I know that there is evidence that shows how the bible has changed over time but I'm having trouble figuring out what the motivations of the scribes doing it was. Are there any passages that show strong signs of a political message being added in? And what was their main goal in doing this? edit: I was asked to narrow it down so I am most interested in the Kingdom of Judea period or the Babylonian Exile era.

[deleted]

I'm in my third year of my undergrad and have started to consider a Master's in History (I'm currently a History minor) after writing an essay on the Holocaust based on oral testimony. I've previously thought about journalism after my undergrad and found the interview aspect of the testimony extremely interesting. I'm not entirely sure that I want to focus on the Holocaust because, only being a Minor and having focused mainly on European History from 1800-1945, there are many gaps in my knowledge that would be applicable to this kind of interviewing process, and that I might be super interested in. That being said, are there any fields of study right now in which interviewing people that lived through or in a specific event or time is a considerable aspect? For example, I've been told to look into recent Canadian-Indigenous history as a good place to start although I don't have too much of an interest in Canadian history. I also realize that there would be a language barrier I'd have to pass for certain fields considering my only language other than English is French which I'm only partially fluent in.

Other than that, I'm also open to suggestions of points in history that may be more obscure or that I may not have considered that I may enjoy.

Thanks for the help!

Circa around the 5th century BC.

I've heard this happened (not from deniers but from mainstream historians who accept that 5-6 million were murdered, etc). Is it true and what was the broader context in which it occurred?

If it happened: Was he acting alone? What were his motives? Did any other senior Nazis figure out what he was doing? Were his attempts to stop the genocide countermanded by other SS officials?

I am curious about how the divided city dealt with a series of tunnels which would have run underneath the wall. How extensive was the network at the time of partition? Was further work carried out by either side during the cold war years?

Was administration of the transit system divided between the two governments? Were some sort of regulated crossings permitted via subway, or were there effectively two distinct systems? Were the connecting tunnels sealed off/guarded? Were people able to use them to sneak across?

Thanks in advance.

I'm writing a contemporary fantasy story where the topic of Japanese clan succession in the modern era is driving the overall narrative. I have some specific questions I can't seem to find the definitive answer to. Forgive me if these have already been answered in another thread or if this the wrong sub to post thees question though I figured modern practices would have some corollary with those of the distant past. Here goes:

1. How exactly is the clan succession determined in normal circumstances?
2. What happens in the event the successor is unnamed by their predecessor?
3. Can there be, or have there been, any female clan leaders?
4. Can a rightfully chosen/determined heir forfeit his succession?
5. Are there any spiritual/ritualistic aspects to a succession ceremony?
6. Does the successor need to renew his/her pact with the ujigami or anything of the sort?
7. Does the ujigami determine if the successor is worthy?
8. Can an outsider (gaijin/non-Japanese) become a Japanese clan leader and if so, what are the requirements or restrictions, if any? 
9. Can anyone just decide to start a clan? What is necessary to do so? How would they determine a ujigami to worship?
10. What are some traditional heirlooms/body mods/etc. that bear proof that an individual is the rightful clan leader? Do these need to be blessed in some way?
11. What conditions could lead a clan to completely die out (no true successor)?

Apologies for the deluge of questions, and thanks in advance!

I know the Bonapartists did get their wish with the Second Empire, but I'm asking both before Napoleon III's accession, and then after his fall but before the death of Louis-Napoleon. What exactly was their appeal? Nostalgia?

What happened in South Africa after the apartheid ended? How did the two black and white communities "deal" with each other? Was there a lot of hate and aggression? What did the government do to mitigate this situation and unify its people? What about other places in the world with similar situations.

To many ailments, mental or physical and especially spiritually, prayer have been a go to "medicine" recommended to people of all stations.

When did the church start trying to evaluate the effectiveness of prayer? How would for example a theological discussion look like between two different bishops having different opinion on how the prayer should be done/how long prayer should be, etc.

And was any such discussion rooted in a lack of result for the patient? For example if prayer was prescribed against back pain, would there be some systematic evaluation if prayer seemed useless at aleveating the ailement?

The search for evaluating prayer and also the search "to perfect prayer" also applies to Battle prayers and all sorts of prayers.

I would imagine a king would want the best prayer/blessing before battle for example.

There are often discussions I see where people are complaining that modern architects are "boring" and "everything looks the same". It got me wondering if 100 years ago, people in neighborhoods complained when a housing developer built all Cape Cods, or a Main Street development looked too much like the others.

Is the current trend only the result of social media discussions? Or, did this always happen?

When it comes to the American Civil War how much of it actually came down to the notion of the south wanted to continue with slavery?

Just saw the movie. It starts with some close quarters streetfighting, most of it fought with bow and arrow. You could almost change the bow and arrows for modern firearms in that scene without changing much else.

Did fighting like that ever occur instead of the usage of swords that you'd expect?

For example, the Romans used the Colosseum as an entertainment place. At which point did they decide to " You know what? We will just abandon this building and not demolish it so people hundreds of years from now could visit it as a tourist destination".

An how did pagan temples (Ancient Egyptian, Hellenic and so) survive? Until this day we see zealots destroying places of worship like how ISIS for example did with many ancient churches and Shia mosques. I doubt the Catholic church for example was more tolerant than people nowadays, or was it?

I'm not saying the Bible is authoritative, I'm saying that it's an important additional source. This is an interesting exercise to contrast with most other regions for which we indeed don't have any written source.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Whenever Napoleon's end-game is brought into question people always give the same and useless answer "conquer the world", "surround France with allies" or even "reform the Roman Empire"; 3 very different and nebulous claims. These claims themselves even if true don't tell us much, I'm looking for something that actually states his plans like "Portugal's king will abdicate to my brother, Russia will cede all lands west of the river Don" and the such. Did he ever state clearly what he would do if he won? If not, would there be any other sources that state what the world would be like, how the politics would be?