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.
What's the phenomenon called whereby you start to drive a new certain brand of car, and off a sudden you recognize a lot of the same cars on the roads? It could be anything… clothes, phones, headphones, etc. --209.203.125.162 (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the "phenomenon" requires a name. It is discernment. Prior to being able to discern something one may not be able to pick it out or it would have little meaning. Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the TV show "Brain Games", they would probably say that there was no particular reason to notice those other cars until our awareness of them is heightened somehow. The colloquial way to say it would be "not on our radar". However, someone who was really into cars might notice them. But that's because it is on their radar - they're specifically (or at least semi-consciously) looking for them. The Brain Games point would relate back to basic survival technique - that we tend to be more apt to notice something "different". Consider what you notice on the road. You're not likely to notice many individual vehicles unless they attract your attention for some reason... like if they get in your way... or if they're like the one your drive. Or if they stand out, by being much bigger or smaller or older than the average vehicle. I might not pay much attention to other cars in general, but if for example a Model A Ford is in the mix, it's very likely to catch my eye. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a similar thing happens after the death of a loved one. It's common, and I can vouch from my own experience, for bereaved people to think they spot the deceased person in crowds, on trains, etc. That's because they're "on our radar", to use Bugs' term. It isn't that we weren't aware of their existence before they died, just that, now they're gone, they're very much on our minds long after the funeral, as part of the grieving process. We may not be consciously thinking of them all the time, but they're still on our mind all the time in a way that they weren't before they died, and every time we see someone who has even a vague resemblance to them, the old subconscious computer thinks it's found a match, and we get jolted out of whatever it was we were consciously thinking of at the time. This can go on for a year or more after the person died. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much assimilation would be tolerated (by the Jewish people) if you were a Jew in antiquity? I do remember reading somewhere that Jews in diaspora were quite different from the Jews living in Jerusalem. Maybe it was this DK reference book. What's the evidence? 140.254.227.76 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, is the answer. Have a look at the article on the Kitos War, of which Gibbon writes, in a footnote, quoting Dion Cassius, of the Jewish insurrectionaries: In Cyrene they massacred 220,000 Greeks; in Cyprus, 240,000; in Egypt a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawn asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies. See Dion Cassius, l. lxviii. [c. 32] p.1145[1]The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon. ch.16, footnote 1[2] Dion Cassius quotation at Project Gutenburg
If you can find Gibbon's own, uncredited, reference to the 'precedent of David', I should be interested (and it might be worth adding to the article).
Chapter 16 of Gibbon answers your question; I hope that these paragraphs help. I have removed the footnotes:
Without repeating what has already been mentioned of the reverence of the Roman princes and governors for the temple of Jerusalem, we shall only observe, that the destruction of the temple and city was accompanied and followed by every circumstance that could exasperate the minds of the conquerors, and authorize religious persecution by the most specious arguments of political justice and the public safety. From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind. The enthusiasm of the Jews was supported by the opinion, that it was unlawful for them to pay taxes to an idolatrous master; and by the flattering promise which they derived from their ancient oracles, that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to break their fetters, and to invest the favorites of heaven with the empire of the earth. It was by announcing himself as their long-expected deliverer, and by calling on all the descendants of Abraham to assert the hope of Israel, that the famous Barchochebas collected a formidable army, with which he resisted during two years the power of the emperor Hadrian.
Notwithstanding these repeated provocations, the resentment of the Roman princes expired after the victory; nor were their apprehensions continued beyond the period of war and danger. By the general indulgence of polytheism, and by the mild temper of Antoninus Pius, the Jews were restored to their ancient privileges, and once more obtained the permission of circumcising their children, with the easy restraint, that they should never confer on any foreign proselyte that distinguishing mark of the Hebrew race. The numerous remains of that people, though they were still excluded from the precincts of Jerusalem, were permitted to form and to maintain considerable establishments both in Italy and in the provinces, to acquire the freedom of Rome, to enjoy municipal honors, and to obtain at the same time an exemption from the burdensome and expensive offices of society. The moderation or the contempt of the Romans gave a legal sanction to the form of ecclesiastical police which was instituted by the vanquished sect. The patriarch, who had fixed his residence at Tiberias, was empowered to appoint his subordinate ministers and apostles, to exercise a domestic jurisdiction, and to receive from his dispersed brethren an annual contribution. New synagogues were frequently erected in the principal cities of the empire; and the sabbaths, the fasts, and the festivals, which were either commanded by the Mosaic law, or enjoined by the traditions of the Rabbis, were celebrated in the most solemn and public manner. Such gentle treatment insensibly assuaged the stern temper of the Jews. Awakened from their dream of prophecy and conquest, they assumed the behavior of peaceable and industrious subjects. Their irreconcilable hatred of mankind, instead of flaming out in acts of blood and violence, evaporated in less dangerous gratifications. They embraced every opportunity of overreaching the idolaters in trade; and they pronounced secret and ambiguous imprecations against the haughty kingdom of Edom.' --83.49.77.33 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take Dio, in common with pretty much all ancient historians, with a healthy bucketful of salt. His biases are natural and the Roman writers had little sense for historiographical nuance, after all, "History is written by the winners", and at least in Dio's day, that's how the Romans saw themselves.
