Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 July 31

= July 31 =

A Scottish Christmas
Saturday's i says "Ukraine has changed the date on which it celebrates Christmas" and "a bill signed by President Volodymyr Zelensky yesterday will move the official holiday to 25 December." Churches currently follow the Julian calendar, with Christmas slated for 7 January 2024 (which is Julian 25 December 2023) and Easter on 5 May.

The report says the bill has appeared "on the parliament's website," so is it law or does it still require parliamentary approval? Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar on 1/14 February 1918 but recognised Ukraine's independence. At that time there were frequent switches between the Julian and Gregorian calendars depending on where the White Russian armies were in power. Greece adopted the Revised Julian calendar in 1924, after previously having adopted Barnaba Oriani's system in 1923. Russian birth, marriages and deaths registrars (thus connected to the Orthodox church) were still using Julian dates in 1929.

Whichever of the two systems (Revised Julian/Gregorian) Ukraine is using now (the date are indistinguishable) in 1995 all official holidays were secular, with the exception of Christmas on 7 January. From the beginning of the Church's year on 1 September 2023 the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church will adopt the Revised Julian calendar, so Christmas will move back thirteen days (although it will remain on 25 December). The date of Easter is unaffected. But the Catholics are only 10% of the population - the remainder are Orthodox. So is Zelensky asking the majority to work on Christmas Day? An explanatory note to the bill says "The relentless and successful struggle for their identity contributes to...the desire of every Ukrainian to live their own life with their own traditions and holidays." Is this some kind of a fudge, given that 7 January 2024 is a Sunday? 2A00:23D0:5C4:7C01:9131:D514:AC2F:25D5 (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The Orthodox Church in Ukraine put out this unbelievable statement in February :

Despite the long tradition of using the Julian calendar by the Orthodox Church, this calendar itself is of secular origin, and the accumulation of differences in it can theoretically lead to the fact that the celebration of the Nativity of Christ and the Epiphany can shift to the time of preparation for Lent and even to the fast itself, which is absurd.

This is the exact opposite of what happens. Since Easter remains calculated by the Julian calendar, only by calculating the Nativity and the Epiphany by the Julian calendar can their proper distance from Lent be preserved. It is only by scheduling these feasts according to the Revised Julian calendar that they can collide with Lent. Then on 24 May the Orthodox Church in Ukraine announced that it is introducing the Revised Julian calendar. There is one saving grace - parishes that don't want it will be able to opt out. That means that the important festival of Kyriopascha, when the Annunciation falls on Easter Sunday, can never happen, because Easter can never fall on 25 March. Also, the Feast of the Apostles begins on the day after the first Sunday after Trinity and ends on 28 June. Well, Whit Sunday can fall on 20 June, in which case the fast begins on 28 June and lasts just 24 hours. And Whit Sunday can fall a lot later than 20 June!

