Humanities desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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.

January 17

Effects of hate speech

What is the state of the evidence on hate speech? Does saying words really increase hatred for minorities? Might make people stick up for them even more? Or are people who argue about it just assuming things?--79.97.222.210 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some background, check out Fighting words and Incitement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing about hate speech requires thinking about hatred, so to that effect, it works regardless of who spoke of hating whom. Thinking hate leads to hating, especially when someone else thinks differently. Find any semi-popular online video or article of someone hating something and check out the comments. Hating the haters (or "sticking up" for the hated) doesn't do a damn thing for love, but it's way easier to touch a stranger with hate. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. OP here again. I am only interested in empirical evidence showing a direct correlation between hate speech and violent crime, I have read enough unsupported theories. I live in a country where a little over 20 years ago portraying homosexuality in a positive light carried a jail term, that arrested people for promoting birth control and banned books like catcher in the rye. None of these things stopped a sudden liberal revolution, in fact they probably added flame to the fire. I think that's reason to be extremely skeptical of unsupported theories about censorship.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this document produced by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, "There is no direct, incontrovertible evidence linking hate speech or propaganda to violence." However, the document goes on to present several plausible reasons to believe that hate speech is likely to increase hatred for minorities and is likely to increase violence against them. RomanSpa (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can also increase hatred by the minority toward the ones saying it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that." - Tom Lehrer Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw a distinction: "Minority X is bad" probably won't cause much of an effect, while "Minority X is bad so we should kill them all" probably will. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the wrong question. Doesn't matter if it increases hatred for minorities, because it's an act of violence against us. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An act of verbal violence, but one that's easier to recover from than being gunned down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) (although I believe he's the son of God, for this purpose let us instead assume he is a historical figure as explained below.) Please describe historical jesus's biography

Hi,

I believe that Jesus is the son of God, and our Lord and Savior. However for the purposes of this question I am interested in some historical facts. Therefore, I would ask for answers with the (false) assumption that Jesus was, very specifically, a historical person who (for the sake of argument) had a specific hallucinatory experience that caused him to begin to teach (rather than actual fact in my own real opinion, which is that he was the Son of God.)

From this (false) perspective, could you please answer the following questions:

- What is known about the early life of this historical person? Did he go to school? DId he travel?

- Assuming that he would go on to convert at least 12, but several million people to his teachings, I would like to compare his philosophy or teachings/learning/etc in his early twenties, with other great historical people who have convinced a lot of people of something new. (Such as: Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Newton, etc.)

So, through his twenties, did he already express some ideas that were recorded somewhere? Biographically, what was he doing?

I realize we may not have answers to many of these questions, however I am very interested in learning what we do know. If there is anything inappropriate about this question, kindly edit it in-place to read in an acceptable way! Thank you for your attention. p.s. I've googled "biographical life of jesus" but did not get a wikipedia ink. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jesus is a good source for what the modern academic/historical view of Jesus. To answer the more specific questions:

Did he go to school? - No information, although it is to be assumed from the available information, including the frequency of schooling in general at the area at the time, that the answer is probably no.
Did he travel? - The only instances of alleged travel known are the alleged flight to Egypt and the alleged trip to India or the east. Neither of these possibilities has much support in the modern academic community.
Did he express some ideas that were recorded somewhere? Biographically, what was he doing? The answer to the second is, basically, we don't know. There are no particular reliable sources which say anything that has widespread support, although there are a number of theories, most of which don't have much support, that he was doing some particular things or other particular things, depending on the individual theory. Did he express some ideas that were recorded somewhere? Yeah, some of his statements extant in and alluded to in the New Testament are considered by modern academia to come from him, and there are a few agrapha and other statements, like those in the Talmud and maybe a few specific comments from some of the noncanonical books which have support as being from him, although that support probably doesn't rise to consensus of the academic community very often. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article; Unknown years of Jesus, which just about says it all. See also Finding in the Temple when Jesus was aged 12, "the only event of the later childhood of Jesus mentioned in a gospel". For non-Christian historical references to Jesus (there aren't many), see Historicity of Jesus. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good place to start is the article Quest for the historical Jesus. Check out the references at the bottom of the page. They contain many books that touch on this subject. I'll quote one interesting reference here:

Amy-Jill Levine in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton University Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 page 4: "There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate" - Lindert (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, thanks for those links. In terms of trying to synthesize them -- do we have any indication whatsoever about any of Jesus's beliefs prior to when he started teaching in his thirties? What would be an example? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no accounts of his beliefs before he started teaching in any of the sources, so we just have to admit we don't know. We can deduce a few things about what might have influenced his thought, though. Josephus refers to four main schools of Judaism - Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots - and from the Gospel accounts Jesus seems closest to the Pharisees, although he must have had his differences from them as he is most often depicted as arguing with Pharisees. He was also a follower of John the Baptist, so must have been influenced by him.

