Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 August 17

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.

August 17

Are Christianity and Islam types of Judaism?

70.57.89.148 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The term you're looking for is Abrahamic religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Christianity did start out as a branch of Judaism, but quickly diverged. Islam, on the other hand, isn't so much a branch of Judaism as "inspired" by it. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Alansplodge (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There was some debate in the Catholic church regarding whether Muslims were pagans (followers of a different religion) or heretics (i.e., apostate Christians). I do not think it was fully resolved. - Nunh-huh 09:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That is one POV. The Christian POV is that Christianity continues the main line of development of the religion of ancient Israel, from which Judaism diverged. Matt's talk 14:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That may be another POV, but it's not historically useful. There is no symmetry here. Christianity emerged from Judaism, but it had a major theological break and (partially as a result of that break) grew primarily by converting gentiles. Most of the original adherents of Judaism did not become Christians, and while Judaism also changed very much, theologically it was a much more gradual gradual process. It's also not a POV that I have heard from scholarly sources (though it may well be stressed among Christian apologists). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Are tomatoes a fruit? Are humans animals? As with any man-made category, the answer depends on the criteria you're using. With that said, the essentially universal classification used by people who study religion considers Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to be separate religions, though the former two are in a sense "descended" from the latter. Similarly, Buddhism is often considered "descended" from Hinduism. Note that Judaism also received a good amount of influence from Zoroastrianism, and religious scholars will tell you Judaism emerged from the earlier Ancient Semitic religions. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

...and Christianity was heavily influenced by Platonism and Mithraism, while Islam merged local beliefs with influences from both Christianity and Judaism. Or they were all handed down, perfect and unchanging, from a benevolent omnipotent creator god ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt that Christianity was significantly influenced by Mithraism. AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, my memory for obscure religious facts isn't always perfect, so I may have overstated the case ;-). They did, however, emerge to prominence at the same time, in the same place, and with quite similar forms of worship. At least parts of early Christianity and Mithraism share properties of various mystery cults. Also see Mithraism#Mithraism_and_Christianity.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's rather dubious whether Christianity was a "mystery religion" in any ordinary sense, and in any case, there are considerable differences between Mithraism and Christianity -- Mithraism was an all-male religion with elaborate ranks and initiations, and had its strongest support among soldiers; while Christianity included women, had only the distinction between catechumens and the baptized (and no real secrets were learned during the ceremony of baptism), and had its strongest support among the lower classes of the cities. It's hard to say that Christianity and Mithraism originated "in the same place", when little is known about the origins of Mithraism (it's extremely unlikely that it originated in Judea). Early Christianity was influenced by a general cultural climate of ascetism (which was associated with a number of different philosophies and religions of the Mediterranean area), and adopted tools of analysis from the Greek philosophical tradition, but it's difficult to point to specific theological doctrines adopted from non-Jewish non-Christian religions... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• They may be descended from them, but in the modern sense they are not Judaism. What we now call Judaism in everyday conversation is Rabbinic Judaism, which takes the Talmud as the basis of much of its religious law. The main Jewish denominations, such as Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, descend from this (even if, like Reform Judaism, they no longer think of it as central). There are a few groups in the Jewish religious tradition that don't accept the Talmud, such as Karaites and Samaritans, but these are minority groups and their status is complicated (Israel says Samaritans need to officially convert in order to be recognized as Jews, for instance). Smurrayinchester 10:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Three features of ancient Judaism:

• They observed the sabbath
• They observed the Law
• They anticipated the coming of the Messiah

They still do all those things - Christians don't. 92.8.219.206 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They used to be stricter. Maybe you've heard of blue laws? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We have Islamic–Jewish relations and Christianity and Judaism.

You'll find Jean-Marie Lustiger, aka The Jewish Cardinal (who was even considered as a possible pope), of interest on the matter. Both about his understanding, and the reaction he got from other Jews (some were happy, others very angry). Things are somewhat more peaceful nowadays than marranoes (or is it marrani?) or Jesus himself experienced.

Bottom line: methink (but you can make your own opinion) that only a part of Christianity view itself as a type of Judaism, but not current Judaism, rather Judaism as the Christ taught it (which is different).

