Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 14

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.

July 14

Have any Christian sects believed that the Virgin Mary was raped?

Today's featured article highlights the concept of Adoptionism, which was a Christian idea that the Virgin Birth never occurred. It strikes me that another possibility exists, which omits extreme divine intervention yet would seem to qualify, on its face, as a virgin birth: like the little Chilean girl "Belem", [1] perhaps Mary was raped. If rape is not sex, and we accept the reality of the innocence of a little girl and of her refusal, then she really can be virgin yet bear a child through no fault of her own, and through her unfaltering love through her infant, show herself to be particularly good-natured and virtuous even beyond the usual we expect of mothers. Yet among all the odd things Christian sects have believed... have they ever believed this? (Looking this up I find a recent filmmaker has - but this might reflect modern concepts that are fundamentally altered from those of centuries past?) Wnt (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Weird idea. How can rape not be sex? Presumably another possibility is that Mary was just a naughty girl who never told anyone who the real father was. I'm sure that idea must have been discussed somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised you are not aware of the Jewish claim Mary was raped. Jesus in the Talmud. How that would fit in with an actual "son of God" theology that would amount to a Christian belief is beyond me. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, all Christian sects and denominations have Mary as a consenting participant from the Annunciation on ("And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." - Luke 1:38). Individual Christians certainly do question that "offical" account, and come up with all sorts of suggestions on "How Mary got Preggers"... but I don't think there is any denomination or sect that posits rape (mortal or divine) as its dogma. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I was completely unaware of the Talmud story (which didn't even make the cut for Jesus in the Talmud) but there are various dubiously reliable sources which elaborate on it.[2][3][4] The first of these even makes the extraordinary claim that Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera was not merely the Roman soldier in question, after which Jesus is called Yeshu'a ben Panthera in the Talmud -- but that his tombstone is actually known in Bingerbrück from 9 AD (citing " Jesus the Magician, Professor Morton Smith, 1978, Dea. Lea. 1973-1974.") A truly spectacular lead (though obviously one has a bit of skepticism!) since the standard plan for trying to arrange the Second Coming through sequencing of cell(s) found on a sliver of the True Cross runs into the problem that you don't know for sure it wasn't one of the guys pounding the nails who hit his finger; but with (potentially) a sample to cross-reference...! I should note btw that the Annunciation doesn't logically conflict because if one accepts that Mary, not being willing, remained a virgin, it could have occurred after the rape, for example as she fervently prayed for guidance. Also note that the main term in the Biblical accounts is "Son of Man" - perhaps more after what Nietschze called the Superman or what we in modern parlance would call "Humanity 2.0"; the sons of God are apparently more numerous, notable for taking the daughters of men and finding them to be fair... Wnt (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that a question? μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nay, it's an "update" - a followup on the good answer I received above. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine any Christian thinking Mary was raped, unless they've got the story mixed up with "Leda and the Swan". On the contrary, He probably gave Mary one seriously Heavenly "Big O". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The 42nd Church of Christ, Para-Pseudoscientist, holds that Mary was raped by Elvis, who was transported back in time by aliens, one of whom walked among us as Jimmy Hoffa, to change history. Can I get an amen? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's don't be sexist: "Amen! and Awomen!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, given that Mary was definitely underage by modern standards, and that it is quite impossible to give informed consent to an omnipotent being, at least statutory rape is implied by the mainstream story... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

But that would involve retrospective legislation, something generally frowned upon. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

But that sentiment itself is an enlightenment idea and was not recognised at the time in question. So there! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to serve an arrest warrant on God would be an interesting thing to see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There was The Man Who Sued God. See also Lawsuits against God. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny stuff. The second article ought to at least give mention to the movie Oh, God! in which God (George Burns) actually appears in court and testifies on behalf of John Denver's character. However, His voice fails to register on the audio recording of the court case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the patent granted for the Go programming language?

