Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 28

= March 28 =

Help with Romanian written in Cyrillic characters
I'm trying to make sense of the texts in this image, which are Romanian written in Cyrillic characters. Also I'd love to know if it is possible to identify the saint.

The first word at the top is certainly cuviousul (definitive article form of the Romanian word for "pious"); I can't make sense of the second ( maybe something to do with birth, because I would expect that to transliterate as something like naciomie ). Then below we have something like Cine vǎ putea îndura ziua venirii lui, but I can't quite make sense of that (my moderate foreigner's Romanian gives me something like [He?] who can endure the day of his coming).

Any help? Oh, and if someone has a lot of patience or a Cyrillic keyboard, feel more than free to transcribe the original texts, which would be nice to have on the image file! - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just worked out one part of it myself! What had looked to me like naciomie was Antonie. So given that it is in a St. Anthony church, this is certainly St. Anthony. I'd still like to understand the Cine vǎ putea îndura ziua venirii lui, though. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, "He who can endure, his day will come"? But I'd still really like to hear from a native Romanian speaker. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you get Antonie (or even naciomie) out of пахомие pakhomie? —Tamfang (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pachomius the Great 184.147.117.34 (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * КЮВИОСЮЛ ПАХОМИE
 * ЧИНЕ ВА ПЮТЕА ЇНDЮРА ЗИЮА ВЕНИРИИ ЛЮИ
 * to start you off, though I am not sure about the one I used Yu for – you should try the Language Desk or Romania Wikiproject. Google translate renders this as Venerable Pachomius: Who can ____ day of his coming. 184.147.117.34 (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably sure that funny letter should be read as У (≈Greek ου?) not Ю. —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You may already know this, of course - "But who can endure the day of his coming?" comes from the Book of Malachi, Chapter 3, Verse 2; a modern Romanian translation is "Cine va putea să sufere însă ziua venirii Lui?"   For Christians, this verse predicts the Second Coming of Christ and is a well known (to me at least) chorus aria in George Frideric Handel's oratorio, Messiah.  Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When the cross-lines are hard to make out, it's hard to distinguish 'Н' from 'П'.
 * Thank you so much! - Jmabel &#124; Talk 21:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh. And I got Anthony by looking at the wrong image: this one this one, which I mistook for being another photo of the same picture. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 22:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the same image linked above; or at least it's the same address. —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arrgh. Link corrected. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 20:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still see no difference between the links. Could some bot be messing with it?  Maybe you could mail me the link you intend. —Tamfang (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tried fixing it again. There is a one-character difference. Please try it again, pretty sure it is correct now. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! —Tamfang (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Afterlife in Judaism
I have asked several Jewish friends of mine this question, but even they don't seem to have a clear-cut answer. Does Judaism in the Old Testament describe an afterlife, such as Christians have in the Heaven and Hell described in the New Testament? Obviously, Moses was taken up into Heaven by God, but what about everyone else? If it is not in the Old Testament, is it in Talmudic tradition? Honeyman2010 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * V'Zot HaBerachah is the relevant Torah portion regarding the death of Moses, which does not mention heaven. Jews do not use the term "Old Testament" as they give no religious recognition to any "New Testament". Nowhere in the Torah does it say that Moses went to "heaven", but rather that he died and was buried. So, what is obvious? Normative Judaism talks about a fairly vague "world to come" not a more specific "heaven" as described in parts of various Christian traditions. Please read Jewish eschatology for more information. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Curious - where did the Bible obtain that textual fragment concerning the corpse of Moses from? Surely, it wasn't just conjured out of thin air! Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To which "textual fragment" do you refer? The end of Deuteronomy? I'm not sure how that qualifies as a fragment, but in any case, the answer to your question is presumably, "The same place the rest of Deuteronomy came from." Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 16:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I see that the relevant text is not located in the old testament, but in the new. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna go ahead and take issue with the characterization of Jewish conceptions of the afterlife as "vague." There is a great deal of Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature on the topic, much of which gets quite involved in discussing quite specific facets of the world to come (ha-olam ha-ba), even down to minute agricultural details. This is not to say that there is a monolithic and systematic conception of how the afterlife "works," as there may be in certain forms of Christianity and other religions&mdash;but Jewish theology in general is not monolithic either, and despite appearances, neither is it systematic. There are a variety of opinions on eschatology within the Jewish tradition.
 * Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that, for much of its history, Judaism was (and Orthodox Judaism still is) an apocalyptic religion. The world to come is not something to be experienced "up there" after death in a place full of clouds and singing angels. It is believed to be a future earthly reality that will be inaugurated by the Messiah when he arrives (coincident with a resurrection of the dead), destroys the enemies of Israel, and ushers in a thousand-year worldwide reign.
 * None of this should be interpreted as somehow discounting the idea of a "present" heavenly realm. Enoch went somewhere, after all, as did Elijah. This is one point where "vague" (or, at least, "not currently fully understood by scholars") does become an apt descriptor of certain Jewish beliefs. The "bosom of Abraham" mentioned by Jesus in connection with the story of Dives and Lazarus seems to have become a rather more pleasant counterpart to Sheol (by this time identified with the Greek realm of Hades). By this point in the story, though, Hellenism has already had its way with much of Jewish culture, so it becomes quite hard to disentangle the historical origins of this particular idea. "Abraham's bosom" may owe more to the Elysian fields than to anything specific in the Hebrew Bible. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 16:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I will read further what you suggested. Honeyman2010 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Dead Jews go to Sheol, whether they were good or bad. That stops mattering, because they stop having personalities or will. Shadows, basically. When the Old Testament was translated to Greek, Sheol became Hades. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Robinson's Essential Judaism agrees with that as the mainstream view. Whereas Catholics pray for the dead and believe in progress of a personality from purgatory to heaven, Judaism as Robinson explains it holds that there is no such thing as an accomplishment or change after death. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, Sheol is a metaphor for the grave. "Then dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to the Lord who gave it." In this verse, spirit is equated with the term Ruach. Which means that once a living soul goes to Sheol (the grave), they become entirely dispersed. Although, an animating substance, the breath of life in of itself is inanimate. Likewise, dust is inanimate. Thus, once a living soul is dispersed, their consciousness comes to an end, until such time that the Lord deems it good to resurrect that living soul, or as it is also called a Nephesh. You and me, we are all Nephesh. There is no third component described that translates to an eternal essence that survives upon death. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In Afterlife it is claimed that Jews and righteous Gentiles will share in the "world to come", olam haba, and implies there is according to the Talmud a period of judgment and suffering for those not found fully worthy to enter it directly. (See also, Yahrzeit.)  This compares to Catholic purgatory.  The subsection denies there is a Jewish hell, rather that truly heinous souls are dissolved.  (I want to emphasize I am not a practicing Jew, and have no expertise beyond the sources I have cited, and suspect different sects will have different interpretations.) μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also comparable to Barzakh. I'm not a practicing anything, but generally believe religions, like everything, should follow the Rule of Three. Like Revered Lovejoy says, Hinduism is "miscellaneous". They might have something the middle, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Diyu seems pretty straighforward. Yama's a bit more metaphorical. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Annotated Alice
Is Martin Gardner's exegesis of Lewis Carroll's major works still regarded as authoritative or has it been superseded by later work? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming you mean The Annotated Alice, it's been through several versions since 1960. Since he titled that the "definitive edition" (1998/1999/2000) he probably didn't intend to do any more work on it. There is nothing later listed in his bibliography (and he died in 2010). A "150th Anniversary Deluxe Edition" is due out later this year, but it's unlikely to contain further material.--Shantavira|feed me 11:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! (yes, "The Annotated Alice" I've fixed the template) Are there any rivals to Gardner's work? Thanks for the tip on the special edition, I'm going to try to pre-order one from my usual bookstore, for my niece/goddaughter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How can you have an authoritative exegesis of a fictional book? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fish in a barrel? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Bowlhover - Gardner's commentary and notes are about the social history and linguistic context as well as logic and mathematics as Carroll's works are "notorious" for the puzzles he embedded in the narrative. Ummm ok, so maybe "exegesis" was not the best terminology to use. So does Gardner have no serious rivals? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Authoritative simply means he knows (a lot about) what he's talking about. An "authorised" version like a bibliography is normally unique in that it has been approved by the subject of the work, but that doesn't make it authoritative.  I can think of several authoritative works on the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, each scholarly but with differing views.  Cambridge and Oxford produce all sorts of overlapping authoritative works on the same subject.  It's a matter of completeness, accuracy and expertise, not a contest. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)