ProfessorPlum
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-09-09 03:00 PM
Original message |
A Christmas Bonus: Christopher Hitchens' analysis of the Nativity Story |
|
and the historicity of Jesus. Hilarious and piercing analysis.
|
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-09-09 03:11 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Stupid, hysterical women. Nice one. Does not add to the credibility of his words... nt |
ProfessorPlum
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-09-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. He is mocking the ancient view of women in bronze age Palestine |
|
his words at that point are sarcastic.
|
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-09-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
ProfessorPlum
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-09-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Hmmm. Sarcasm loses its punch when it has to be explained |
|
but I'll try. He is deliberately using the term "hysterical" in all of its uterine precedent here, to give you a feeling that in the culture of the time (and in many modern Muslim cultures, as he gets a dig in), the testimony of women would have been insufficient. If you are going to make a story like this up out of whole cloth, he implies, why not put the words of the resurrection into the mouths of more credible - meaning more credible at the time - witnesses. Such as a male leader of the Jewish community, or someone with some real power. To record the most incredible claim of the faith through what would have been - again, at the time - dismissible witnesses indicates that something remains there of historical importance or salience.
Hitch is many things - polemical, inebriated, a dirty debate fighter, and a deliberate contrarian with whom I don't always agree - but he is not usually a misogynist (see his weird diatribe on whether women can be funny for an exception). And the context of this clip is a debate about the existence of God with Dinesh D'Sousa. He would have kept any such glaringly ugly sentiments out of his own presentation at this wrapping up point - to do so (even if he actually felt that way) would be to unnecessarily alienate half of his audience. He uses them here in the context of defining just how un-credible female witnesses would have been viewed at the time of the writing of the gospels.
Does that make sense? Listen to it again, in the context of coming from a seasoned debater.
|
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-10-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Yes, I got it now. Thanks. nt |
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-10-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. And yet, the fact that they did use the testimony of women |
|
indicates to me that the story is true. Here is how: If the whole thing about a missing body is fabricated, wouldn't it be easier and "more convincing" to make up a testimony of a few men instead of women? Yet they did use women. One reason could have been that this was indeed true and they felt compelled to report it as such. Who in his right mind would fabricate something so important and use a handful of women as proof if it weren't true in the first place?
|
ProfessorPlum
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-10-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. That's CH's argument. He sees that as lending a kernel of truth |
Ozymanithrax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-09-09 03:34 PM
Response to Original message |
3. At the time Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth would have lived, the inhabitants of |
|
the Roman province of Iudaea would have been deluded Iron Age people.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 11:56 PM
Response to Original message |