Is there even a patent for it at all? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

[[5]] has the patent's text. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that's a licence grant under the patent (if any). The licence language is confusingly unspecific about the patent (if any) under which the licence is granted. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman ships for the New World

In 1492, Columbus traveled to the Americas in the Santa María. Had the Ottoman Empire decided to try the same feat that year, would have their best ships been able to reach the Americas? Thanks! 64.229.155.218 (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, almost certainly yes. Kemal Reis attacked the canary islands in 1501. With all ships at that time, there was a significant risk in an Atlantic crossing, but with a moderate amount of luck, it was possible. The problem was more a cultural and political one. The Ottoman empire was centred in the Eastern Mediterranean, and it already controlled much of the Asian trade with Europe through the Silk Road and via the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Suez. So the Atlantic was far from the Ottoman centre of gravity, geographically, logistically, and mentally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: the incentive for crossing the Atlantic was to cut out the Ottoman middle men from the spice trade. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the Ottoman Empire was surrounded by the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, most of its ships were galleys which are unsuitable for ocean voyages.
Sleigh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Alan hits the problem right on the nose... The entire reason for Columbus's voyage was to find a new, direct sea route to the wealth of the Indies (China, India and the spice islands of Indonesia). There was no need for the Ottomans to do likewise... they already controlled the old route (from the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, across the Indian Ocean, to the trading ports of India)... which was the shortest and most economical route. It would not have made economic sense to the Ottomans to go to the Americas in 1492.

It took some time people to fully realized that the Americas were an economic destination in their own right (full of Gold, Silver and other exploitable resources)... and by that time, it no longer would have made military sense for the Ottoman's to make the voyage. The routes to the Americas were dominated by Spanish and Portuguese (who were by then much stronger than they had been in 1492, and would have blocked any attempt). Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I'd hit something one day! Alansplodge (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

People needed more than ocean-worthy ships to cross the Atlantic and return to Europe, they needed a decent grasp of the wind patterns of the Atlantic. By the time of Columbus these patterns were starting to be understood by sailors experienced in the Atlantic, but there was still much uncertainty. Columbus had something like 25 years of experience sailing in the Atlantic and he knew the wind patterns fairly well. He certainly knew he had to take the trade winds from the Canary Islands instead of, say, trying to sail west from the Azores. But he took a significant gamble about being able to find westerly winds for his return voyage (from Japan, he hoped). He did manage to find the right winds to return to Europe, but not without difficulty. He didn't have a full grasp of the Atlantic wind patterns ([6]). Now that's Columbus, who was very experienced with the Atlantic. Could an Ottoman expedition could have had similar knowledge? Perhaps if they hired a navigator as experienced with the Atlantic as Columbus. WIthout good Atlantic wind pattern knowledge they may well not have even known where to start, let alone how to return. I think that would be more of a problem for the Ottomans than the ocean-worthiness of their ships—of course to sail across the Atlantic at the latitude of the Canaries you would want more than just an "ocean-worthy" ship—a lateen rigged caravel type ship was almost essential, although the Ottomans were probably quite familiar with such things—they were widely used in the Indian Ocean at the time ([7]). Of course as others have said, there was also no economic incentive for the Ottomans. The question is similar to whether the Chinese or Japanese could have crossed the Pacific to the Americas. They did not know the Pacific wind patterns enough to be able to sail across and return, and didn't have any economic incentive to try anyway. Ships could have been blown off course and reached America from China or Japan, and perhaps some did. If one of Kemal Reis's Ottoman ships got blown by a storm from the Canary Islands it could have reached America, as the Canaries are the ideal place to catch the trade winds. The sailors would have been hard-pressed to return though. Pfly (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Fa'amatai in American Samoa

Are there anybody trying to resurrect the title Tui Manuʻa in American Samoa? I know the treaties in the 1900s forcibily abolished it, but today the historic titles and positions of indigenous people in the US are being restored by descendants trying to reconnect with the past. And what is the status of the Fa'amatai hereditary chiefs in American Samoa (not Samoa)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Manua monument

Where can I find moder day info and pictures of this monument in this book? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You probably already know that she's the Tui Manu'a Matelita mentioned in our article Tui Manuʻa Elisala and was also known as Margaret Young. Unfortunately, Web searches for "Matelita" or "Margaret Young" with "grave" or "monument" don't seem to turn up anything relevant. Presumably her grave is on the island of Ta'u, but I'm finding zilch online. Deor (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pedro V of Portugal

Did Pedro V of Portugal (and his two brothers) die of typhoid fever or cholera in 1861?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The contemporary New York Times announcement here says that it was typhus. This book by one Douglas Wheeler (on whom we don't have an article, so I can't say how reliable he is as an historian) says typhoid. I've not been able to find a reliable source that says cholera, although there are plenty of unreliable sources that do. Tevildo (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

These sources say cholera.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we can safely say the following: Yes, Pedro died of either typhus, typhoid fever or cholera... but we can not say which. If you are asking so you can clarify the article, just note that the sources disagree as to cause of death, and present all the options. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. On a secondary point, although ENS's link seems well-formatted, all the results it comes up with on my system say "typhoid". Google searches are no longer deterministic, unfortunately. Tevildo (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)