the New Testament was written "2500" years ago, since the events which it recounts occurred ca. 2000 years ago and less, and many even among strongly Bible-believing scholars believe that some books (such as the Gospel of John) weren't written until near the end of the 1st. century A.D. Furthermore we have basically-complete Greek New Testament manuscripts whose paper and writing dates from the first half of the 400s A.D. (and substantial excerpts from the 300s and fragmentary manuscripts from even earlier), so you're a thousand years off there, too... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew it would be controversal, especially to those that lean towards being a Christian. First, I never said "2500" years ago. Have no idea where you got that. I believe I said fifteenth or sixteenth century. No, do NOT believe you have basically-complete Greek New Testament manuscripts whose paper and writing dates from only slightly after 400 A.D. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.LordGorval (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you about 2500. However, Codex Alexandrinus is a substantially-complete Greek New Testament manuscript from the early 400s. This isn't about Christians vs. non-Christians, it's about you stating emphatically-assertive opinions on subjects which you unfortunately seem to know rather little of... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apologies. All of us make mistakes, especially in the heat of passion. I see you are very passionate about protecting Christianity. I fully understand this of the Christians, so won't get in depth with it. I'll just say I understand why you make the remarks you do. The idea is so novel that I imagine it will take some time to take a foothold. FYI: I have been aware of Codex Alexandrinus. The article says The manuscript's original provenance is unknown. I am aware also what lengths people will go through to try to prove to others how old a document is to increase its value (to make money). The only provenance I see that can be confirmed is: The codex was brought to Constantinople in 1621 by Cyril Lucar. Keep calm and I'll be delighted to talk to you about this.--LordGorval (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The only provenance of Codex Sinaiticus came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at the Greek Orthodox Monastery of Mount Sinai.--LordGorval (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You say you have New Testament substantial excerpts from the 300s and fragmentary manuscripts from even earlier. Are you an expert in proving the dating on these "fragmentary manuscripts"? I'll bet you are taking the word of another person (whom you don't know). Can you even read the writing on these "fragmentary manuscripts"? Do you know these ancient languages? Myself, I just use logic to figure this out. I do NOT take the word of another, but just do extensive research to find the answers. There is NO New Testament "fragmentary manuscripts" of the 300s. I'll need proof in the form of research to believe that. You do NOT have that. All you have is the Christian "faith". I put no faith in that.--LordGorval (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an epigrapher or philologist, but I am a linguist and have a fairly substantial knowledge of the grammatical structures of ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew (without being able to fluently sight-read long passages without the aid of a dictionary). So I'm not an expert in everything you're asking about, but I have some useful background knowledge to be able to judge the plausibility of certain hypotheses, which you seem to lack. Looking over the New Chronology (Fomenko) article, it's interesting that no linguists are listed as supporting it, which I don't think is an accident, because those who have a real knowledge of how languages change over centuries will have a deep intuitive feeling for just how impossible the whole thing is. How could someone ca. 1500 A.D. make up a form of Greek which would be suitable and plausible to be spoken 1,500 years earlier, and which would stand up as such during subsequent centuries of increasing linguistic knowledge?? For a point of comparison, J.R.R. Tolkien basically devoted his entire life to making the constructed languages Quenya and Sindarin seem to have a linguistically-plausible relationship between diverging languages with many centuries of literary history, and he never really managed to complete this task in a fully-consistent manner, or to his own complete satisfaction. How could someone in 1500 A.D. attempt such a feat with even the remotest chance of success, when most of the necessary knowledge wasn't discovered until the late 19th century? It really doesn't make too much sense (and the spirit in which I've approached this discussion is what makes sense in the light of historic knowledge, not that of being a militant "defender of Christianity").

Furthermore, you seem to be confused as to some of the basics involved in dating historical manuscripts. Strict rules of "provenance" and unbroken chains of custody from the original creator to the present are strongly required for some types of relatively modern artworks; however, they have a rather limited role in establishing the authenticity of thousand-or-more years-old manuscripts. Scholars will always be interested to know whether a manuscript has passed through the hands of Firkovich, but many manuscripts are basically unanimously accepted among scholars as being authentic without the comprehensive paperwork which you seem to feel necessary. Therefore you can look at List of New Testament uncials for accepted manuscripts of the 4th-10th century (the earliest containing an almost-complete New Testament apparently being Alexandrinus), and List of New Testament papyri for more fragmentary (but sometimes even earlier) manuscripts (Rylands Library Papyrus P52 having attained some degree of fame). AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the names Jesus and Joshua are closely related in Hebrew (with Jesus ישוע being a slightly shortened variant of Joshua יהושע favored during the exilic and post-exilic periods), so I don't really understand your name-etymology determinism. In the Old Testament, ten individuals are referred to by the Hebrew version of the name "Jesus", including Joshua son of Nun in Nehemiah 8:17; were they all "saviours"?? In the New Testament, the name Ιησους refers to several other individuals in addition to Jesus (including Joshua son of Nun at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8). AnonMoos (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you replied on this, I have since come across the article Jesus (name) - which is pretty much what I just said. I said "deliverer" (a vehicle to deliver something), while the article says (to rescue or deliver) and the Hebrew noun "yesua" (deliverence). I believe we are saying the same thing.--LordGorval (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hebrew name Yeshua/Yehoshua actually seems to contain a shortened form of the Tetragrammaton, and so is more commonly understood as "YHWH is salvation" etc. However, I already knew all that; it's your apparent name-etymology-determinism theory which is unclear... AnonMoos (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll use a little logic here. Let's say I have a really bad cold. I go to the doctor and he gives me a prescription for a medicine to help. This piece of paper with the prescription is the "deliverer" of a medicine that is my "salvation". The prescription is my "salvation" as without it I could get sicker and sicker and perhaps die. So bottomline, I think we are saying the same thing. Remember, keep calm as otherwise it raises the blood pressure and you will need some sort of "salvation" in the form of a prescription medication.--LordGorval (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of pure curiosity: Where (if anywhere at all) is it seriously argued that the NT was written in the era of the Ottoman Empire, some centuries after Mohammed had included Isa Ibn Maryam as a prophet in the Quran ? I have never heard or read of such a claim, novel or ancient. Of course, it may be an idea for a novel:) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That is basically the idea behind the "New Chronology" of Anatoly Fomenko. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the real New Testament story behind the myth story of "Jesus Christ" happened in the fifteenth century.--LordGorval (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous. The Bible played an extremely significant role in world history between around 200 AD and when you are saying it was written. The conspiracy you describe would be enormous. I would find it easier to believe that we're ruled by lizard people than that the Bible wasn't written until 1,200 years later than is usually claimed. --Tango (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. If you believe in lizard people I won't argue with you. But there is one correction I would like to make to your statement. I did NOT say Bible (as a whole) - I said the New Testament was written somewhere around the fifteenth century. Another correction is that it is NOT a "conspiracy", but a method as to how it was written as a coded book with a hidden story behind the scenes. What is that real story. I believe Church related history of around the fifteenth century (not Christianity as in the "Jesus Christ" myth).--LordGorval (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So, then, I guess all of those those New Testaments which existed before the 15th century, what of them? What of all of the people, like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo who wrote extensive, detailed commentary regarding the New Testament? Did they have a time machine? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that also means that everyone else is entitled to ridicule the rediculous... --Jayron32 22:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the comments from those that want to protect Christianity. I see that you are also very passionate on this. Interesting how a new novel idea creates such a fire storm- but I understand it from those of the Christian "faith". This Thomas person made remarks about the New Testament? This Augustine person made some remarks of the New Testament in the 5th century? Research material??? I use logic and that would be my "belief".--LordGorval (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm passionate against exposing the silly. Look, De doctrina christiana contains direct references to several New Testament works, extensive commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans. Jerome has several important New Testament commentaries. The Ambrosiaster (whose actual authorship is unknown), dates from the 4th century. Your speculation that the New Testament was invented in the 15th century is so wholly rediculous as to defy direct confrontation. To dismiss the evidence that it did exist before such date, which is copious to the point of lunacy, is direct evidence that you are either trolling us, or so dilusional that it would be pointless to refute you further. --Jayron32 00:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I say, I understand why you speak as you do. Apparently it is some sort of threat to the viewpoint of Christianity. I do believe this concept will take some time before it gets a foothold. I'll give you one more hint, but no more: "Jesus of Nazareth" I see as "The deliverer of sanctified" or "The approved rescuer" or "The deliverer that is special". Fits right in with my "cold" story above. Remember, keep calm. If I were you, if you think I am trolling and these are not legitimate good faith responses - then I just wouldn't respond. I can see it raises your blood pressure and I wouldn't want any harm to come to you just because I am introducing a new novel idea. Cheers.--LordGorval (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who here is a Christian and who is not, but I don't think that matters. I'm not a Christian, so I don't perceive this as a threat to Christianity; it's just manifestly absurd and irrational. And as we keep telling you, this idea predates you by a couple of thousand years. It's not new. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Adam dear, calm down. Its raising your blood pressure too - way too much! For a person with a Doctor's degree in philosophy, it sure seems to be very disturbing to you also. What, you don't like philosophy? I would recommend then that you don't answer my remarks. I believe I will just keep this special knowledge and insight to myself as I can see it is too hard for you all to consider as a new novel idea. I won't give you any more details. Have a good day.--LordGorval (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if Palestine, as per Anatoly Fomenko is a medieval reference to the German Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate), it would at least explain why Pantera is (possibly) buried in Bingen (ibid). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To my original post: Where in the Gospels does it say "specifically" that Jesus is physically a man? nobody yet has come up with an answer. The closes answer is "faith" and they "assume" on something. I do NOT believe the New Testament is a real story of a physical person named "Jesus Christ". It is a coded book of a series of books that have a story behind the scenes. One of the "keys" to unlock the real story is the definitions behind the Biblical names. That makes sense to me, however the story of the "Jesus Christ" myth does NOT make sense as one has to have "faith" in the myth and use no logic. So like I said a long time ago, you all have answered my question - as nobody has given a logical answer, only a "Christian faith" answer. --LordGorval (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been told about several places, you just choose not to accept it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So...you're challenging us to provide proof against a Monophysite Christology? Your words are very confusing; if you see the biblical accounts as codes for other things, rather than as narratives that are either historically accurate or historically inaccurate, you're not going to be able to find what you want. FYI, people who are trained in paleography and have become experts at it are the people from whom those of us at this board get the idea of these manuscripts being nearly two millennia old; if you reject them, I don't see why you think that we'll be able to provide you with the type of answer that you'd like. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank's for providing the answers. That's all I needed to know.--LordGorval (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of soivice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciated your service and must admit Bugsy you gave the most logical answers that made the most sense. You were not quite as rattled as most.--LordGorval (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

