The version of the story in 1 Maccabees, on the other hand, states that an eight day celebration of songs and sacrifices was proclaimed upon rededication of the altar, and makes no mention of the miracle of the oil. A number of historians believe that the reason for the eight day celebration was that the first Hanukkah was in effect a belated celebration of the festivals of Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret. During the war the Jews were not able to celebrate Sukkot/Shemini Atzeret properly; the combined festivals also last eight days, and the Sukkot festivities featured the lighting of lamps in the Temple (Suk.v. 2-4). The historian Josephus mentions the eight-day festival and its customs, but does not tell us the origin of the eight day lighting custom. (Wikipedia)

From when I was a child, I vaguely recall an account that depicted the Maccabees trapped in a cave, fleeing the perennial persecution; thus, the light had some life-affirming connotation as well (sadly, God didn't see fit to bestow a similar miracle at Masada, a few centuries later).

Mr. Hitchens changes his political opinions more often than his underwear, and they are often twice as dirty (also see the section below, titled "Use of Alcohol"). He is a 'rabid atheist,' in the sense that he apparently cannot see his way to leave other peoples' toys well enough alone. I'm surprised he's not a High-Street All-Star, considering how he clearly delights in doing little more than piss off as many people as possible. A [supposed] leftist and a Bush-basher, his nearly groundless invective spares no one. Give him time, and I'm sure he'll get around to shooting the Easter Bunny, too.

fnord wrote:

How did this ever see the light of day?  I thought it was forbidden to criticize Judaism, Israel, or Jews in our mainly Jewish owned press.

Well I believe Slate is owned by the Washington Post.  You know, Washington elites and all.

fnord wrote:

How did this ever see the light of day?  I thought it was forbidden to criticize Judaism, Israel, or Jews in our mainly Jewish owned press.

Fnord, he's just another dipshit Brit paid to cheer us into Baghdad.

My guess is any number of Hitchen's ilk are tolerated because they're so easy to dismiss as party hacks and inconsistent substance abusers. 'See? Fair and balanced.'

pALEPHx wrote:

I wouldn't mind his being critical, if he bothered to make consistent sense even half the time. The problem with an author of his, erm...candor is that he's not particularly interested in having people understand him, and so blusters and balderdashes thru whatever is rattling in his febrile skull. People project meaning and gravitas on him because it's sort of like having Pete Doherty teaching geopolitics. Or Ann Coulter giving make-up tips.

Hey, nobody knows how to use accents to hide an adam's apple like Ms. Coulter.