Gem fr (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The question asks "Are Christianity and Islam types of Judaism?" Is there any reason to think that Christianity and Islam are types of Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason is taxonomic (or at least, overapplication of an oversimplified taxonomy). Christianity began as a sect of judaism; the three most important figures in founding Christianity and establishing the basics of the religion were Jewish men (Jesus, St. Peter, St. Paul), the diety of the Christians is the same deity as that of the Jewish faith, the Christian religion counts the Jewish scriptures as part of its own scriptures, etc. So, Christianity clearly descends from a common ancestor as Judaism, and Judaism is older than Christianity. However, it's not correct to use the word "type" here, because that would imply that Christianity is Judaism, which it isn't. Christians don't consider themselves Jewish, and Jewish people don't consider Christians to be Jewish. But the two faiths do share a common history, diverging from each other during the 1st century CE. (it should be noted that even saying that Christianity evolved from Judaism is also wrong, as Judaism as we know it today is as much different from the faith of the people of Judea as Christianity is from the same; they two have evolved along divergent paths, just that Judaism has kept the name and history of its predecessors... but I digress) Similarly, Islam, while not sharing as close a historical connection to Judaism, does share its scriptures (at least partially, while not elevated to the same status as the Qur'an, the Jewish scriptures are still recognized as divine. See People of the Book as it relates to Islam). Many Jewish and Christian religious figures also appear prominently in Islamic tradition and the Qur'an (Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jesus, Mary, etc.) So there's a certain continuity of belief between the three, and since Judaism has the oldest tradition of the three, some may think of the other two as derivative from Judaism. But that's way too simplified. The two newer faiths are more correctly termed as sharing some common belief systems (mutual recognition of the same diety, some common texts and traditions, etc.) --Jayron32 19:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent overview of the situation, but I would just caveat that "Christians don't consider themselves Jewish" is an oversimplification. Messianic Judaism and Supersessionism are both examples of ways in which some Christians would consider themselves Jewish (or in the latter case, Israelite). Matt's talk 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes — I would also note that the Messianic Judaism article is problematic in that it describes it as a syncretism, whereas they presumably consider themselves resorationist. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's because life has a rule 34 to it; which is to say broadly that if you can conceive of ANY belief system, there's probably at least one adherent. So yes, you can find at least one Jewish person who considers Christians to be Jewish, and visa versa. One person (or some insignificantly small number) does not reflect the preponderance of people of those faiths. Of the world's billion or so Christians, the sects you list represent an insignificant portion of the whole. --Jayron32 19:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They may be insignificant by number, but they are not insignificant as theology and politics go. Jean-Marie Lustiger was a cardinal, and a preeminent one. The "jewish lobby" of USA diplomacy is actually more of christian zionists, philosemitic people, than Jews. Christian groups that think of Jews as "elder brethren" (a term you'll find in Christian Zionism article).

Gem fr (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The "jewish lobby" is a concept created by White Supremacists, neo-nazis, and those who would belong to said groups but find it politically inexpedient to formally declare themselves so. It's a concept created to justify racism and antisemitism. --Jayron32 10:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, this isn't mentioned in the article, so, either you are wrong and should had refrain to state your POV here, or you are right and you should had mended the article (with proper reference), making your POV useless since the link to the article would had been enough. In either case, this do not belong here Gem fr (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sentence #2 of the article states "While at times self-described, usage of the term is viewed as inaccurate, and, particularly when used to allege disproportionate Jewish influence, it can be perceived as pejorative or may constitute antisemitism" (bold mine). The largest section of text in the article is about the problems with the term. I'm not sure how you missed any of that if you read it. --Jayron32 13:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed... but that utterly different of what you said! Nowhere you'll find that the term was coined by and for antisemitism, and obviously, according to the article, members of the jewish lobby endorse it without any complex. Then again, your POV just do not belong here: ref desk is for bringing reference especially when the linked article is self-sufficient. Gem fr (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself it isn't an anti-semitic term, and some day it might come true. Not today, but you never know what the future holds. --Jayron32 03:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: What would you call AIPAC? Wnt (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If Muslims believe that Islam has been the right and proper relationship between God and man since the time of the creation, then they might argue that Judaism is derived from Islam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty astute response, and it reminds us that these questions about belief systems often carry at least two answers; how is does it work for someone within the belief system (that is, what does the belief system hold as its central truths) and how does it work for a disinterested outside observer (that is, how does prevailing scholarship from outside the belief system understand the historical context to work). --Jayron32 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

refnec. First time i hear this one. Gem fr (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

From the Islam article, "Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

US bases in PRC and ROC

At 0:33 of this video[1], they show a map of US bases, with dots in Guangdong PRC and Taiwan ROC. Do US really have military bases in these places? Mũeller (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I would think that the image is best described as "based on past events". The US officially did have troops in Taiwan until 1979 - see United States Taiwan Defense Command. I don't know if they ever had a base at the coast of Guangdong, but I can image a base there in WW2 - the Flying Tigers certainly had bases not to far away inland. On the other hand, 800 bases overseas is not implausible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The dot near Guangdong is close enough that it might have been intended to mark Hong Kong. The US has a permanent Ship Supply Office in Hong Kong that facilitates 60-80 port calls per year for US military vessels. The facility predates the return of Hong Kong to China and has continued to operate since. It is not a huge facility, but if one is counting any permanent post as a "military base", I suppose it should count. Dragons flight (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Matt's talk 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec):A couple of thoughts: it seems most likely to me to refer to the US Navy's South China Patrol, which was based in that part of China until WW2. But then it is odd that there isn't also a dot for the Yangtze Patrol further north, or the China Marines. US air forces in China during the war is another possibility, but the dot doesn't seem to line up with any of the main air bases used by the US forces. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz is right about the overall (misleading) picture, but I suspect that the Guangdong dot is intended to represent Hong Kong. It was never an American base in the sense that the US leased land there, though US ships were visiting almost constantly for refueling and R&R during the Cold War. I don't think it's the Flying Tigers: even if Mr Vine counts them as a US unit (which is debatable), they were focused on defending the Burma Road, which is hundreds of miles from Guangdong. Guangdong was completely unsafe for US bases by the time Fourteenth Air Force took control as well. Matt's talk 13:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The end of the video thanks David Vine and his forthcoming book "Base Nation". The book is at [2] and says approximately 800 bases like the video. The book map doesn't have the two discussed bases but it does show one in Hong Kong 400 km East of the marked spot in Guangdong. It probably refers to the Hong Kong Ship Support Office mentioned at List of United States Navy installations#Hong Kong and [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Parsees and Pharisees