New Testament verses

Moved to keep thread in one place to easily understand:

KJV Matthew 17:8, Mark 9:8, John 9:11, John 19:5, Romans 5:15, 1 Timothy 2:5 Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss my edit above the sub-header? Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed them. It shows to me that you also don't have a clue how the New Testament was written to be able to know the real fifteenth century history behind the scenes. Your viewpoint is from a Christian viewpoint assuming Jesus is a physical man. I read these verses in an entirely different way. Remember in my remarks above I see "Jesus" as "deliverer" (a vehicle to deliver something) - vehicle is a term that describes a means of conveyance. So from that point of view the verse comes out entirely different than the conventional Christian viewpoint of the "Jesus Christ" myth. --LordGorval (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm not making any assumptions, but taking the verses at face value - they state that He was a man explicitly, not implicitly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem: taking the verses at face value. The verses were NOT meant to be taken at face value (a Christian viewpoint, a lazy layman's way out) but have another way that they should be read. By the way you worded your response (i.e. "He" with a capital h) shows that you have a strong Christian lean, so would NOT be receptive as to how it was actually meant to be read. I'll hold off on giving up the secret as it would be a fire-storm of controversy. Its too premature to give it out.--LordGorval (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 17:8 (only hint I think I should show for now, as it alone will make a fire-storm)

KJV: And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. (Christian's viewpoint)

KJV: And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw men, save deliverer only. (intended viewpoint)--LordGorval (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Then your original request cannot be fulfilled, because you wanted a verse that literally said Jesus was a man, and now you're insisting that the literal meaning of any verse provided cannot be taken seriously.

But in any case, as an historian rather than a theologian, I ought to point out that your entire proposed history of the text is not even wrong - it is so delusional that it is difficult to rebut. I was at the British Library last week, looking at their fourth-century codex (open to the page which omits the story of the woman taken in adultery). In order for that book not to be what it ostensibly is, we'd have to call into question not just theology, but the entire history of the western world, a substantial chunk of nuclear physics, chemistry, palaeography, and probably other subjects I'm forgetting. This is not a localised issue. Whatever applies to that text must be applied to (for example) the Oxyrynchus Gospel of Thomas, the Nag Hammadi fragments, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so on. The NT codices are not treated differently by historians; many of the experts in this area are not mainstream Christians, and have nothing to gain by falsifying their results.

