Humanities desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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.

November 20

Did Jesus have a sense of humour?

A Christmas catalogue arrived at our house today. It includes a Christmas themed toilet seat cover. That led someone in the family to ask the question in the title. So, did he? Is there any humour in the Bible? HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Parables quite humourous in their content and the way they're presented. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article and this article and this article all represent some scholarly discussions about humour in the bible. It may lead you interesting places. --Jayron32 13:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of the Bible are unintentionally funny. There's a bit where some kids tease a bald man and get killed by a bear as punishment. I have to think that was written by a frustrated bald man. StuRat (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or a frustrated bald bear. After all, in the Bible, anything can happen. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. 140.254.226.219 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 Kings 2:23-25 75.41.109.190 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) See Elisha. Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prophets did make fun of false gods, e.g. 1 Kings 18:27 "And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he [i.e. Baal] is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”" - Lindert (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of "humor" has changed a lot over the years. Particularly taking into account that Jesus was probably illiterate and from his time and circumstances, there is a really good chance that his sense of humor would be similar in lots of ways to a feline I knew named Oscar. Fart jokes, laughing at mock threats, "gotcha" jokes, silly stunts and pranks, that sort of thing. Nothing up to the level of Johnny Carson or Jay Leno, basically because nobody's sense of humor at that time would be up to that level. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John Carter. Who'd have thought that googling "Fart jokes in the bible" would get 64000 hits and an actual example... - Nunh-huh 01:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contra your claim that Jesus was illiterate, the Bible says he could read and write: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14679/did-jesus-know-how-to-read-and-write Edison (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that anyone who was a carpenter by trade, and was basically part of his 'family' business (I say 'family' loosely, as his mother was likely only 14 years older than him, his father (God) infinitely older, and the man (Joseph) whose business it belonged to was completely unrelated biologocally) would be able to read and write. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ^{[citation needed]} for the claim that nobody in antiquity would have an advanced sense of humor or make sophisticated jokes. For that matter, ^{[citation needed]} that Jay Leno had any appreciable level of humor ;) -- I agree that the nature of humor is context-dependent and hugely varies by culture. But that doesn't mean there weren't masters of humor in Jesus' time. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I thought shortly after the original post that the claim of illiteracy was wrong but started doing other things again and lost track of it. It was the apostles who were all (with one exception) illiterate. And, FWIW, I don't myself think that "low humor" is necessary poor humor. Maybe I should have said "humor that is more readily accessible to individuals who do not have the extensive and broad-based social and cultural background that many of us today have." The kind of humor that might be expected from characters of Green Acres - not unfunny, but not necessarily Oscar Wilde, either. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus makes a pun in Matthew 16:18: "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church". Side-splitting, no? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schisming, even. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Protestant, and hence suspect, source implies that the Petros/petra distinction (rock/rock formation) was native to Greek but did not reflect the Aramaic, in which the same word would have been used, and hence not be a pun. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but his name in Aramaic was Shimon anyway. While the disciples were presumably all or mostly mother-tongue Aramaic speakers (and presumably familiar with Hebrew from Torah readings), they may also have been variously fluent in Koine Greek, the preferred administrative lingua franca of the milieu, not so? Our iffy article Language of Jesus says that Josephus claimed otherwise, but also offers contradicting arguments. Also, Greek Cephas and Hebrew Khefa (both = "rock") are perhaps sufficiently similar for the pun to work bilingually. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether one considers the "rock" on which Jesus would "build His church" to be Peter's "confession of faith" (as Protestants argue) or on Peter himself (as Catholics argue). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Christian dogma, Jesus was totally human as well as totally divine. As a human he made mistakes, he experienced the world through his senses, he had all manner of feelings, he lost his temper, he had unpleasant morning breath, and so on. The Bible makes no mention of his need to defecate or urinate regularly, or of any nocturnal emissions he had, or a stack of other things that human males normally experience. It would be not only reasonable to assume them, but unreasonable not to do so. That includes a sense of humour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, this question is part of the justification of the murderer in The Name of the Rose. 37.25.46.59 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humour doesn't always translate, so there's probably plenty of stuff in the Bible that would be funny to a Hebrew- or Greek-speaking audience, but might not come across to English speakers. But I think Ehud assassinating the incredibly fat king of the Moabites as he sits on the toilet (Judges 3) is a funny story. When Goliath challenges the Israelites to single combat and David comes forward armed only with a staff and a sling (2 Samuel 17), he says "Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?", which is a nice bit of sarcasm. As for Jesus, there's plenty of sarcasm in his teachings and parables, and I can imagine "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Mark 10) probably got a laugh from the crowd at the expense of the rich young ruler. The bit about trying to remove a speck from your brother's eye when you've got a plank in your own is a funny line too. It's all in the delivery. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Joseph's interpretation of the baker's dream in Genesis is humorous only in the original Hebrew (specifically sarcastic wordplay: ישא ראשך‎ means, in context, both "will remember you" and "will remove your head"). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that some people take the words in the Bible literally, I can't help wondering how much else was lost in translation. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the (non-canonical) Gospel of Shecky... "And Jesus said unto them: Consider the three men, a Jew, a Samaritan and a Roman who walk into a bar..." Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the sermon on the mount, we have "Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the earth". The Meek are the only group not promised a heavenly reward, and according to the cave 4 material at Qumran, the Meek was also the codeword for a group of violent Jewish nationalists. So the Meek, in fulfilling prophecy (so they said), were going to inherit the earth by beating everybody else on it to snot and mince. Loses a bit in translation, but probably very funny at the time. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the ROC divide Manchuria into so many provinces?

