Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 July 19
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 18 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 20 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
July 19
editWas Isaac spared in the Junius Manuscript?
editApparently the story of Abraham and Isaac occurs twice in the book. Do these stories agree, and do they belong to the category of traditions in which Isaac was sacrificed? Temerarius (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The story of the sacrifice of Isaac is only told in Genesis A. In lines 2908–2922, a messenger from God commands Abraham not to slay his remaining son. --Lambiam 10:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Stout of heart he mounted the high downs, and his son with him, according as Eternal God commanded, until he stood upon the ridge of the high land in the place which the Firm and Faithful Lord had showed him. And there he built a pyre and kindled a flame and bound his son, hand and foot, and laid Isaac, the lad, on the altar, and seized his sword by the hilt. With his own hand he would have slain him, and quenched the flame with the blood of his son. Then a thane of God, an angel from on high, called unto Abraham with a loud voice. In stillness he abode the herald's message and answered the angel. Swiftly the glorious minister of God addressed him from the heavens: "Slay not thy son, dear Abraham, but take the lad from the altar alive. The God of glory is gracious unto him! Great shall thy reward be, Hebrew prince, true meed of victory and ample gifts, at the holy hands of the Heavenly King. The Lord of spirits will bless thee with His blessing because His love and favour were dearer unto thee than thine own son." [1]
- Alansplodge (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are indeed two passages in that translation Alansplodge linked to, one in section XLI (around lines 2897-2908), and one in section XLVII (starting with lines 397-416). The second seems to be part of a summary of the genealogy of the patriarchs injected within a narrative of the Exodus. Both passages contain the sacrifice story including the divine command to spare Isaac in the end. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many narratives now in the 'Old Testament' are amalgams of oral tales that originally had different variations in different communities, and even after initial redaction may have been further modified later to suit a changing religious and/or political agenda. There is no doubt that the early Canaanites, who included those who later differentiated themselves as Israelites and Judahites, practiced human sacrifice, probably including of firstborns, so extra- (and pre-) biblical variants of the Binding of Isaac story where Jacob was sacrificed probably existed: the eventual biblical version likely reflects a 'policy change' of child sacrifice being abandoned as part of a general distancing from other Caananites, and identity assertion as a separate people (see Canaanite religion#Practices).{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC).
- We're talking here, though, about poems in Old English written in the late 10th century CE. The only knowledge its authors would have of ancient Caananite practices would be through the medium of the Old Testament. --Lambiam 13:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- In RSV Judges 11:30-39, the Israelite warlord Jephthah swore that in exchange for a victory against the Ammonites, the first person who "comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering." Sadly, that person was the daughter, whom he loved. She agreed to be sacrificed because of his pledge. "And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year." Note: these Ammonites were the Middle Easterners, not the Mesozoic Cephalopods. Edison (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- We're talking here, though, about poems in Old English written in the late 10th century CE. The only knowledge its authors would have of ancient Caananite practices would be through the medium of the Old Testament. --Lambiam 13:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many narratives now in the 'Old Testament' are amalgams of oral tales that originally had different variations in different communities, and even after initial redaction may have been further modified later to suit a changing religious and/or political agenda. There is no doubt that the early Canaanites, who included those who later differentiated themselves as Israelites and Judahites, practiced human sacrifice, probably including of firstborns, so extra- (and pre-) biblical variants of the Binding of Isaac story where Jacob was sacrificed probably existed: the eventual biblical version likely reflects a 'policy change' of child sacrifice being abandoned as part of a general distancing from other Caananites, and identity assertion as a separate people (see Canaanite religion#Practices).{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC).
- There are indeed two passages in that translation Alansplodge linked to, one in section XLI (around lines 2897-2908), and one in section XLVII (starting with lines 397-416). The second seems to be part of a summary of the genealogy of the patriarchs injected within a narrative of the Exodus. Both passages contain the sacrifice story including the divine command to spare Isaac in the end. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
When Treasuries mature on a holiday
editI just bought a Treasury bill maturing on 12/31 with one of those brokerages that pay out only the day after. As that will be New Year's Day, my money basically doesn't earn interest for two days, compared with a brokerage that pays out on the day of. Suppose it were a long holiday. That would be money out of reach for even longer. Hardly seems fair. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a question? --Error (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, are there any similar problems in financial transaction? Imagine Reason (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is what you are asking about, but in banking there is often a delay between when you deposit funds in a checking account, and when those funds become available for withdrawal. This can be several days if you deposit over a long weekend. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- And during that interval, even if merely overnight, the bank can invest the funds in the Money market and collect the interest paid on it. For an individual deposit this will only yield a small amount, but when the yields of all such funds held by the bank are aggregated, the total is significant.
