Humanities desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 29

music intervals

moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#music intervals 96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and history

I know that Christians believe that Jesus actually resurrected himself as a historical fact and that Muslims believe that Muhammad actually ascended to heaven on the dome of the rock as a historical fact. Is there any equivalence in Judaism? Are there any things in Judaism that Jews may believe to be historical fact? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of universal acceptance in Jewish theology mirrors the fabulously messy tangle of blurs of white, grey and black that is Jewish law. But a good place to start is here. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the links. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish religion's founding narrative, which by Divine commandment is recited annually at Passover during the ceremonial seder meal, is written in the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament dubbed the "Five Books of Moses." The narrative features the events surrounding the patriarch Jacob and sons, notably Joseph, in the Egyptian Land of Goshen, the Hebrews' captivity in Egypt, their liberation through the efforts of Moses, their flight from Egypt ("The Exodus") including the parting of the Red Sea, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai and the episode of the Golden Calf, the forty years' wandering in the desert, and to the Promised Land of Canaan. Check these internal links to read about the historicity of these events. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if you're looking for something analogous to Jesus' resurrection or Muhammad's ascenscion, there's Elijah, who didn't die, but was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind accompanied by a fiery chariot, and is prophesied to return. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And also Enoch, the Enoch (ancestor of Noah) of the Hebrew Bible. In the words of the King James Bible (which I love for its Early Modern English prose, but is rejected as a translation by mainstream Bible scholars) "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just bear in mind that "Jews" are not a homogenous group. Two Jews, three opinions is the old joke and it's well founded. As such pretty much anything that may fall into "things in Judaism that Jews may believe to be historical fact" would also fall into "things in Judaism that Jews may believe to be fiction".

You could narrow the request by asking about traditional Orthodox Judaism, but even within those bounds there's still a multiplicity of viewpoints on, for example, the historicity of much of Midrash and even books of the Tnakh. One famous example: see Job_(biblical_figure)#Job_in_Judaism for the arguments over whether the book of Job is regarded a true story or just a story.

That said, Deborah is right, that much of Tnakh is regarded by Orthodoxy as fact and that absolutely includes the Exodus narrative. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

order of Southern Baptist liturgy

Do Southern Baptist liturgies have any order? So, I visited a Southern Baptist church last weekend. It seemed that the first part of the worship service was a hymn, except the fact that there was no congregational singing. It was more like a theatrical display of the hymn, performed by children, at the front of the room on a stage-like thing. Then, there was a very long sermon with citations from the Bible, instead of reading an excerpt from the holy scriptures and then interpreting it to the congregation. The only thing that the congregation said was "Amen", but it was very sporadic and non-collective. Near the end, there was another hymn, but this time some congregants thought it was over and left! Apparently, there was no communion. What did I just see? Why was the sermon so long? Why were there no Bible readings before the sermon? What happened to the Eucharist? Do Southern Baptists ever take communion? And exactly where do they take communion? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a partial answer to your questions, see Eucharist#Protestant: "It is rare to find a Baptist church where The Lord's Supper is observed every Sunday; most observe monthly or quarterly, with some holding Communion only during a designated Communion service or following a worship service." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So, does that mean Southern Baptists hold Communion during a designated Communion service or following a worship service? Either way, why do Protestants separate Communion from the actual worship service instead of holding Communion within the worship service? How is the Communion service different from the worship service in terms of structure? Is there a reason behind the sparing Communion services? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the protestant churches used rejection of transubstantiation as one of their bickering points with the Catholic church, and some took it further and argued that it shouldn't be part of worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Baptists in general are supposed to be independent, and although the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't mind yanking funding from seminaries based on what they teach ("Arminianism? No funding for you!"), they still don't enforce any particular order. Baptist churches do tend to be heavier on the sermon than other parts, in part because of Evangelicalism, the Great Awakenings, and Revival meetings. If they have a good minister of music (...or just an enthusiastic one), there may be more music than some other churches.

Despite being allowed to believe in whatever Eucharistic theology a member can reconcile with the Bible and their own reasoning, most just settle for memorialism and many will actively reject transubstantiation out of some faint memory that we're supposed to be protesting something (...or just straight up sectarianism). Some Baptist churches have "the Lord's Supper" (i.e. communion) every week, but most have it on special occasions. It really varies from each congregation to congregation. How communion is done also varies from church to church. The one I grew up in had trays of wafers and small cups of grape juice passed down each row by a pair of ushers. The last one I attended had everyone come up to the alter, tear off a piece of bread, and dip it in a cup of grape juice. There are enough Baptists who are teetotalers for there to be a stereotype that we're all teetotalers (even though it's on an individual basis), so if you ever find one that uses wine, please let me know so I can move there.