In 1914 Britain went to war with Germany, and Russia was her ally against the Turks. Germany was using the Gregorian Paschalion and Russia was using the Julian Paschalion. So why didn't Britain switch to the Julian Paschalion to show "solidarity"? 85.255.236.123 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Rockefeller family
Who is the current patriarch after David Rockefeller Sr. passed away in 2017? I can't seem to find this information anywhere. I would think that his oldest son would be the next family patriarch, yes? Thanks! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:445F:CB01:8328:DE80 (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article you linked indicates David Rockefeller Jr.. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a priori clear that there is an individual who can be labelled as "the family patriarch". --Lambiam 10:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Comparative historicity of Judaism leaders
Compared to Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad, how it came that none of the founders or co-founders of Judaism (Abraham, Moses, the Patriarchs) has been reliably confirmed to exist historically? List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources mentions relatively minor figures in that regard, such as High Priest of Israel Johanan, and Origins of Judaism doesn't point fingers either. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This (perhaps from a strongly Christian point-of-view) article, Making a Case for the Historicity of Moses, is only able to say that Moses as a historical figure is not implausible and admits that no textual or archeological evidence has been found outside of the Biblical account. There is a similar lack of corroborating evidence for Buddha  Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Largely because just about anyone from 4000 years ago has scant evidence of their existence. Let's take Abraham, for example.  From the various accounts we have of him, he was likely an important and rich man, as he had a large household and other evidences of great wealth.  And yet, from 2000 BC, from where he lived (Sumer), we know the names of very few people, mostly rulers of city states and a few officials and not much else, and even those lists aren't even close to complete.  It's entirely understandable that, even granting that he really existed, oral stories passed down for 1500 years would leave very little evidence; since the first written accounts of Abraham date to 500 BC.  Similar problems exist for other such figures; we're talking about a time for when even really important people like kings and other rulers have no evidence of their existence.  -- Jayron 32 15:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 212.180.235.46 -- An example of increasing uncertainty going back into time is that the death date of Muhammad is known to the day, and his birth date to within a year or two, but the birth and death dates of Jesus are only known to within several years, while it's disputed as to which century Buddha lived in, and disputed as to which millennium Zoroaster lived in. With the Biblical figures from Abraham to Moses, there's no extra-Biblical historical evidence whatsoever for their existence, but at least they're solidly located in a historical/geographical era about which a lot of information is available -- the later Bronze Age and/or 2nd millennium BCE in core and connected Middle-Eastern lands (Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Levant, and sometimes the Hittites, Hurrians etc. to the north).  We can use our somewhat detailed knowledge about the historical period in which it was claimed that they lived to try to add context and gain insights into the Biblical narratives (something that's not possible for Zoroaster etc). AnonMoos (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Reasonable people can be uncertain of the identity of the first Buddha Śākyamuni. No contemporary sources are known that identify Siddhārtha Gautama as the worldly source of the teachings of Buddhism; in fact, some two centuries appear to separate the historical Siddhārtha Gautama from the earliest mentions of the Buddha. --Lambiam 20:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, since we know the date, day of the week and season Muhammad was born we can fix his birth date exactly.  We also know he was born in the Year of the Elephant, and we have the date and day of the week of the elephant event and the interval from then to his birth.   We also know the number of years and days he lived. 31.55.242.67 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this known to his biographers? Our article on Muhammad is lacking the detail. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to what constitutes "historicity". Our article Historicity of Jesus states that the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, so basically "a baptised person was crucified" - nothing about being the son of God, nothing about any of the conjuring tricks, nothing about even him being called "Jesus". How many of the alleged attributes are required to be independently verified for the figure to be considered historical ? 2A01:E0A:D60:3500:B691:7D96:B6C2:5CF2 (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We already know (and have known for centuries) that nobody called him Jesus or Christ to his face. Jesus is an English transliteration of a Greek transliteration (Ἰησοῦς, Iesous) of his name in the original Aramaic or Hebrew, which would have been ישוע, or "Yeshua", or possibly יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, or "Yehoshua", which in English is usually translated as Joshua.  Christ is a Greek calque, χριστός or "Christos", of his original Aramaic or Hebrew title מָשִׁיחַ, roughly "Messiah", meaning "anointed one".  If he was called anything in person, it would have been something like "Yehoshua bar Yosef", (in English "Joshua son of Joseph").  -- Jayron 32 12:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, thought to have been written in 94 CE, contains a passage saying that Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin, "the brother of Jesus (the one called Anointed), James by name ". While an earlier passage naming Jesus is widely considered a later Christian interpolation intended to establish the historicity of Jesus, this passage is generally considered authentic; see Josephus on Jesus. Personally I'm not so sure that, if the earlier passage is almost certainly a forgery, the portion naming Jesus as being called "Anointed" is not also a later addition. With both Yaʿqōḇ and Yēšūaʿ being common given names, there must have been dozens of Yaʿqōḇs who were the brother of some Yēšūaʿ. The fact that Galatians 1:19 mentions "James, the Lord's brother" must have made a small addition very alluring. --Lambiam 19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily an interpolation, but likely originally a not-too-flattering mention which was considered disrespectful by later Christian monks, who therefore greatly elaborated it. AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Compared to Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad, how it came that none of the founders or co-founders of Judaism (Abraham, Moses, the Patriarchs) has been reliably confirmed to exist historically?