The reference to David is, I think, possibly a misattribution of the famous story of Solomon's judgement on the newborn child, which, if I'm right, is a further error by Dio as the child was never actually harmed and the point of the story was to wheedle out of the contending women which was telling the truth.
If you read what Dio says about that insurrection, it was politically-motivated, not religiously. Our article Kitos War explains it quite well - it's a hangover of disaffection from the destruction meted out in the previous war, with the touchpoint being a tax.
Finally, it's worth noting the unintentionally hilarious comment of Gibbon: "destruction of the temple and city was accompanied and followed by every circumstance that could exasperate the minds of the conquerors". Gibbon, with his Victorian attitudes to empire is surprised that after the Romans slaughtered a large chunk of the Jewish population (IIRC, Josephus says a million, but he's not reliable either, it just means "whoah! a lot") and destroyed the focal point of their religion, the Jews were a little bit annoyed. I think Gibbon would be surprised to know that the Jews are still, today, a tad irritated with the Babylonians, who pulled a similar trick about 600 years earlier than the Romans. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Gibbon (d.1794) had "Victorian" attitudes, he was ahead of his time. I don't think there's anything all all uninitentonal in the humour of the line you quote. Its laconic understatement is entirely typical of Gibbon. The idea that the Jewish rebels were trying "exasperate the minds of the conquerers" is rather like saying they were "a little bit annoyed", or was that just an unintentionally funny phrase born of your 22nd century attitudes? I suspect that Gibbon knew the Jews were still miffed with the Babylonians in his own lifetime. It wasn't much of a secret. So why would he be surprised that their annoyance continued for a mere couple of centuries more? Paul B (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
83.49.77.33 -- Edward Gibbon was an eighteenth-century opinionated historian who pretty much hated both Christianity and Judaism. You really should not take him as the last word when it comes to the interpretation of the meaning of events of ancient history... AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David with the head of Goliath 'sawn asunder' Returning, I make two points; (1) I am not at all sure that 'a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example' is a mistake for the judgment of Solomon, although it is an attractive theory; it would be an elementary mistake for such a scholar, and must have been picked up by an editor following in Gibbon's footsteps. The phrase is Gibbon's; it does not appear in Dion Cassius' original. I suggest that it refers to the post-mortem beheading of Goliath, although the action does not nicely fit the phrase. (2) The description of Gibbon as hating both Judaism and Christianity strikes me as unlikely; in his private life he clearly thought about religion sincerely, as evidenced by his own conversion to Catholicism (and back again); he did, however, approach the bible with the mind of a (Protestant) historian, recognising Christianity as a sect of Judaism, and carefully separating out the accretions of legends from the more likely historical record - in his amusing descriptions of the early Christian proselytisers and the unlikely miracles of the saints. 83.49.77.33 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Gibbon is well-known for his rather sarcastic and sniping remarks against ancient Christianity, which have left the impression in many readers' minds that he thought that the Roman empire (and possibly humanity in general) would have been better off if it had never existed. I really don't think that pasting in long quotes from Gibbon is a way to provide an effective or useful answer to the original poster's original question in this thread... