Humanities desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| Sep \| Oct >>	September 9 >

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.

September 8

Licinia

I understand that when two people belong in the same gens but in a different cognomen (branch) of the gens, they can be very distant relatives. Still, I would like to ask what -if anything- can Ancient Roman genealogy tell us about the exact relation between Crassus and Lucullus.--2A02:580:A385:A700:58C1:4FD1:7C0:7FD (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of responses here suggests that this topic is a bit too obscure for this desk. You might consider the talk page over at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome or contact one of 'Our classicists' there. —Btw, you're seeking this information in order to improve Wikipedia articles, right?

71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. Pure curiosity.

And really, do you believe that there could be so specialized homework?--2A02:580:A39A:6D00:4D12:DC12:E9DA:35AD (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the family trees given for both men in William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, over 150 years old but still very useful for these things (Crassus, Lucullus). The first Crassus Smith is aware of is the triumvir's great great grandfather Publius Licinius Crassus Dives, who was consul in 205 BC and whose father was Publius Licinius Varus, about whom Smith knows nothing. My guess is he was probably related to Gaius Licinius Varus, who was consul in 236 BC and who also had sons called Crassus. The first Lucullus he's aware of is the general's great grandfather Lucius Licinius Lucullus, who was curule aedile in 202 BC, and who Wikipedia has no article on. Smith does not identify his father. It seems the two families were distinct by 3-4 generations before the time you're interested in. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you.--2A02:580:A39A:6D00:4D12:DC12:E9DA:35AD (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jesus or God the Father on Mount Sinai?

Who appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai? Was it Jesus Christ or God the Father? And is there any verse in the New Testament that say Jesus Christ was on Mount Sinai? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was long before Jesus was born, so I see no reason to they would have claimed it was him. I believe the story says that it was God, and it coincidentally just happened to take God the same amount of time to carve the tablets as it might have taken Moses, had he done so himself. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Scripture, Jesus existed as a spiritual being before his physical birth. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Even the most cursory reading of John 1 and Logos would make clear the eternal nature of Jesus:"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:1-2, 13) According to mainstream Christianity, Jesus is present in the Holy Trinity for all eternity, and has been since the beginning. Thus, he was present at Mt. Sinai insofar has Jesus is God. --Jayron32 14:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was most likely the Father; no, there are no New Testament verses that cover this explicitly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the article "Names of God", and especially the section "Christianity", with the following statement.

Many translations of the Bible translate the tetragrammaton as LORD, following the Jewish practice of substituting the spoken Hebrew word 'Adonai' (translated as 'Lord') for YHWH when read aloud.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

173.33.183.141 -- Your question is pretty much meaningless from the viewpoint of Jewish biblical interpretation. To help think about it from the Christian point of view, you can look at the classic "Shield of the Trinity" diagram. Of course there are no Old Testament verses which specifically name Jesus... AnonMoos (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think a Jewish person would answer? The story of Moses exists as a feature of Judaism, whatever Christians might think of it. From a Christian point of view, the answer is either "Trinitarianism makes it a meaningless question" or "the Father", depending on interpretation. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fictional event, so you can give any answer you like, it just depends on what the author of that particular section was thinking when he wrote the story. And since you missed the author(s) by a good few centuries, asking that might be difficult.... Since no factual answer can be given, this question should not be in the refdesk. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always thought that it was the third leg of the Trinity that appeared to Moses on Mt. Sini... a burning bush seems to fit descriptions of "the Spirit" more than it does with Father or Son. Blueboar (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have confused 'mythical' with 'fictional'. And in any case - I don't think a question about a fictional event in, say, a Sherlock Holmes story would be inadmissible here, so why should this be. Of course, your 'what did the author think' question is not completely unanswerable: the author of Exodus was indisputably Jewish, so the intent seriously cannot have been that Moses encountered a person who wouldn't be born for another 1500 years, and whose divinity was only decided on by one group of schismatics some time after that. That's not to say the Christian approach is wrong - I'm a Christian myself - but the Christian view is necessarily not what the original author thought he was doing. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to answer to this question, even from a strictly Christian point of view, as there's no consensus within Christianity on the nature of the trinity. See especially Arianism, which would definitively answer the question as "The Father". --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller -- We've already gone through this before. There's no one definition of Christianity which will satisfy all people, but there's a core of traditional mainstream Christian "orthodoxy", and it's usually not too difficult to tell which groupings fall outside this core. Arianism was condemned by all recognized ecumenical Church councils, and has been defunct in its original form for well over a thousand years. Since the Reformation, there have been minor trends similar to Arianism, but groupings which have embraced such trends are clearly on the fringes of mainstream Christianity (or have drifted away from Christianity altogether)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that explaining the doctrine of the Trinity to Moses and his people would lead to an interesting religious discussion involving a lot of rocks and a bit of running away. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the story of Moses and Rabbi Akiva, Moses was unable to follow even Jewish exegesis (partial account on Wikipedia)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that Christians do not know whether it was the Trinity as a whole, or a particular divine person, who appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai. The issue is addressed by Saint Augustine in Book II, Chapter 15, of On the Trinity, and he puts forward a "modest and hesitating conjecture" that it was the Holy Spirit, while acknowledging that the answer does not clearly appear. John M Baker (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Congratulations, Mr Baker. Isn't it grand when somebody concisely answers an "unanswerable" question, with a concrete reference in support? Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one. The problem Moses was facing was that the people would not accept any commandments from him, so Moses had to say that the Commandments were God's commandments. Count Iblis (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