In comparing the evolution of provincial boundaries from the Qing Dynasty to the ROC to the PRC, there are relatively few changes outside Manchuria and the autonomous regions. The largest difference between ROC and PRC province boundaries is the much larger number of subdivisions for the ROC in Manchuria, compared to the PRC consolidating it into 2 provinces. Western Manchuria is considered ethnically Mongol and included in Inner Mongolia.

Manchuria was a relatively sparsely populated region of Eastern China, and so it was surprising to see so many small provinces created, when compared to the much larger provinces of Southeast China, both in population and area.

What were the reasons for the ROC carving up so many provinces out of Manchuria? I read there was a campaign to sinify Manchuria with the fall of the Manchu Dynasty. Was this seen as a divide and conquer tactic against a Manchu restoration? Or did it have anything to do with the Northern Warlords who de facto controlled Manchuria?

What were the PRC's reasons for centralizing Manchuria into only 2 provinces? --Gary123 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very long history of conflict between the Han and the Manchu - the (Han dominated) ROC may have decided that "divide and conquer" was an appropriate way to deal with the issue. In addition the Japanese involvement in Manchuria could also have been a factor. I unfortunately don't have any sources for this, so I'm just suggesting it as a possibility to be researched. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an overview, see List of administrative divisions of Manchukuo. Rehe (Jehol) was forbidden to Han settlers in the 17th century, so turning it into a province in 1923 was probably just getting around to erasing the Qing Dynasty history. Chahar, and Suiyuan were provinces in 1912. Andong (Liaodong, previously Fengtian) was created by the Japanese in 1934, and Tonghua, Fengtian and Jinzhou were split off in 1939. ADD: It was the Japanese who decided what was, or wasn't a province in the 1930s. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for opposition to gay employment and military service?

The Internet and Opposing Viewpoints seem to have abundant information on rebuttals of oppositions to gay employment and military service and bills related to them. I am wondering what are the political justifications for oppositions to gay employment and military service laws. Do socio-political conservatives make a distinction between gay marriage and civil rights (adoptions, employment, military service), or are they all lumped together as one? 140.254.226.219 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking many questions for which a list of tangential references would be legion, and assuming things like the homogeneity of socio-political conservatives while implying a difficulty with treating gays collectively. Please don't invite general debate or chat. A more specific request would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. It seems that the general rule of thumb is that "If you can't find it through a Ebscohost or some other database search, then it's probably that it isn't there in the first place." Instead, one may use one's head and imagine, or do some active research and attempt to publish in a paper. 140.254.136.154 (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am going to go back to Opposing Viewpoints and examine each article in detail. Maybe I can catch a glimpse of the mentality behind the anti-gay employment and et cetera legislation. 140.254.136.154 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. A predominant canard from the 1960s-1970s were attempts to lump gays together with pedophiles and to argue that gay schoolteachers, for example, would be a threat to their students. I should emphasize, of course, that such claims were baseless, but that did not help those targeted. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC article from 2010, Gays in the military: The UK and US compared quotes some opponents, including General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley, a highly decorated veteran of WWII and a hero of the Battle of the Imjin River and the Aden Emergency, who said that "...the overwhelming majority of those in military service today find homosexuality abhorrent". The article also says that in the British Army, there were "Fears that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve on the front line would lead to a breakdown of discipline and cohesion within units...". Exactly what they were afraid might happen isn't spelled out. 15:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

British medal identification

In The Sabre Squadron by Simon Raven, set in 1952, one of the characters (a British army lieutenant) is described as wearing "a single medal, which hung from a green and purple riband overlaid by a silver oak leaf". Could anyone help me identify the medal and the oak leaf? A green and purple riband suggest to me the General Service Medal (1918), but this would have had a clasp. A bronze oak leaf, not a silver one, was given for Mentioned in Despatches, a silver one was given to civilians for the King's Commendation for Brave Conduct - though I'm not entirely sure when the silver oak leaf replaced the sword-and-crown badge. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search suggests that the General Service Medal is the only plausible candidate for a junior officer at that time. Palestine 1945–48 and / or Malaya seem to be likely theatres where it could have been earned, as large numbers of troops were deployed in both operations. I suspect that the inconsistencies over the lack of clasps and the colour of the oak leaf can be put down to the frailty of human memory, and the difficulty of confirming these sort of details in the days before the internet. Alansplodge (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the sort of thing I would expect Raven to have got wrong, but you may be right. The character, Leonard Percival, while being a junior officer was also working in an unspecified capacity for the security service. I'm currently re-reading the Alms for Oblivion series in order, it may be explained later on. If so, I'll update here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Mirrors

