I know that this question's answer seems obvious, that he was a Jew, but there was a recent AMA in /r/Judaism that made me think about this. The AMA was by a member of the remaining Samaritan community in the West Bank, and it interested me enough to look into the topic some more. Which brings me to my question. By the time of Jesus's birth, the remaining Israelites mostly fell into two categories. The Judeans, who lived in the south and are the origin of today's Jews, and the Samaritans in the north. Now, the Bible specifically identifies Jesus as a Jew, and this is seen in several places most notably in the parable of the Good Samaritan where the Samaritans are depicted as an "other". But the problem is that Jesus wasn't from the south, he was from the far north. But he wasn't in Samaria either, he lived all the way in Galilee. I tried to find information on what the cultural identity of the region was, but all I found was mentions of the Galileans being Jews but having some distinct cultural practices. Considering that the word "Jew" is often used retroactively to refer to members of the other tribes of Israel, this doesn't tell much.

So my question is who lived in Galilee at the time of Jesus, and what did they identify as? Where they all Jews from an outsider's perspective? if there were distinct differences, how big were they? And if there were, how likely is it that Jesus would have not been considered a "Jew" by the inhabitants of Judea?

I come from a culture that doesn't really have written recipes. Recipes are passed down orally, so exact measured out recipes are hard to come by. I have started trying to quantify some of my grandmothers recipes and it got me wondering why some people used measuring cups and not others? I have a set of TupperWare measuring cups passed down from my great grandmother, they were really something special but only really used for baking.

The only thing I've ever been able to find is that "Fannie Farmer invented measuring cups".

I'd really love to know just a good history of the measuring cup!

I know that some recipes use measuring standards like "use a #10 can full of water", etc.

When did they become commercially available for purchase? Was it a hard transition (did consumers have to be convinced measured recipes were good?) When did we start valuing precisely measured out recipes over "throw a little bit of x and a little bit of y into the pot" (which is how my family cooks).

Semiautomatic pistols have existed since the early 20th century, but most police carry revolvers in cop shows made before 1980. Why did that change?

In a modern western perspective, the concepts of justice and law seem almost inextricably linked, with major philosophical debate around the exceptional times where they aren't (ie: is civil disobedience in the face of an unjust law acceptable), so it seems unusual to have separate gods for both concepts, especially with a much blurrier line than, say, Ares, god of War (read as: conflict and bloodshed) and Athena, goddess of War (read as: strategy and tactics).

I know there are few surviving mentions of Forseti, let alone myths, but is anything in their society or culture that might give a clue as to this split?

Hello everybody.

I am in the IB and am writing an investigation into the reasons Spain wanted to get gold/riches through Columbus' first journey. I know this is a cliche topic but please bear with me.

I know that the primary motivating factor motivating the expedition was economical, but why did they want the gold? Was is for debt payments, or to fund a new crusade? Did the crown just want to get rich for no reason?

Here is a list of sources I have compiled. Columbus' personal journal, his letter to Isabelle and Ferdinand, the papal bull of 1493, The life of Christopher Columbus (by his son, Admiral of the ocean sea, and Columbus and the quest for Jerusalem.

Do you think these sources would be able to answer the question I have outlines about why the crown wanted the money? Are there any other primary or secondary sources I should take a look at?

Thanks for any help.

Was there a need to reconcile chivalric thought with their Moslem leadership? What kind of relationship would have existed between the Turks and Serbs? Would they have thought Nicopolis a happy Serbian victory, or a inglorious defeat of the Christians by pagans?

Given that these two events shared some of the main actors and took place relatively close to one another (the fall of Granada happened on the same year that Columbus landed in America), I wonder whether both conquests followed similar patterns in areas like the treatment of the conquered population and their languages and religions, the creation of new settlements, the establishment of new institutions, and so on.

If there are differences between the Spanish and Portuguese cases, that would be interesting as well.

I'm trying to find the original Sumerian word for "hunter" (also translated as "trapper" or "stalker") from Tablet I of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Can anyone provide the original transliteration for this word?

I'm planning to write a murder mystery set on a trans-continental train ride. I'm probably going to fudge some details and dates in order to have the story go where I want it to go. However, I do have some questions. What was eating and drinking on trains like in the 1850s. Did people bring their own food, or did they get some at restaurants nearby, or was some provided by the train? How often would the train stop on rides of three or more weeks? When and where would the passengers use the restrooms? Was segregation common on train rides before the Civil War? I'm sorry if this is a lot of questions, I'm just looking for some information to fill out the world of my novel and guide where I want it to go. Any help or answers would be greatly appreciated.

What are all theories on how the library of Alexandria burned down? Do you have any personal favourites or own theories?

Besides power projection, racism, revenge, and all of those other reasons, people always throw around the reason that "Japan would never stop fighting" as a reason to nuke them. What proof was there that Japan wasn't going to surrender and that they were poised to keep fighting? Was there any? Thanks!

The closest examples I can see of the USSR killing off it's own people would be from the population transfers of the 30s and 40s, but I imagine those deaths would be vastly outnumbered by German-inflicted deaths.

Is she wrong? If she's right, what accounted for those deaths.

As far as the pogroms go, I wasn't able to find any references to them in soviet history past 1918. Were there outbreaks of anti-Semitic violence during Stalin's reign, and were they encouraged or aided by the state?

[deleted]

I am a wealthy individual living in Kyoto during the middle of the 16th century. I go to a restaurant (inn? brothel? bar?someplace where I can buy food) and have a meal. What do I use to pay the bill? I have seen a good deal of information about commerce and trade during this era, and the units of wealth dealt with at that level. But what sort of currency did the man on the street use when making modest purchases? I have seen some accounts that seem to suggest that in a city such as Kyoto, Chinese coinage, or locally minted copies of Chinese coins would typically be used. Other accounts seem to indicate that Chinese coinage was not widely available and was mostly held by international traders and money lenders. Perhaps I'm blinded by modern convention, but it is difficult for me to envision an urban culture that did not have some sort of low-denomination currency in circulation. What would have been in use here?

I suppose I’m asking about early Judaism and Zoroastrianism, but I’m curious as to how these monotheistic religions, when they first began to develop, addressed the pantheons of gods worshiped. Did they outright deny them in the very beginning? Or was it a slow and steady rejection of multiple gods, given how widespread and normal polytheism was during those times.

I was reading the translation of a letter written by William Wallace himself and I was absolutely shocked to see that it ended saying "on the 11th day of October in the year of grace one thousand two hundred and ninety seven." I didn't expect this form of writing dates to be so old. I thought this way of writing dates didn't appear until the 16th or 17th century. And also I can remember the Arnolfini Portrait includes the year when it was done (1434) as part of the work.

I have read the Calendars pages in many Medieval manuscripts and as far as I know (or thought I knew) they located dates very differently so stumbling upon this "October 11th, 1297" is so mind boggling. Maybe the translators wanted to put the exact date to which it would correspond currently?

But if the original letter of Wallace really said "1297" why do we say that the letter was written in 1297, wouldn't the correction from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar make it a different year in the current Gregorian Calendar (not 1297 but close)? Same question goes for the Arnolfini Portrait. Maybe my understanding about these two calendars and its usage is very wrong.

Sorry for long explanation and Google couldn't help either, they just talk ambiguously about the usage of A.D but I want concrete examples.