Not looking for a debate, just curious: Why do people say that there was enough oil for the lamp after the 7th or 8th day? I mean, disregarding somebody’s belief in regard to miracles, is there some new reason to believe that there was enough oil, or is it just a new endorsement of believing that there wasn’t a miracle?
thanks,
hh
The idea was that that was the miracle. Going into the event, there was only enough oil to light the lamp for the first day, but through a miracle, that oil was enough to keep the lamp lit for the eight days.
uh… Are you talking about the minor Jewish holiday of Channukah? I think you are confused about what the miracle was.
There was only enough oil for one day, but it burned for 8 days, until a fresh supply was obtained, so that the eternal flame in the sanctuary was not extinguished.
right, I knew it was supply related.
But, more to the point, way back when, nobody would ever come right out and say that there was a miscalculation and there WAS plenty of oil.
Nowadays, however, people are saying, more frequently than I consider ‘normal’, that there was oil aplenty, and there was definitely, not a miracle.
So, my question is, is there some new info that came to light, e.g., some primary source talking about the 20 qts of oil in the temple, or have the ones that disbelieve in the miracle just decided to be less accomodating?
Thanks,
hh
Who is saying this exactly?
Sounds like pretty standard stuff; like Mary was knocked up by Joseph, but claimed divine intervention so her father wouldn’t have her stoned to death. There’s a “rational” explanation for almost every “miracle” described in the bible.
Do they, like you just did, involve making stuff up as well?
Well, good question.
It’s not anybody that I can name, can’t even remember what faces go with the sayings. Just, that, whenever it came up on tv, or school, or work, or whatever, it’s just that somebody, somehow, quite readily slips that in.
And, of course, I think that it’s just their opinion, based on not believing in miracles, but, I wanted to know if there was new info to at least give them some foundation for saying that. I don’t believe that they did, because I think I would have heard of it, but, OTOH, I’d hate to pompously give them a chastizing and then be made a sap of by them whipping out their latest edition of Archaeology weekly.
hh
Uh . . . the subject of this thread can pretty accurately be described as “The History of Thousands of Years of Making Stuff Up,” so I’m not sure what your point is, beyond an excuse to be snarky in a thread that doesn’t call for snark.
Why would her father have stoned her for getting knocked up by Joseph? Under the laws at the time, there would have been nothing at all improper about that. Their relationship is usually translated into English as “engaged”, but it would be more accurate to describe them as being in the process of the first stage of marriage, a process which could legitimately be initiated by the couple having sex.
[Moderating]
Let’s keep to the specific subject of the OP, and not extend this to the general subject of miracles.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I heard a rabbi say that there is no record of the miracle of the oil till several centuries after the Maccabees and Antiochus did their thing. If it had really happened, you’d think people would have written about it right away. So, at least he and I are no-miracle skeptics.
Even if something like that does happen before your very eyes, whether you automatically assume “miracle” depends on your world view. I’m sure many of us have put two socks in a dryer and had only one come out. When it happens, you just say, “Hm, that’s funny”; you don’t say that God miraculously took the sock to punish you for your sins, even if you do believe in miracles.
The thing is, the story is not based on any “evidence” in the first place. The story appears not in the Bible, but in the Talmud. The story simply asserts that there was only a single container of ritual oil, only enough to keep the flame burning for one day. How much that was exactly is presumably unknown. So it is difficult to see what kind of evidence would refute it.
If miracles don’t occur, then obviously if the flame burned for eight days, then there must actually have been enough oil for it to do so. But there is no independent evidence that there wasn’t enough oil; so no miracle can be verified to have occurred.
Basically, anyone is free to think whatever they want about a hearsay account of an event that supposedly occurred more than 2000 years ago.
Maybe you can Google an eyewitness account.
Most likely, there was enough oil, but the Maccabees claimed otherwise in order to rally their people (this is similar to “The Sun in Splendor” story that Edward IV used on the eve of the battle of Towton*). However, the only account of the event is in the bible, so it’s counted as a miracle.
*Just before the battle, the troops saw three suns in the sky. This was probably a rare meteorological occurrence called a “sundog” or “ice halo”; the weather before the battle was perfect for it to occur. The soldiers when to their leader, Edward to interpret it. He was no fool; he told them it was a sign from God that they would succeed. When they did, he added it to his heraldry (“Made glorious summer by this son/sun of York” (both words are used in various versions) is a pun on that).
What makes this most likely? What seems most likely to me is that there was no oil incident whatsoever. Upon entering the Temple after years of Hellenistic desecration, they unsurprisingly found no ritual oil. Eventually they made some and lit it. Or they found a stash of ritual oil and used it, without fanfare. There wouldn’t have been any question of keeping it continuously lit. Either it had been kept burning with ritual oil during the Hellenist occupation, in which case there would have been a supply of oil, or it hadn’t, in which case it was just a question of how soon in could be started again.
The miracle of the oil is not recorded in the bible, and there’s no reason to think that it was known at the time of the Maccabees.
My take, is that a lamp that has been burning for a really long time is likely to have build up a lot of resin and higher MW molecules that could have burned considerably longer than expected. Throw in some dramatic liberties and you have a miracle. I think one of the best parts of that holiday is that the whole thing is just so damned plausible.
In the case of Hanukkah, it’s possible that the idea of the miracle of the oil was something added by the writers of the Talmud to make Hanukkah religious. Josephus, for instance, talks about the holiday in Antiquities, but for him, it’s not a miraculous one:
So, for Josephus, it’s not the commemoration of a miraculous event, it’s the commemoration of the reclaiming of the temple, and of Jewish identity and Jewish worship.
Likewise, in the book of Maccabees, which tells the story of the revolt against the Greeks:
Again, no miracle there, just the commemoration of the rededication of the temple.
Why? I think the general subject of miracles is what explains the answer to the OP.
There are numerous plausible, mundane explanations for this legend:
There was enough oil the whole time, but the legend was invented later.
Someone found a stash of oil and secretly added it each night when no one was looking.
They calculated wrong - they thought there was not enough but this kind of menorah burned it more slowly.
etc. etc. etc.
The point is that there a bunch of plausible mundane explanations, and one that requires suspension of the laws of physics, and the latter one shouldn’t be accepted without really really really strong evidence for it. Just like all miracles.
Well, I’m not really needing any info on miracles, per se.
What I’m looking for is the reason for the newly acquired confidence/brashness/forwardness in saying that the miracle aspect was decidedly wrong, and that there was enough oil all along. That is a new thing, in my experience, and I was wondering what the stimulus was for this gratuitous casting aside of the miraculous aspect. The ones that comment on the holiday, just seem to throw in 'but there was plenty of oil all along." I heard some of it on tv, can’t remember channel, and it struck me that they usually don’t offend any religious groups, when they can avoid it.
hh