- The same applies to funds paid to a solicitor for imminent property purchases and so on. In the UK, for some transactions the solicitor is legally obliged to do so, and pay the interest gained to their client; in others they can keep the money themselves. [Disclosure: my father was a solicitors' chief accountant, and made such investments daily.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is what you are asking about, but in banking there is often a delay between when you deposit funds in a checking account, and when those funds become available for withdrawal. This can be several days if you deposit over a long weekend. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, are there any similar problems in financial transaction? Imagine Reason (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Be thankful you are not charged negative interest. --Lambiam 13:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Conflicts between Soviet Union and Russian SFSR
editHave there ever been any conflicts between the Soviet Union and the Russian SFSR when Russia was still a part of the Soviet Union? JIP | Talk 20:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1991 Soviet coup attempt lists several Soviet organizations on one side and the RSFSR on the other. --Error (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) The Russian SFSR had a totally dominant position in the Soviet Union until 1990, so any conflicts must date from the brief period from the declaration of State Sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic on 12 June 1990 and the dissolution of the USSR on 26 December 1991. --Lambiam 00:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Define conflict. There was certainly some competition regarding delimitations of decision-making, that always happens. But what is important in this case is that there was no republican-level RSFSR Communist Party until the very end of the Soviet Union, unlike all other SSRs. Generally speaking power-struggles happened not between governments of administrative units of the USSR but between party organs (state organs implemented party policy, not the other way around). So the management of the RSFSR state government was directly under the Central Committee of the CPSU, the same party body controlling the USSR government. Towards the end stage of the USSR Russian nationalism was increasing in importance, in the sense of wanting more self-rule of RSFSR. The foundation of the Communist Party of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was the key step in this direction. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- While Russia had its own Supreme Soviet, as Soman notes it didn't have as many independent institutions as the other Union Republics, making it institutionally less powerful than the rest, even while its demographic dominance made Russians dominant throughout the Union. In my mind, this situation was somewhat comparable that of to England and the UK; e.g. Scotland, Wales, and NI have their own devolved parliaments, but there's no devolved English parliament, even while England is rather dominant demographically. Of course, the typical dominance of the Party leadership over both Party and government, at all levels, meant that there weren't frequent conflicts or disputes between the USSR and the RSFSR; there was nothing comparable to the West Lothian question, as far as I'm aware. Both scenarios have grown out of the same basic situation: a powerful core state of several centuries ago was able to conquer and annex adjoining territories, which in the 20th century were given additional autonomy, but there was no history of the core state being separate from the whole polity (because the core state functionally was the whole polity), and thus the top-level politicians didn't give comparable autonomy to the core. See asymmetric federalism for a discussion of the underlying concept. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tony Blair's solution in the UK was "regional assemblies" in eight regions of England, but that didn't work out... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Bring back the Heptarchy, I say. (There actually is a Wessex Independents [sic] Party) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tony Blair's solution in the UK was "regional assemblies" in eight regions of England, but that didn't work out... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- While Russia had its own Supreme Soviet, as Soman notes it didn't have as many independent institutions as the other Union Republics, making it institutionally less powerful than the rest, even while its demographic dominance made Russians dominant throughout the Union. In my mind, this situation was somewhat comparable that of to England and the UK; e.g. Scotland, Wales, and NI have their own devolved parliaments, but there's no devolved English parliament, even while England is rather dominant demographically. Of course, the typical dominance of the Party leadership over both Party and government, at all levels, meant that there weren't frequent conflicts or disputes between the USSR and the RSFSR; there was nothing comparable to the West Lothian question, as far as I'm aware. Both scenarios have grown out of the same basic situation: a powerful core state of several centuries ago was able to conquer and annex adjoining territories, which in the 20th century were given additional autonomy, but there was no history of the core state being separate from the whole polity (because the core state functionally was the whole polity), and thus the top-level politicians didn't give comparable autonomy to the core. See asymmetric federalism for a discussion of the underlying concept. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Define conflict. There was certainly some competition regarding delimitations of decision-making, that always happens. But what is important in this case is that there was no republican-level RSFSR Communist Party until the very end of the Soviet Union, unlike all other SSRs. Generally speaking power-struggles happened not between governments of administrative units of the USSR but between party organs (state organs implemented party policy, not the other way around). So the management of the RSFSR state government was directly under the Central Committee of the CPSU, the same party body controlling the USSR government. Towards the end stage of the USSR Russian nationalism was increasing in importance, in the sense of wanting more self-rule of RSFSR. The foundation of the Communist Party of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was the key step in this direction. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)