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like most Anglicans of his time, Gibbon believed that Christianity had been corrupted in Rome. This view was promulgated by Thomas Cranmer during the Reformation in England, to counter the Catholic assertion that practices which had been in use since the days of the early church were legitimate because of their long usage. Alansplodge (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Gibbon allegedly being a devoutly-pious "back to the origins" Christian reformer is an accurate characterization of his views, and it's certainly not the impression that a reader of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire would receive. In any case, even if he were a devoutly-pious "back to the origins" Christian reformer, it would not automatically follow that long quotes from opinionated 18th century historians would be the best answer to the original poster's original question in this thread. AnonMoos (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The true answer to the question is yes, but also depends on your definition of "assimilation". Hellenism, as Jayron says, was widespread and well attested, as was apostasy. If you take a wider definition that includes religious dissent from orthodoxy, lots took place in ancient times, as now. See Essenes, Saducees, Samaritans and perhaps the ultimate example, Christianity. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
140.254.227.76 -- In some cases Greeks and Jews of a somewhat philosophical bent were able to find value in aspects of each other's cultures and thought, but traditionally-observant Jews refused to participate in common rituals of Greek civic life which involved aspects of polytheistic worship, or otherwise violated Jewish law. Some Greeks interpreted this as meaning that Jews were insular asocial "atheists". The whole revolt against the Seleucids and rise of the Maccabean family in Judea was triggered by traditionally-minded Jews objecting vehemently to some from prominent Jerusalem families who allegedly subverted Judaism by adopting Greek customs wholesale, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes intervening in a crude and heavy-handed way on the side of the "Hellenizers" in the dispute between Hellenizers and Jewish traditionalists. In Alexandria, the Greek and Jewish communities were constantly quarreling with each other during the early Roman empire period, but the intellectual elite of the Alexandrian Jewish community were often heavily influenced by Greek ways of thought (see Philo), and later the majority of Alexandrian Jews ended up becoming Christians... AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can find that discussed in chapter 21 of Gibbon:
The arms of the Macedonians diffused over Asia and Egypt the language and learning of Greece; and the theological system of Plato was taught, with less reserve, and perhaps with some improvements, in the celebrated school of Alexandria. A numerous colony of Jews had been invited, by the favor of the Ptolemies, to settle in their new capital. While the bulk of the nation practised the legal ceremonies, and pursued the lucrative occupations of commerce, a few Hebrews, of a more liberal spirit, devoted their lives to religious and philosophical contemplation. They cultivated with diligence, and embraced with ardor, the theological system of the Athenian sage. But their national pride would have been mortified by a fair confession of their former poverty: and they boldly marked, as the sacred inheritance of their ancestors, the gold and jewels which they had so lately stolen from their Egyptian masters. One hundred years before the birth of Christ, a philosophical treatise, which manifestly betrays the style and sentiments of the school of Plato, was produced by the Alexandrian Jews, and unanimously received as a genuine and valuable relic of the inspired Wisdom of Solomon. A similar union of the Mosaic faith and the Grecian philosophy, distinguishes the works of Philo, which were composed, for the most part, under the reign of Augustus. The material soul of the universe might offend the piety of the Hebrews: but they applied the character of the Logos to the Jehovah of Moses and the patriarchs; and the Son of God was introduced upon earth under a visible, and even human appearance, to perform those familiar offices which seem incompatible with the nature and attributes of the Universal Cause.
And so on, and so on. Whilst the Alexandrian Jews may have ended up as Christian - and, indeed, gave us Saint John's gospel - Alexandria was a nest of the Arian heresy. Given that these Hellenistic Jews were enthusiastically slaughtered by their neighbours in 38AD - see Alexandrian riots (38) - and with equal enthusiasm slaughtered their Greek neighbours during the Kitos War (115-117AD) - there doesn't seem to have been much integration between the two communities.
Reverting to the original question, it is worth, perhaps, pointing out that after the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple by Titus, the Jews were exiled from Jerusalem (hence Gibbon writing ...they were still excluded from the precincts of Jerusalem..., quoted above). There is a wikipedia article on the subject of the History of the Jews in the Roman Empire.