When did mirrors arrive on car doors and why did wing mirrors lose favour. I suggest that it is easier to check a wing rather than a door mirror since the eyes don't have to refocus so much.85.211.201.158 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wing mirror would be a good place to start. And they haven't lost favor, in fact they're required equipment on the typical car in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP was asking when they switched from being mounted on the wings to being mounted on the door. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as the article indicates, some vehicles still do use "wing" (i.e. fender-mounted) mirrors. Aspro's observation below is probably onto it - you can't have door-mounted mirrors if you also have wing windows. It's reasonable to surmise that the demise of wing windows let the increase in door-mounted mirrors. (In effect, this is a followup question to one a few days ago, about wing windows.) FYI, "wings" must be a British term. In America we call them "fenders". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing incompatible between having vent windows and having side mirrors mounted on the doors. I remember my father driving cars like that in the late 1960s. Here's a 1965 example from AMC. And here's a Ford from 1969, one of the models he drove then (although not the same model year). Note that on one model the mirror is apparently meant to be seen through the vent window, but on the other, it's behind it. Maybe the mullion did cause visibility problems for some drivers, but they made them that way anyway. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it more likely has to do with safety. The closer the mirror is to you, the more likely you are to see something in it. Also, keep in mind that safety measures have evolved. I remember a time when seat beats were not required and most cars didn't have them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first car, a 1969 Hillman Minx, had wing mirrors, but my second car, a Ford Escort Mark I, had door mirrors. They were launched a year apart, 1967 and 1968 respectively. A number of our images of cars from that era seem to have neither; see this 1970 Hillman Avenger and this Vauxhall Victor for example. Alansplodge (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense suggests to me, that a door mirror being closer appears larger! As for refocusing, one's eyes are focussing -not on the mirror- but the reflected image, so the eyes are already focused to there max focal range. --Aspro (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, cars of that vintage tended to have quarter windows and the mullion would have probably got in the way of the view on some models.--Aspro (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "nothing incompatible" just above. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that pedestrian safety also entered into the equation too. Fortunately, I never ran any into anyone in my old Hillman, but one or other wing mirror would probably have disembowelled them quite efficiently if I had. Alansplodge (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely, that is why they did away with hood/bonnet ornaments.--Aspro (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised at the absence of any mention of the "Blind Spot" here. I am 67 in the UK and well remember the "wing mounted rear view mirrors" that required a neck turn akin to that of a penguin to ensure no vehicles were inside the blind area behind one's overtaking shoulder, before actually beginning an overtake manoeuvre. I also recall purchasing a door mountable mirror with a clip that hung on the window top edge to minimise the extent of the "Blind Spot". If ever you get the chance to visit a motor museum with cars mounted with "Wing Mounted Rearview Mirrors", try sitting in the driving seat and ask a companion to walk slowly towards the driver's side of the car from behind (imitating an overtaking car). You will be simply amazed at the distance they have to cover before being seen in the mirror. 82.43.221.178 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure if that is a wind up. Before one drives away from the showroom, one sits in the car whilst the mechanic adjusts the offside mirror so that you can just see the side of the car with one's head leaning almost against the side window. For the nearside, one leans the other way and the mechanic adjusts it so that one can just see the nearside. That is why all three mirrors are adjustable. You need then to only rock gently from side to side (and perhaps, to thump the door pillar, in-order to get the indicator arm to pop out properly, say when doing a ton and the slipstream is too strong). If you suffered blind spots, it was not an oversight of the designer but the driver. P.S. You say your 67 in the UK. Does your age changes according to your geographical location ;-) --Aspro (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's incredible Aspro. You learn so much from using Wikipedia Reference Desks. Who would have thought it? You sit in your car and the mechanic adjusts the angles of the wing mirrors for you (Gasps of amazement). And does that apply every time your wife or colleague or anyone else is allowed to drive the car, even though they may be shorter, taller, fatter, skinnier or whatever requiring them to adjust their seating position and thus the required mirror angle? If only I had known that service was available before I purchased my most recent car that is fitted with internally and individually adjustable, electrically operated, heated and frost proof door mounted mirrors that eliminate the need for an ever-attendant mechanic. And as for banging and thumping the door pillar to make the indicator semaphore stick out, well, the last time I saw that was at the Sandringham home of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II where she maintains a Motor Museum of all the Royal Cars used by herself and her predecessors. And to think her Rolls Royce Phantoms could have used them at 100 MPH. I bet she never knew. Imagine her waving to her thousands of bystanding admireres as she flew past them in the street whilst her chauffeur was banging and thumping against the door-pillar. What fun for all concerned. And as for imagining that as a UK citizen aged 67 my eyesight would change geographically between countries that drive on different sides of the road and different sides of the car....................well that simply takes one's breath away. And if that wasn't enough, imagine having to differentiate between fenders and bumpers, hoods and bonnets, trunks and boots, petrol and gasoline, tyres and tires, oils and lubes. Oh dear me. It's all so terribly exhausting. But thanks Aspro for your illuminating response to my earlier contribution. I think I will retreat into my old armchair and worry about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Al Quaida et al et al, and partake of a few glasses of Old Malt Whisky, (without the "e"). 82.43.221.178 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]