Iskander

Toto

Are you sure?

Hitchens is the product of a good British education. He's way beyond this.

I think you have an agenda here. You want to bring in your own view of a philosophical god. It just doesn't fit this discussion.

bacht

I admit I don't know his work, only his reputation. But arguing against religion is kind of a no-brainer, there's no challenge other than shouting down the know-nothings. Most 14 yr olds can intellectually grasp the arguments for atheism.

The bigger issue is human irrationality, and the institutions we create to legitimize it, whether arising from Neolithic superstitution or post-modern triumphalism. I'm not convinced that we've made much progress in the past 5000 years, but if Hitchens helps to advance the cause of clear thinking and ethical behaviour then more power to him.

Elijah

Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to debate the validity of miracles. I was asking if he understood what he was talking about in regards to what they were rejecting vs. accepting from Greek influence.
Not having looked at it, I think the reason Josephus wouldn’t mention it would be because it would have been antagonizing to the Romans. Wiki gives that as the reason it’s missing entirely from the Mishna.

In 1 Maccabees I think the story is told without the miracle and the order to celebrate it every year is still given. What is being celebrated is the victory over an oppressor, not that some oil lasted longer than expected while they rebuilt an altar. This would be the case with most miracles in the bible, where literal interpretations of miracles aren’t necessary for there to be significance in the narrative being told.

Elijah

Sure about what? If you don’t understand the ideas involved and all you can really do is talk about the improbability of miracles, then you aren’t capable of having a rudimentary religious conversation. It’s just going to be nonsense a kid would talk, except the person doesn’t believe the nonsense. The ideas are easily found in this day and age and require no schooling or expertise; just a desire to understand the ideas in play instead of trying to argue for or against superstitions.
Are you sure? Instead of defending him by showing he understands the ideas in the religion he is discussing, you are trying to defend him by saying, it’s out of his area of expertise.
I want to know if the author you cited understood the philosophical argument since he mentioned Aristotle and Plato in his article. The answer seems to be no. So we can move back to your regularly scheduled postings.

Also, it’s not my view of a philosophical god; it is ancient man’s that needs to be considered when reading these texts. Which the author of the article (like many) fails to consider because of a lack of knowledge on the subject.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Elijah,

No doubt, it is true that Hanukah was originally celebrated as a victory over an oppressor. However, I think Hitchen's point is that the real oppressors were the backwards Maccabean Egyptian Monotheistic Jews. They defeated the more progressive Hellenistic polytheistic Jews.

We have to remember that history is written by the winners, but the winners are not always the more progressive side.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Elijah

I think the progressive side he thinks is being oppressed is materialism, since he mentions Epicurus and Democritus, not polytheism, but not sure. The problem here is that he is ignoring the political context to instead try to judge them for not sharing in his materialist worldview. From the political perspective, the progressive side did win that day, which is why it is remembered. To try and go this is a story of backwards superstitious people rejecting rational thought from their oppressors is a terrible interpretation IMO.

<Trying to think of something to replace "Warmly">,

Elijah

Toto

I think he does understand, but disagrees with your analysis, as do most of us. There's no need to be insulting.

Elijah

I didn't think I was being insulting. What do you think he disagrees with about my analysis?

semiopen

This is an interesting take.

I disagree that Hanukkah is celebrating a military victory. It clearly celebrates the dedication (or re-dedication) of the temple after it had somehow been made unclean by the Seleucids. Although the nature of the impurity is obscure, this is what the holiday is about; a military victory of some sort is implied but secondary.

In BAR Nov/Dec 2008 Hershel Shanks writes in Inscription Reveals Roots of Maccabean Revolt:

One has to smile at the "money belonging to widows and orphans."

Regarding Greek culture and Hitchens, I'm still confused about your point. Hitchens seems basically correct in what he is saying. There is a certain schizophrenia in Jewish thought about the Greeks. One tradition has Alexander coming to Jerusalem (almost certainly false) and being impressed with how cool the Jews are; bizzare branches of this tradition include Aristotle converting to Judaism.

The main military victory seems to have been over liberal Jews in a civil war rather than the Seleucids. In this context a celebration seems outrageous; much like a holiday in the US celebrating the humiliation of the South in the Civil War.