 * Hello, what? There is no reputable Buddhist scholar who says the historical Buddha "has been reliably confirmed to exist historically".  Furthermore, Buddhism makes the unusual claim that there have been many Buddhas throughout time.  In fact, if you study Buddhism from a secular POV, the most important takeaway is that it doesn't matter if Buddha existed or not, what matters is the importance of the teachings.  Look up Gil Fronsdal.  His teachings do not focus on worshiping the Buddha as a historical figure; he is focused on coming to terms with and understanding what Buddhism teaches.  This is a very important distinction! Some Christians believe this about Jesus as well, but it is somewhat rare to hear or read, and you have to go searching for it deep in the literature to find it, but it's there.  It's been a while since I perused that literature but the Jesus Seminar is a good place to start.  Keep in mind that the greatest critics of those researchers are fundamentalists and extremely vocal.  Personally, I believe there is zero evidence that Jesus ever existed, but because western civilization is biased from the POV of cultural Christianity, my POV is considered heretical.  The teachings of Jesus predate Christ the person, and go back five centuries to the time of the Buddha.  This is incontrovertible, but disputed by all fundamentalists. Further, the notion of historical Buddhas and Christs completely misses the point of the teachings.  The lessons are not based on how to worship people like Buddha and Jesus, but actually how to become Buddha-like and Christ-like; the veneration of historical or ancestral figures as deities misses the point of the teachings and contradicts every organized religion who insists on their historicity. Somewhere along the line, chinese whispers altered the teachings, and with the help of hegemonic, institutional power structures, they were twisted and distorted to become focused on cults of personality rather than the actual content of the teachings. Alan Watts is famous for arguing that the historicity makes no difference but he is all but ignored by academia and considered to be an outsider in many respects; however, if you haven't read his work, you really should.  Watts was very clear and unambiguous.  Tat Tvam Asi, you are it!  That is the entirety of all of the historical teachings.  Three words.  No need to worship anyone. No need to believe any of these people were real.  As for Muhammad, most people avoid discussions about the historicity of this person because it can get them killed, but r/exmuslim on Reddit has outgoing links to some of these ideas and people, so the discussion exists, in secret. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Rewards for service in the Napoleonic Wars
I know that the Duke of Wellington received his title (and maybe lands? it's not clear from the article) in appreciation for his victories in the Napoleonic Wars. I understand that naval officers at that time could also earn prize money for capturing ships. How common was it for other soldiers/officers in the various branches of the land-based military to be rewarded by the crown for oustanding service with a) titles or knighthoods and/or b) significant amounts of money or property? -- EmIsCurious (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The top military leaders got aristocratic titles from multiple kingdoms -- you can read at Duke of Wellington (title) how he was ennobled by the Netherlands (which ruled Belgium at the time), Spain, and Portugal, while Nelson received the Dukedom of Bronte in Sicily... AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In the case of Waterloo:
 * Officers were given cash rewards from a fund, called His Majesty's Royal Bounty, for serving at Waterloo £1,274 for generals, £90 for captains, £19 for sergeants and £2 for corporals, drummers and privates.
 * Note that £2 was technically equal to 40 days' pay for a private; however, daily pay of one shilling was subject to deductions for food, clothing and accommodation so that soldiers actually had only one or two pence a day to spend (240 pence to a pound in those days), so £2 might have represented more than a year's disposable income.
 * In the Royal Navy, prize money was split amongst the crew in proportion to rank, see Prize money for details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Shillin' a day, Bloomin' good pay - Lucky to touch it, a shillin' a day!" DuncanHill (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When my father was called up in 1939, the basic daily pay for a private was only 2 shillings (10p). No wonder they thought the US troops were overpaid. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read the individual articles on the generals of the British contingent (Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign), almost all of them seem to have been knighted or ennobled because of their military success at some point during the Napoleonic Wars: eg George Wood, Sir James Carmichael-Smyth, 1st Baronet, George Cooke (British Army officer), Colin Halkett, Rowland Hill, 1st Viscount Hill, Thomas Picton et al. I don't think there were many crown lands left to be given away by the early 19th century - Stratfield Saye House was specifically purchased by the state to present to Wellington in 1817. The salary of a major or lieutenant general was probably enough to buy a decent estate to go with the title. MinorProphet (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you! George Wood appears to be a perfect example of what I was looking for (knighted in 1812 -- so not for Waterloo -- at which point he held a significantly lower rank than General).
 * Since the crown didn't have much land to give away, did they award any significant monetary prizes to specific individuals at any point, beyond what @Alansplodge mentioned above as what sounds like a pool shared among the entire army? -- EmIsCurious (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the importance of social status at that time, a knighthood or a peerage was an extremely valuable prize which would open many doors for the recipient. Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnson, in re Boswell (1783): "He is a very clubbable man." Although this refers to an intellectual/artistic elite, the soldiering life gave rise to its own exclusive regimental clubs: most officers bought their commissions. Combined with the expansion of landed wealth, the socially necessary intertwining of military/naval/aristocratic lives had its own rewards, especially if you married well. MinorProphet (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have known many clubbable men. I wouldn't think it a compliment.  -- Jayron 32 17:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Parliament could vote money to a soldier in gratitude - as was, initially at least, done for Marlborough to build Blenheim. There were also Civil List pensions which could be granted. The Nelsons had a "perpetual annuity" granted in 1806 and ended in, I believe, 1947. I think there were other similar annuities but can't recall offhand to whom they were paid, though John Colborne, 1st Baron Seaton had one for sure. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, that's also very helpful! Any ideas how one might going about finding info about other instances of Civil List pensions or grants? -- EmIsCurious (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I don't really know - searching for "annuity act" will turn up some (William Penn's heirs got one after to make up for the revolting colonials, Wellington had one). There's a brief mention of civil list pensions at Civil list, but mainly about them after the 1837 Act. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that the Civil List was mostly intended for Civil Servants, as opposed to military or naval expenses/ pensions (see Civil List) For miltary pensions, see Half-pay. I also came across British soldiers in the eighteenth century and Social background of officers and other ranks in the British Army, 1750–1815, some interesting reading. Anyway, here is a list of prize money paid to soldiers who fought in Spain and France 1809-1814. In 1800 a full colonel in the cavalry received standard pay of nearly 33 shillings a day, or around 600 pounds a year, and an infantry private got a shilling a day (as discussed above) or £18 per annum. An ordinary labourer got £12, a bailiff on a country estate £20. In the 1850's an Anglican parson got £140 a year, even the Governor of the Bank of England received £400 p.a. Also, not quite on topic, but extra rewards in 1845 for retired naval captains on half pay were discussed in parliament here. MinorProphet (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Civil list pensions went (later than the Napoleonic period) to people like Matthew Arnold for services to poetry, or Emma Albani, the singer. W. B. Yeats got one too. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)