This is only dealing with mainline and evangelical Baptists. There are some hardcore independent Baptist churches that... well... you'll know them when you see them. (If the church building doubles as a fallout shelter, or there are no minorities, or the congregation keeps referring to "the compound," you've probably found one). I've only passed by those and have not attended their services.

In short: Baptists are sort of ecumenical anarchists. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

66.213.29.17, you sound like you're from a more thoroughly liturgical church, perhaps Catholic or Anglican or high Lutheran. You have to begin by noting that most Baptists reject the term "liturgy", associating it with missals and pre-determined schedules and not realising that any order of service (including the traditional way of worship in a Baptist church) is a kind of liturgy. I've never heard of churches that celebrate the Lord's Supper outside of a worship service, so the fact that some do is probably as surprising to me as to you. We Protestants have generally separated the sacraments from normal worship services, and when the sacraments are celebrated, it's with special other elements, perhaps a special sermon or even an earlier start time to accommodate the extra elements. [Note that there's an important exception: many or most Restoration Movement churches, e.g. "Church of Christ", celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly.] I don't know why Baptists may celebrate the Lord's Supper just a few times per year, but I can guess: Baptists (and the Presbyterians of whom I am one) came out of the context of the Act of Uniformity 1662 (England) and corresponding legislation in Scotland, by which all clergy rejecting episcopal church government (and at least in England, Anglicanism in general) were forced out of their pulpits; comparatively few dared to reject it (after all, this was your and your family's life), leaving dissenters largely without clergy, so even if every minister officiated at the Lord's Supper every week, many congregations could only celebrate it a few times per year because the minister would only visit a few times per year. Combine this with the idea that preaching, not the sacraments, was central to the worship service, and mix it with later regard for the traditions of the elders (all the while rejecting the Catholic dependence on tradition!), and you just celebrate the sacraments rarely because that's what Grandpa's church (and Grandpa's grandpa's church) did. And re: Ian's last comment, see A little stone pretended to be out of the mountain for an earlier work taking this position (but it will be hard to read, due to the seventeenth-century orthography); congregationalism and independency naturally lead to ecumenical anarchy. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article on Extempore prayer (the use of prayers composed to suit the moment, rather than written liturgy), but see A Word About Written Prayers. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greek businesses opening overseas bank accounts

Just watched the news about capital controls in Greece. I was wondering, could a tourist business that mostly sells to foreigners, but is legally based in Greece (a small hotel, for example), realistically arrange a bank account in a more stable country and get all its customers to pay for bookings there? With something like Paypal for card payments. Meaning they would still have hard currency if this doesn't get sorted out. Basically how hard is it to open foreign accounts for a smallish business, and would they get away with it re the Greek government? 213.205.251.244 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be wise for the Greek government to encourage this, as tourism dollars are badly needed (the government would still get a share via taxes, assuming they manage to collect them). However, riots may discourage tourism. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some expense and trouble involved. It might be beyond the resources of a small hotel. See this article on the subject. Basically, the hotel would have to pay either high fees to open and maintain a "high-risk merchant account" in a country outside Greece, or the hotel would have to register as a business (with all of the fees involved) in a different country and then open a domestic merchant bank account in that country. In either case, a credit check would be involved (since the merchant would be expected to face some liability for chargeback), and at the moment, I doubt that most banks would consider any Greek business a good credit risk. Marco polo (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They might want to pick an "iffy" nation with lax banking laws. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greek referendum documents

A referendum will take place in Greece next Sunday. The question will be: “Do you agree with or reject the proposal of the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, consisting of two documents, entitled Reforms for the completion of the Current Program and Beyond and Preliminary Debt sustainability analysis?”. My question is: is it possible to find and read the text of these two documents online?--The Theosophist (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last draft of the creditors' proposals, which were being discussed with Greek delegates right up to the referendum announcement, has been published on the EU website. It's in the form of a list of things they want Greece to do (or perhaps more realistically start doing) before anything would be paid out. Presumably if the "memorandum" was resurrected it might be based on this. 213.205.251.244 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the referendum names two specific documents. I search for online editions of these.--The Theosophist (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think these might be the two: [1] and [2] (they have the right titles, but I don't speak Greek). 184.147.138.101 (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are the ones. Thank you.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!184.147.138.101 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]