I really wonder why it is you think that quoting long passages from an eighteenth-century opinionated historian well known for his anti-religious biases is any kind of effective way to answer the original question, when it's abundantly evident that that's not the case... AnonMoos (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could be greatly inferior to Gibbon as a historian -- but lacking Gibbon's tendencies towards semi-flamboyant rhetoric and intrusive sarcasm, and his anti-religious biases, but possessing some information about facts and interpretations not yet known in the 18th century, I still might be better qualified to give a practically useful answer to the original question. AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to these Fundamentalists, Southern Baptists are not quite in the Fundamentalist tradition, mainly because they reject "Biblical separation" and "Christian militancy" (spelling?). They are Evangelicals or pseudo-Fundamentalists, but they are not true Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists must also adhere to the doctrines of the Fundamentalist Papers, published in the early 1900s. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some are, some are not. Southern Baptist is a big umbrella and includes a wide variance of thought, both theological and political, among Christians who attend Southern Baptist churches. Specifically, per our article on Southern Baptists, "Specific beliefs based on biblical interpretation can vary somewhat due to their congregational governance system which allows autonomy to each individual local church" It is important to note that, traditionally, Southern Baptists are governed from the bottom up. The Convention does not decide governance or even doctrine for its member churches, instead it provides primarily organization for coordination of various functions, including the publication of literature for use in churches, missionary and charity events, etc. There has been a LOT of controversy in recent years as the Convention has made more and more doctrinal pronouncements (many of a politically conservative nature). This has sometimes caused individual Southern Baptists (see Jimmy Carter) or even whole congregations to break from official membership in the SBC (see Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). Still, the Convention does not, as a matter of course, officially censure or otherwise sanction individual Southern Baptist congregations that disagree with it. It has no means to do so. (unofficially, social and political pressure is used to keep individual congregations in line, which is why some have left the Convention over such issues, either becoming independent Southern Baptist churches, or joining an alternate Baptist convention) Again, as our article notes in several places "The SBC contains no mechanism to trigger the automatic expulsion of congregations that adopt practices or theology contrary to the BF&M." (BF&M being the Baptist Faith and Message, which is the centrally agreed-upon statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention). --Jayron3201:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for the exact peer-reviewed article. I found it on my library's database, and honestly, I have no idea how I got there. I think the librarian recommended me a source or something, but I said that the article was too old. I forgot the title, but I do remember it's from the 1980s. I vaguely remember that part of the article discussed some sort of statistical analysis of people that held anti-gay views, which by modern standards, would be exceedingly high. If you find a similar source that addresses a similar topic, then that'd be fine. 140.254.136.154 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do persons of Jewish descent never claim "Ashkenazi" as their ethnicity and instead claim the vaguely worded "Jewish"? o_O I mean, when researchers collect data, they may be interested in "ethnicity" and may include "Jewish" as a checkbox. Although that type of practice is fairly common and probably negligible if the study is done in America where most "Jews" are Ashkenazi, I have observed one academic, peer-reviewed article that actually distinguishes people of Ashkenazic descent and people of non-Ashkenazic descent. Wouldn't "Jewish" be too vague? A person may be of Ashkenazi descent but may reject Judaism by marrying into a Christian family or converting to Christianity (Ashkenazic Christian). 140.254.136.154 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's how it shakes out. There is no central body which decides what an ethnicity is, and what it is to call itself, and how it is to define it's characteristics, and said body (which doesn't exist) also doesn't sit around and carefully weigh the logic and evidence for deciding the ethnic classification scheme. These things evolve rather arbitrarily over time as cultural memes and have no central organizing principle. Your desired classification scheme is logical and well thought out, and still the world will ignore it, because that's not how culture and ethnicity define themselves over time. --Jayron3200:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest it's a matter of taxonomy: what level of detail is relevant to answer the question. Being a nominal "Jew" (or "Arab") by descent, whether or not self-disclosed and regardless of extent vs absence of religious observance, is enough to distinguish one as non-mainstream in the U.S.A. The only relevance of my heritage being Ashkenazic rather than Sephardic or Mizrachi is that my ancestral tongue is Yiddish rather than Ladino, Arabic, or another language of the Jewish Diaspora. Frankly, I wish people cared enough about others' origins as a rich and valuable source of cultural diversity rather than for simple discrimination and grounds for exclusion and worse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ETA:) In Israel it's quite another matter: one's ethnic background within the Jewish or Arab spectrum has for generations been associated with socioeconomic distinctions, and generally is referred to as the "ethnic demon." -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it's like in the US or elsewhere, but in the UK, people who perceive themselves as ethnically Jewish are rarely offered the chance to define themselves as Jewish, let alone Ashkenazi etc. The closest they can usually get is "White, other", assuming they are white, and frequently even that option is missing on ethnicity monitoring forms. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
140.254.136.154 -- Why do people call themselves "German-Americans" instead of "Bavarian-Americans", etc? In operating as an ethnic group within United States society and politics, "Jewish" is the most relevant level of analysis, since the majority of non-Jewish Americans would not know or care too much about the differences between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc. Of course, the situation may be different in other countries... AnonMoos (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved