Should skeptics celebrate Hanukkah? We are all familiar with the story of the menorah, and the pure olive oil which lasted for eight days. And while much focus is put on the "miracle of lights" the miracle isn't as important as the Judean victory. The celebration of Hanukkah is really about the defeat of the Hellenists (or Greeks) and the reestablishment of Jewish law in Israel. The Maccabees were victorious over Antiochus' attempt to spread Western culture and his banning of religious practices. In essence, Hanukkah is the victory of the religious over the secular.
I'm fairly certain that the wide-spread celebration of Hanukkah by orthodox and non-orthodox Jews has a lot to do with Christmas. (Look at Purim for comparison.) But essentially Hanukkah is a celebration of being frummie. That said, if you are a skeptic or orthorpax, why do you celebrate Hanukkah?
33 comments:
Why would you not want to celebrate Chanuka even as a skeptic ? It's easy compared to other Chagim and it's cheerful. What, you would rather celebrate Tisha Baav? Go with the flow be Fralech, be cheerful. We Jews have enough other things to worry about........Avi
Skeptics should mourn Hannukah. The Greek should have won and enlightened the Jews, sparing them 2,000 years of exile and persecution.
"In essence, Hanukkah is the victory of the religious over the secular."
No, no, no. The Hellenists were NOT secular. They had their religion. Remember the bit about putting idols in the beis hamikdash? Chanukah was a battle between two religions, not between religious and secular.
What's funny is that, from my understanding, rabbinic Judaism wasn't so hot on Chanukkah either.
Because the Maccabees were the ancestors of the Saducees and rabbinic Judaism were the Pharisees, there was a period of time where rabbinic Judaism was kind of iffy on their view of Chanukkah.
From my readings, this is where the story of the oil came from (or came to be so important, depending on if you believe the story is true). Because the rabbis wanted to deemphasize the miracle of the victory, since it was a Saducee victory, they emphasized the significance of the oil.
This is also probably why the Books of the Maccabees were left out of our Tanach.
That aside, I do celebrate Chanukkah for the same reason I celebrate other Jewish holidays - it's a beautiful holiday, it's part of my heritage, and I enjoy it, so (even if the theological message doesn't line up exactly with what I believe), I don't see why not.
Chanukah is a holiday for two reasons:
1. It is a celebration of the military victories of the Macabees over the Greeks and Romans.
2. It is a celebration of a miracle such that a supply of olive oil was to last one day but lasted 7 days. The latter is interpreted as a miracle.
Regarding reason #1, I think it is indeed appropriate to celebrate a military victory of our people over the oppression of another. No problem with that.
Regarding reason #2, this is as absurd as any other rabbinic utterance. First, having read the book of Macabees, wherein the chronicles of the battles in question are to be found, THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE MIRACLE OF LIGHTS! It is interesting: the Macabees were participants in the battles, went into the Beth Hamighdash, saw and experienced the whole thing, wrote about it in great detail, and somehow did not mention the miracle AT ALL!
The only mention of such a miracle is in the Talmud, written hundreds of years later, where it is briefly mentioned.
The whole miracle thing, therefore, at best, is suspect.
But, be that as it may, suppose the miracle did occur. The issues are as follows:
There is an epic battle where lots of people, Jews and non-Jews alike, died. Imagine dead bodies everywhere, the Beth hamighdash is desecrated, Pigs' carcasses are strewn about in the holiest place, and what does god do? He makes a candle last longer than it is supposed to!!!! So? What is the big deal? Where is the tragedy if the candles had briefly flickered out? There are the bodies of thousands of Jewish children on the floor, and somehow a fucking candle flickering is such a big deal?
Amazing how god takes the time to perform such an insignificant miracle. This is the best he can do?
If you want to celebrate Hanukah as the commemoration of the Jews standing up for themselves, fine. If you celebrate Hanukah because of a meaningless 'miracle', then you are stupid!
>I'm fairly certain that the wide-spread celebration of Hanukkah by orthodox and non-orthodox Jews has a lot to do with Christmas.
Huh?
LNM,
Chanukah is about Jewish liberty and expression from under the persecution of the Seleucids. It's also about the fight against assimilation.
Antiochus was hardly the benevolent force attempting to "spread Western culture" as you are representing him to be. He waged war on Jerusalem, killed and tortured Jews and attempted to destroy the spiritual existence of the nation. Revolt was not inappropriate.
For the record too, the 8 days of Chanukah is derived from the 8-day holiday of Succos + Shmini Atzeret, which the Maccabees couldn't celebrate properly because they were at battle and the Temple impure. So when they had a chance, they rededicated the Temple and celebrated "Succos" in Kislev. This explanation is found in the Book of Maccabees 2.
2 Maccabees, 10:
1 Now Maccabeus and his company, the Lord guiding them, recovered the temple and the city:
2 But the altars which the heathen had built in the open street, and also the chapels, they pulled down.
3 And having cleansed the temple they made another altar, and striking stones they took fire out of them, and offered a sacrifice after two years, and set forth incense, and lights, and shewbread.
4 When that was done, they fell flat down, and besought the Lord that they might come no more into such troubles; but if they sinned any more against him, that he himself would chasten them with mercy, and that they might not be delivered unto the blasphemous and barbarous nations.
5 Now upon the same day that the strangers profaned the temple, on the very same day it was cleansed again, even the five and twentieth day of the same month, which is Casleu.
6 And they kept the eight days with gladness, as in the feast of the tabernacles, remembering that not long afore they had held the feast of the tabernacles, when as they wandered in the mountains and dens like beasts.
7 Therefore they bare branches, and fair boughs, and palms also, and sang psalms unto him that had given them good success in cleansing his place.
8 They ordained also by a common statute and decree, That every year those days should be kept of the whole nation of the Jews.
9 And this was the end of Antiochus, called Epiphanes.
It is always my point at this time of year that although Chanukah has been perhaps falsely elevated to Christmas-status, it is good holiday to elevate for American Jews.
I say this because the holiday celebrates the strength of Jewish culture in the face of assimilationists. That is a powerful message for Jews in America.
"I say this because the holiday celebrates the strength of Jewish culture in the face of assimilationists."
Indeed, which is the reason for the great irony in the Chrismasization of the holiday.
I just think the candles are pretty. (And I've always celebrated Chanukah. I can't imagine not celebrating it.)
"Because the rabbis wanted to deemphasize the miracle of the victory, since it was a Saducee victory, they emphasized the significance of the oil."
It was everybody's victory but the fact is that after the generation of the Maccabees brothers the dynasty was ruled consistently by Sadducees until Queen Shlomis ruled and then after she died her two sons fought over the throne. The Pharisees though ostensibly represented by one side of the conflict were not happy with either brother and indeed the conflict led to Roman intervention. The golden memory of the Hasmonians had dimmed.
"There is an epic battle where lots of people, Jews and non-Jews alike, died. Imagine dead bodies everywhere, the Beth HaMikdash is desecrated, Pigs' carcasses are strewn about in the holiest place, and what does god do? He makes a candle last longer than it is supposed to!!!! So? What is the big deal? Where is the tragedy if the candles had briefly flickered out? There are the bodies of thousands of Jewish children on the floor, and somehow a fucking candle flickering is such a big deal?"
That's a problem with militant skeptics. They can't see beyond the literal. What do you think was the reason the miracle was emphasized at all. The Rabbis did not want the military victory of the Hasmonians to be the legacy of Chanuka and indeed the war for independence continued beyond the Chanuka celebration. The Rabbis wanted peace to practice Judaism to be the emphasis of the holiday.
> Antiochus was hardly the benevolent force attempting to "spread Western culture" as you are representing him to be.
You're exaggerating. I didn't say anything about a "benevolent force."
LNM,
"You're exaggerating. I didn't say anything about a "benevolent force.""
Obviously not, that was my term. But your post makes it sound like he was trying to do good but was misunderstood and not the persecuting tyrant that he was. As if his rule had some redeeming features. It did not.
Orthoprax,
> your post makes it sound like he was trying to do good
No, it doesn't. That's what you read into it. I don't think any and all "attempt[s] to spread Western culture" are necessarily good. I'm against using force to impose Western values.
My post questions if skeptics should celebrate the victory of the religious over the secular, not if we should lament the fall of a tyrant.
"My post questions if skeptics should celebrate the victory of the religious over the secular, not if we should lament the fall of a tyrant."
Secular Jews fighting on the side of a tyrant is not who you should be identifying with.
LNM,
"No, it doesn't. That's what you read into it. I don't think any and all "attempt[s] to spread Western culture" are necessarily good. I'm against using force to impose Western values."
Great. So why didn't you say he was viciously forcing Hellenism on the Jews rather than "attempt[ing] to spread Western culture" which sounds almost noble?
Personally, I think it's great to spread Western values to the rest of the world. Democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, tolerance, due process - this is all great stuff. But that's not what Antiochus was about.
>"My post questions if skeptics should celebrate the victory of the religious over the secular.
They were not secular. It was one religion fighting another religion
"Skeptics should mourn Hannukah. The Greek should have won and enlightened the Jews, sparing them 2,000 years of exile and persecution"
Ultimately the Greeks did win. Look at culture today and most Jews.
>It is interesting: the Macabees were participants in the battles, went into the Beth Hamighdash, saw and experienced the whole thing, wrote about it in great detail, and somehow did not mention the miracle AT ALL!