What beliefs did/do they have in common, if any?70.57.89.148 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

None, other than a coincidentally similar name. The words are false cousins, meaning that though they look to be similar words, they have no common etymology. As explained at Pharisee, the word derives from a Hebrew word meaning "to set apart", wheras the word Parsee (c.f. Persia, Farsi, Persepolis, etc.) derives from an Old Persian word that applied to a specific tribe which originated from what is now Fars Province. Old Persian is an Indo-European language, wheras Hebrew is a Afroasiatic language, meaning they aren't closely related at all as languages (quite literally Old Persian has more in common with English than it does with Hebrew). --Jayron32 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Then they might have meant they were set apart because they had been exiled in Persia, and also enjoyed the punning similarity to Parsee.70.57.89.148 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The exile to Persia wouldn't have made any difference. The term "Persia" as applied to the country is both anachronistic and the wrong language. The country we today call "Iran" was only known as "Persia" because that's what the Greeks called it. They mistakenly borrowed a term which formerly applied to a single territory to the whole empire. (it would be akin to calling all Americans "New Yorkers"). The only time the Hebrew-speaking people subjugated to anything called Persia was under the reign of Cyrus the Great (previously, Hebrew-speaking peoples who wrote the bible had been subject to the Assyrian Empire, the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the Median Empire). Cyrus and his people would have never heard the term "Persian" or used any word like it to describe their own state. There's no reason for the people who used the word "Pharisee" to make such a connection. I agree that the Bible writers would have used such a pun if they had it available (the Bible is filled with puns and other wordplay), so it certainly would be possible, but no, it isn't possible because they would have had no reason to draw such connection. Also, the Pharisees, as a group, date from a time centuries after the time when Persia ruled the Jewish people. The Pharisees only arrived on the scene after the Maccabean Revolt, which is centuries after the Captivity. --Jayron32 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

then why is the language spoken in modern Iran called Farsi by Iranians?144.35.114.190 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The word "farsi" is not a native Persian-language word, but has actually gone through the Arabic language, as seen from the "f" (the Arabic language lacks a "p" sound)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Minor quibble to what Jayron32 wrote -- the ancient words referred to Persis, which isn't exactly the same as the modern Fars Province... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, I never based my question on similarity between the two words, although of course I had noticed it and wondered. But since you guys gave information on them being false cousin words etc, I wanted to dig some more information out out of you and play devils advocate in case you were mistaken. The basis of my question was what AnonMoos said a long time ago, when I asked if Judaism was a type of Zoarastrianism, he explained the Pharisees were tolerant of or at least had, some Zoarastrianism influences, which intrigued me. BTW AnonMoos gave the most professional reply to that question...Medeis is outrageous saying I'm making bizarre claims, I wasnt making any claims, Im just asking questions and trying to make hypotheses and trying to learn about things I'm interested in. As far as my geographic location, Medeis is stereotyping me in a bizarre and insupportable way. And I wouldve voted for Biskupski if I had been able to vote then.144.35.114.190 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

70.57.89.148 -- there's absolutely no connection between the names. The term Pharisee was what their opponents called them (not what they usually called themselves), and has the form perushim in Hebrew. However, as compared to the Sadducees, the Pharisees were more open to some ideas ultimately due to direct or indirect Persian influences, such as afterlife rewards and punishments (as opposed to the earlier shadowy Sheol), angels and demons actively working good and evil in the world (as opposed to the earlier idea of angels as divine messengers), and an end-times apocalypse and bodily resurrection. AnonMoos (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

144.35.114.190 -- I'm not sure that I can tell you much more than I did in the paragraph above. However, Pharisees weren't the only Jews that were influenced directly or indirectly by ideas of ultimately Persian origin -- some of the authors of Deuterocanonical books and apocryphal Jewish apocalypses were also influenced... AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right rally Model Year of Car?

In regards to the Unite the Right rally, does anyone know the model year of the car that drove into the crowd of pedestrians? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This article says "...a Dodge Challenger... a 2010 model with a base V6". Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And the Washington Post says so too. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)