God: The Failed Hypothesis: "Stenger believes we have more than enough evidence of absence of the Judeo-Christan God. He adds that many arguments for God that were once compelling are now weak or irrelevant in light of modern scientific understanding. Stenger does not think we should be dogmatic about disbelief in God, but says the evidence is overwhelmingly against the belief." Count Iblis (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to answering the question. Hamlet doesn't exist, but there is still a large corpus of scholarly works analyzing the character's actions, thought processes, motivations, nature, etc. etc. Which is not to say that God does or does not exist, but his existence is not necessary to provide reliable, scholarly sources that analyze God's nature in the context of some particular worldview. As is shown above, one can point to reliable, well regarded sources (as John M Baker does with Augustine of Hippo) which discuss the matter of the OP's question. You don't have to believe in God to direct people to well-regarded sources which answer the OP's question. --Jayron32 19:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's perfectly OK not to believe in God, the tooth fairy, or the American way, but it's a step too far to say "It's a fictional event, so you can give any answer you like". I'm sure that editor would not be happy if the question "Who was Hamlet?" were answered with "She was a 4th century African princess from modern-day Nigeria". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

God may not exist, but Moses may well have been a historical figure. So, a question about what really happened on Mount Sinai does have a well defined answer. While I don't know of any reliable sources, common sense would suggest that Moses carved out the ten commandments himself. Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except, that is OR, and ignores the premise of the OP's question, which is that it was God who transmitted the commandments, the only issue being: which person? They came here for help in finding some citation that sheds light on that issue, not to be told Moses did it himself and lied about it to his people. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drag queens and bodily functions

The question above about big poofy dresses made me think of this: how do drag queens pee when they're tucked? And what happens if they get an erection? Pais (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a happy coincidence here, that convincing drag queens have feminine looks to begin with, and those are due to low testosterone levels, which would also mean fewer erections. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find all three of those assumptions highly unlikely. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for peeing, they likely get around it the same way every performer does. Going first, not drinking much beforehand and holding in whatever bit still fills up. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, not all drag queens "tuck"... a lot depends on the clothing they are wearing while in drag. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Depends. Just as well for an woman in a big poofy dress as a man. If poofy enough, he could put in a catheter and strap a bag to his leg. Even the incontinent ones would benefit from going beforehand.

No way to know if a man in a hoop skirt has an erection, without interrupting the show to ask him. Generally frowned upon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Careers

What type of careers are most suitable for people who enjoy making quick decisions on their feet and is fairly active. Is it basically any frontline operational job in any industry? 176.251.146.170 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing? --Jayron32 18:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stock broker, taxicab driver, police officer, firefighter, soldier, coach (in the sports sense), salesperson, politician, paramedic, emergency room worker. Some of these careers also involve long-term planning, do you want to avoid that ? StuRat (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top-level professional wrestlers rarely sleep, and are free to get creative in ways that would get a boxer or fighter tuned. At least at house shows. But something like one in a thousand make it to where it pays the bills. I'd go with drug mule. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the military would br a good carrier choice for someone with the skills you describe. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced "courier". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Where can I find this line in the Torah?

On National Geographic Secrets of Jerusalem's Holiest Sites (2006), the Jewish guy read a verse from the Torah and said something. Then, the translator said, "Love others as you love yourself." Where can I find this line in the Torah? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This passage, which is one formulation of the Golden Rule, is part of Leviticus 19:18. John M Baker (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. How do you interpret that? Does that mean loving every single human being on the planet or loving your clan/tribe/family? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's often translated as "love your neighbor". As for the obvious question "who is my neighbor?", you can interpret that how you like. Jesus answered this exact question by telling the Parable of the good Samaritan, which would suggest "everybody" rather than "just your family". Staecker (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Jewish version? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Baker gave it above. Among other places, the Jewish scripture has it in Leviticus. According to This Wikipedia article, the commandment's oldest form is the one cited above from Leviticus. You may want to read This entry from The Jewish Encyclopedia, where respected 1st-2nd century CE Jewish scholar Akiva ben Joseph calls Leviticus 19:18 "the chief and greatest principle of Judaism". --Jayron32 00:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Torah, 'loving your neighbour' is definitely not restricted to one's own clan/tribe/family. The very same chapter (Leviticus 19:34) addresses this: "You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." - Lindert (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel the Elder (born approx 110BCE), the founder of the preeminent school of Talmudic argument, thought that this was so important, that all the rest of Judaism could be considered as merely commentary to it. See: Hillel_the_Elder#The_Golden_Rule. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]