The author of 2 maccabees is unknown and was written much later. 1 maccabees may have been written closer to the events, but that is still not for sure.
Orthoprax,
> Great. So why didn't you say he was viciously forcing Hellenism on the Jews rather than "attempt[ing] to spread Western culture" which sounds almost noble?
Because my post is about the winners of the war and their institution of religious values. Again, why do you assume spreading Western culture is automatically a "noble" thing?
Holy Hyrax
> They were not secular. It was one religion fighting another religion
It would be fair to say that the Hellenists were not secular in the 2007 sense but I wouldn't call it a religion.
"DrJ said...
"Skeptics should mourn Hannukah. The Greek should have won and enlightened the Jews, sparing them 2,000 years of exile and persecution"
Ultimately the Greeks did win. Look at culture today and most Jews."
Not quite. Genesis Chapter 27:22 And Jacob went near to Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
Skeptics should celebrate Darwin's Birthday and leave other holidays to those who believe in them.
http://jamiestevenwhite.tripod.com/Jew_Song.htm
this say it all.I'm a Jew a lonely Jew, I can't be merry, cause I'm Hebrew......
>It would be fair to say that the Hellenists were not secular in the 2007 sense but I wouldn't call it a religion.
Why not? Because they didn't put straps on themselves, or pray amidah?
What about the statues they put up and convert the temple to their belief in zeus?
Why does that not count as a religion?
> What about the statues they put up and convert the temple to their belief in zeus? Why does that not count as a religion?
To what extent the Hellenists were religious is up for debate, I'll give you that. But most agree that Antiochus' goal was to destroy the Jewish faith, not necessarily to impose his own in its place. That's why calling Hanukka "one religion fighting another religion" is inaccurate. It was an empire fighting a religion.
"But most agree that Antiochus' goal was to destroy the Jewish faith, not necessarily to impose his own in its place. That's why calling Hanukka "one religion fighting another religion" is inaccurate. It was an empire fighting a religion."
That alone should be enough. In any event he demanded to be worshipped as a god.
but it was not secularism. They WERE impossing their religion down the Jews throats.
HH,
> but it was not secularism. They WERE impossing their religion down the Jews throats.
They weren't imposing a religion. They were imposing an end to Jewish religion.
The Seleucid Empire (Hellenists) frowned on sacrifice and the idea that man has a special relationship with god. The idols in the Bais HaMikdosh and the slaughtered pig were done to defile the temple, not as part of some Hellenistic ritual. They followed Plato and Aristotle the great rational thinkers of their time. Some may have believed in Zeus and the other Greek gods but those religions were dying out under the empire, not being forced upon their subjects.
The Seleucid Empire (Hellenists) frowned on sacrifice and the idea that man has a special relationship with god. The idols in the Bais HaMikdosh and the slaughtered pig were done to defile the temple, not as part of some Hellenistic ritual. They followed Plato and Aristotle the great rational thinkers of their time. Some may have believed in Zeus and the other Greek gods but those religions were dying out under the empire, not being forced upon their subjects.
Where did you get all that revisionist nonsense? They were pagans passing down Zues for a several centuries to be adopted by the Romans. Antiochus called himself the incarnation of Zeus and demanded worship of himself.
You're just to afraid to identify with your own people. Go have some beer and pretzels, watch a stupid ball game and celebrate Christmas already.
Raban Gamliel said;
"That's a problem with militant skeptics. They can't see beyond the literal. What do you think was the reason the miracle was emphasized at all. The Rabbis did not want the military victory of the Hasmonians to be the legacy of Chanuka and indeed the war for independence continued beyond the Chanuka celebration. The Rabbis wanted peace to practice Judaism to be the emphasis of the holiday."
1. Why do you brand me a 'militant'?
2. I understand the motivation behind the rabbis' lies. I am not stupid. What I am simply pointing out is that THE RABBIS LIED! They inserted a religious event when the event never occured. Yes, perhaps they had their motivations, but frankly, they can shove their motivations. The point is that they lied. If they lied with this holiday, then who is to say that they don't often lie when convenient? After all, they say stuff like this and that miracle occured and that we have to take their word for it. No, we do not!
"2. I understand the motivation behind the rabbis' lies. I am not stupid. What I am simply pointing out is that THE RABBIS LIED! They inserted a religious event when the event never occured. Yes, perhaps they had their motivations, but frankly, they can shove their motivations. The point is that they lied. If they lied with this holiday, then who is to say that they don't often lie when convenient? After all, they say stuff like this and that miracle occured and that we have to take their word for it. No, we do not!"
Lied? They didn't lie. If it's a legend, a legend is not a lie. You are presenting a naive, literalist choice. They weren't going to tell you they ate cornflakes if they ate rice crispies. You're being crude. And you wonder why I call you a militant skeptic.
Post a Comment