Constructing a historical biography of Jesus that is universally agreed upon is virtually impossible. The main sources are the ones you, as a believing Christian, will already be aware of - the canonical Gospels. There are of course other, apocryphal gospels, but they are of little use for our purposes - for example, the Gospel of Thomas, probably the earliest of them and the most likely to contain some genuinely early traditions, contains no narrative, only a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. But you have to read the Gospels, not as a religious person seeking inspiration, but as a historian seeking reliable information. You need to critically assess the reliability of each source, and be prepared to discount information that you deem unreliable. One historian's attempt to do this is Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorised Version. You may disagree with some of his conclusions, but I'd recommend reading it to give you an idea of the thought processes and arguments involved.

Take, for example, Jesus' trial before Pilate. There are two distinct versions of this - in the synoptic gospels Jesus says very little, while in John he and Pilate have a fairly in-depth philosophical conversation. On top of that, none of the gospels have a plausible source for this event - no-one was present at the trial in either account who could have passed on the details of what was said. So a historian would have to conclude that the accounts of the trial are unreliable and should be discounted as history.

However, take what was written on the sign attached to Jesus' cross. The four Gospels give slightly different versions, but all agree that "King of the Jews" was part of it. Robin Lane Fox argues that this is likely to be historical, because "King of the Jews" is not a title applied to Jesus in Christian theology, so it's unlikely to be an example of later Christians projecting their theology back to Jesus' time.

You also have to read the Gospels in light of what's known of the period from other sources. Matthew says Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, while Luke says he was born at the time Quirinius, governor of Syria, carried out a census. We know from other sources that Herod died in 4BC, and Judaea was only put under the authority of Quirinius in AD 6, after Herod's son Archilaus had been deposed by the Romans. Quirinius carried out a census because Judea was now under direct Roman control and its inhabitants needed to be taxed, as opposed to previously when it was independent under a native ruler who paid tribute to Rome. Galilee, however, was still independent under another of Herod's sons, Antipas (the one who killed John the Baptist), so if Jesus' parents lived there the census would not have applied to them. So we can discount Luke's version of the nativity.

To Lindert's quote of Levine's account of Jesus' biography, I'd add a few more things that are likely to be historical. His mother's name was Mary, and he had brothers and sisters. He was a tradesman of some sort, and lived in Capernaum in Galilee. After he went to Jerusalem, he caused a disturbance at the Temple. He either claimed to be the Messiah or was claimed to be the Messiah by others - the Messiah being generally understood to be the rightful king who would restore the Israelite nation to independence by military force - which is why the Romans had him killed, as they generally did to Messianic claimants. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"- which is why the Romans had him killed, as they generally did to Messianic claimants."... .why did we end up believing him, (but dont even know the name of any other messianic claimants of that era.) (continuing the perspective you wrote the above paragraphs in, nicknack009). 212.96.61.236 (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speaking as a fellow Christian who also has an interest in the accurate history of Jesus's life, whatever we can know about it The answer to "why did we end up believing him" is Paul the Apostle. Christianity, as it is practiced today, really is attributable to Paul and his ferverent missionary work. Not only did he spread Christianity to many places, more importantly he spread his version of Christianity to many places, which was in many ways different from what was practiced prior to his work. The Bible itself, in Acts of the Apostles (written by Luke, and not Paul, so going on Nicknack's historical analysis is likely to be more reliable than any self-serving narrative from Paul himself) notes the split between Paul and the first Christians. Paul has some disagreements with most of Jesus's direct followers (those that personally knew and followed him) and strikes out on his own; it's his version of Christianity that gains a foothold and spreads throughout the Western world. The break specifically happens in Acts 15, known as the Council of Jerusalem, when the leaders begrudgingly concede that non-Jews can become Christians without first becoming Jews, basically endorsing Paul's own work and beliefs. It's thus the changes that Paul makes to Christianity that leads to its spread... --Jayron 32 04:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, we do know the names of a number of Messianic claimants. See Wikipedia's article on Jewish Messiah claimants. Another reference for you: Open Yale Courses have an interesting video lecture on the historical Jesus, part of their Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature series. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, watching it again, I seem to have got the examples of the trial and the sign on the cross from that lecture, and not from Robin Lane Fox. He's still worth reading though. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a baptised, confirmed, educated and lapsed Catholic who had Roman Catholicism bullied and beaten into me from infancy and childhood by The Sisters of Mercy and Jesuit Priests. And I still bear the psychological scars to prove it. I love the Bible and The New Testament stories of Jesus and the apostles and disciples. But whilst I fervently believe in a Greater Being, be he he/she/it whatever, whom I give thanks and pray to every day of my life, I have the gravest doubts about the authenticity of Jesus etc. and why that is belongs to my genuine conviction that his existence and authenticity are exactly that, stories that had to be brainwashed into me by deranged people who clearly had major doubts about their own beliefs, and who thought that physical bruising would instil a lifelong adherence to their professed beliefs and that of Mother Church. Thanks be to God for giving me the intelligence and the courage to say that in public. But thanks be to God nonetheless. 77.97.208.118 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