But then, 'Lord' Gorval, I expect you are from North America (or perhaps Australia). Come over here to Europe, where we have a continuous archaeological record from the present day back to the time of Christ, with extant buildings alongside buried strata of the same age. Study Carbon-14 dating, dendrochronology, and all the other techniques we use for assigning new discoveries to their place in the timeline. See what a building looks like that was built before you claim the NT was written. Observe the biblical scenes painted on the walls of medieval buildings, and set in their stained glass. See the pre-Norman copies of the NT made by the monks of Lindisfarne. (Hint: if they are early medieval, the NT cannot have been created later than that.)

Then look at yourself in the mirror, and say honestly, "Whoever Jesus was, I was a schmuck." AlexTiefling (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion has become a soapbox for LordGorval's original views of the Bible, albeit it appeared to start as a genuine question. He is clearly trying to be provocative:"Ï'll hold off on giving up the secret as it would be a fire-storm of controversy. Its too premature to give it out." I suggest this be hatted at least, or even deleted as inappropriate to the Ref Desk. Bielle (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not if he has a reliable source for the "intended viewpoint", if not then would tend to agree with policy about soapboxing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to kill the spirit of curiosity, but I do not like to encourage the distribution and advocation of (unsourced) viewpoints. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew it was going to be very controversal. This is all the further I am going to go as it already is starting up a fire-storm. All I can say is to look at the method as to how Matthew 17:8 was "translated" from KJV. That's the other key, besides using the definitions of the Biblical names. Its against the common Christian viewpoints, so I can understand why some would want to remove from the Ref Desk. That's fine with me, as I already know the special knowledge which gives me certain advantages. I'll hold off saying anything further - since it looks like the Christians want to throw me to the lions. I have as much proof as those that can prove the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus are qenuine. They can not prove these are genuine (as related to New Testament speciments) and one just have to take their word on "faith". From the knowledge I have, I know they are NOT true New Testament speciments.

The original question was: Where in the Gospels does it say "specifically" that Jesus is physically a man? The answer I received from everyone is no one knows where it says that Jesus is a physical man. You just have to assume it from something - which is the basis of the Christian "faith". Of course its inappropriate to the Ref Desk, because its inappropriate to the Christian "faith". I won't give up any more secrets, because it means one has to use logic and not "faith". Cheers.--LordGorval (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My proof is the provenance here: http://faithofgod.net/NTcompare/Matthew.htm

I know most will not understand this, but its a better provenance than they have for Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus. Cheers. --LordGorval (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to show your working, I'm afraid. That page is not a provenance at all. It's just a comparison of the varying forms of Early Modern English used by various translators. The question of which of those came first (which I think is actually pretty settled) is irrelevant in the broader scheme of things - they are all demonstrably translations either of the Vulgate, or of the Greek texts from which the Vulgate is drawn. We have manuscripts of the Greek, and of the Latin with and without Early English glosses, which can be dated by physical means to many centuries before any of the EME texts.

So unless you've got something truly remarkable to share with us - and have proper sources to back it up - I'm going to call shenanigans on this entire thing. It's not necessary for me to demonstrate that Jesus lived, or that he was this or that kind of being, or did this thing or that. It's readily demonstrable that your claims are both extraordinary and false. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's not out job to sort through your sources to decipher your theory. A side by side comparisson of M 17:8 shows no difference between the versions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP's original question was whether the Bible says Jesus was a man. That question has been more than sufficiently answered in the affirmative. The question of whether the Bible is factually/historically true is a totally different question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Costs for the government to defend itself in cases regarding the Establishment Clause

I need some sources that mention the amount of money it would cost for a local or state government to litigate defend itself in a case involving the separation of church and state. I am not in need of a general study but rather specific instances. For example, the Cranston, Rhode Island school committee said that the city's attorney fees would push upwards of $500000 if their case (Ahlquist v. Cranston) went to the Supreme Court. Can I also get some sources that report the success rate of local/state governments have in defending themselves in such cases? This is to back up a bill in a mock legislature program. --Melab±1 ☎ 20:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is going to depend a lot on the circumstances. The article you linked to says a charity provided legal representation for the school without charge (although it doesn't say whether that would have continued through the appeal stages). That could easily happen in other cases as well, in which case the cost to the defendant themselves could be fairly low. The cost could also be fairly low if you are willing to accept reasonably cheap lawyers, although your chances of winning would then be reduced. --Tango (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)