recent apocrypha

I heard the definition that apocrypha is anything "found later" (after the bible). I did see online that jesus's historical existence is agreed on by everyoen, so I was wondering what the most recent time is that new writing was found? (e.g. in the 20th century, etc). I mean, writing by his contemporaries. (Anything not included in the bible already.) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit over-simplified. Apocrypha usually refers to the Deuterocanon, books that were written between the Old and New Testament periods, that non-Protestants (Catholics and Orthodox) accept as part of the Old Testament (though less inspired than the parts all Christians agree on). Pseudepigrapha refers to works written after the works in the Bible's canon -- but also works that were written after the Bible's canon was set (which was a slow process occurring during the first few centuries A.D.).

There are a number of pseudepigraphal works that date to around the time of Jesus (earlier works of Merkabah mysticism and Hekhalot literature). Some of these were lost and later rediscovered later (such as "Pistis Sophia" or the Nag Hammadi library), while others were preserved in some form for centuries (such as the Testament of Solomon, though Western Europe more or less forgot about it between the 11th and 16th centuries). Others were written throughout the past 2000 years. Many grimoires (or spell books) fall into this category, since Solomon was a popular figure to attribute magical books to (such as the aforementioned Testament, as well as the Magical Treatise of Solomon, the Greater and Lesser Key of Solomon); though Moses also has a few falsely attributed to him (e.g. Sword of Moses, Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, and even the Greek Magical Papyri's "Eighth book of Moses"), as does Enoch (enough that Johannes Trithemius all but wrote not to trust any book that claims to be by Enoch).

As to stuff written by Jesus's contemporaries, some Merkabah and Hekhalot works might have been written in the first centuries BC and AD, but were ignored by Christianity (though Paul's cryptic reference to the Third Heaven is generally accepted to mean that Christianity and Merkabah evolved from the same type of Israelite religion). The Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with other later works attributed to Thomas) might be an older work than the Gospel of John (and the Gospel of John might have been written in reaction to it or alongside it as a complimentary work), and it might have been quoted by Paul -- but there's just as much of an argument that it came later and was referencing John and quoting Paul instead of the other way around.

Most other works were well after Jesus's era. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was unclear. I meant by recent, only recently-unearthed or discovered. Of the roughly contemporaneous-wih-Jesus written things, when was the last time a major discovery was made? Past few decades? last century? two centuries ago? five centuries ago? Etc. I mean finding some parchment in a box buried in a temple or something. I didn't mean to refer to much later writing at all - though thanks for all your work writing about those links as well. sorry about my unfortunate phrasing. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Thomas may be that old and was rediscovered in 1945. Rmhermen (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent discovery of a full text apocryphal work is probably the Gospel of Judas. There was fairly significant indication that such a work existed before then, but it was more or less confirmed with the discovery of manuscript in 1983. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! These are super-interesting. (I made your reference a link Rmhermen) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Sea Scrolls show some interesting works, in many cases bridging the gap between what we accept today as the Hebrew Canon (Old Testament) and other, deuterocanonical works. --Jayron 32 04:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mormon was either written ~2000 BCE-~400 Ce, or in ~1827 CE, depending on if you believe what the Mormons believe... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]