I’ve found that in the course of my critiques of books by atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, that it is actually quite invigorating exercise, albeit in a chaotic way. It is, I would assume, much the same feeling if one were engaged in a formal debate: most of your time doesn’t involve giving a fully-articulate point-by-point argument of your view (although you do that at the beginning), but rather engaging in a back and forth type of free for all, where you have to think on your feet and improvise your answers to address anything your opponent brings up.
For example, in my last post, in response to Harris’ distortions regarding the accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus, I ended up providing a brief overview of how Matthew and Luke actually use their infancy narrative to make a theological/political claim about the identity of Jesus. And so in that respect, the distorted claims of skeptics like Harris actually act like a foil in which one can further articulate and clarify what the truth is regarding a Christian claim or a biblical passage.
Harris, the Wanna Be Biblical Scholar
So let’s take as a case in point, Harris’ attempt at being a biblical scholar. In his discussion about Jesus, Harris says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever, apart from the tendentious writings of the later church, that Jesus ever conceived of himself as anything other than a Jew among Jews, seeking the fulfillment of Judaism—and, likely, the return of Jewish sovereignty in a Roman world. As many authors have observed, the numerous strands of Hebrew prophecy that were made to coincide with Jesus’ ministry betray the apologetics, and often poor scholarship, of the gospel writers” (94).
He then adds:
“We should note that the emphasis on miracles in the New Testament, along with the attempts to make the life of Jesus to conform to Old Testament prophecy, reveal the first Christians’ commitment, however faltering, to making their faith seem rational” (95).
First off, the “tendentious writings of the later church” to which Harris is referring is the New Testament: Paul’s letters were written during the 50s-60s AD, Mark was written probably in the 60’s, Matthew and Luke were probably in the 70s, and John was around 90 AD. Far from being the writings of the “later church,” the New Testament contains the earliest writings of the early church.
Secondly, Harris’ claim that Jesus was just a regular Jew who hoped for the return of Jewish sovereignty is based on nothing—literally. There are no writings that suggest this, and the earliest writings we do have (i.e. the New Testament) show just the opposite: that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but also a lot more…and no one saw it coming. The New Testament, therefore, is bearing witness that even Jesus’ original followers were surprised at what transpired.
Thirdly, in response to Harris’ claim that the New Testament tried to “make the life of Jesus conform to Old Testament prophecy,” Harris simply misunderstands the New Testament use of the Old Testament. His assumption is that the New Testament writers cherry-picked various Old Testament prophecies, claimed they were “predictions” of Jesus, and then claimed, after the fact, that those predictions came true in the life of Jesus. Well, that’s not the biblical understanding of prophecy, and it’s not how the New Testament writers used the Old Testament.
Side Note: Quick Bible Study on Prophecy
Simply put, the New Testament writers were telling the story of Jesus against the backdrop of the story of Israel. As we saw in my last post regarding Isaiah 7:14, Matthew was not claiming that Isaiah 7:14 was a “prediction” of a future virgin birth, 700 years later. He was taking that event in the life of ancient Judah, namely the birth of Hezekiah and Isaiah’s prophecies at that time, and drawing a typological parallel to the life of Jesus. He was in effect saying, “Jesus is like Hezekiah, but bigger. God worked through faithful king Hezekiah to save Judah; but now God is working through faithful king Jesus to save the world.
For that matter, the very reason why the Jews kept the prophecies of Isaiah (as well as the other Old Testament prophets) was because they had actually come true at that time, and thus prophets like Isaiah was vindicated as a true prophet of YHWH. That’s why we have the book of Jeremiah, as opposed to the book of Hannaniah: Hannaniah’s prophecy about how Judah would defeat Babylon was proven wrong, so they destroyed his writings; Jeremiah’s prophecy about how Babylon would destroy Judah, however, came true, and so they preserved his writings.
If Isaiah 7:14 was simply a “prediction” of a future virgin birth that didn’t come true until 700 years later, the Jews would not have preserved it in the first place, for it would not have come true back around the time Isaiah prophesied. There had to have been an original fulfillment of it (i.e. the birth of Hezekiah and the subsequent salvation of Judah because of his faithfulness to YHWH) in order for them to have kept Isaiah’s prophecies. Once that was established, the New Testaments thus make appeals to that proven prophecy, and thus re-tell it and apply it to Jesus.
Therefore, when Harris says the New Testament writers simply picked random Old Testament prophecies in an attempt to make their faith appear “rational,” he has no idea what he’s talking about: they weren’t treating Old Testament prophecies as far-off predictions only coming true with Jesus; and if they did try to treat them as nothing more than that, they would have been seen as irrational, because the Jews of the time knew what those prophecies were originally about.
Now yes, the New Testament writers were showing parallels, but they weren’t treating the Old Testament prophecies as predictions. And by doing so, they were trying to make the rational case that the Christian proclamation to be rooted in the Old Testament story. But I’m sure Harris didn’t realize this is what they were doing—his assumption was something entirely different.
Finally…Harris’ Irrational Claim about Christian Irrationality
I also find it incredibly ironic that, in the second quote, Harris is actually mocking the New Testament writers for trying to make their faith seem rational. The reason this is ironic is that Harris’ entire book tries to make the claim that “religion” makes no attempts appear logical and rational, and that it simply uses violence, intimidation, and oppression against those who question it. So to be clear, Harris’ book says that Christianity doesn’t even try to be rational, and that it is inherently violent and oppression.
But then, lo and behold, what is he doing here? When confronted with the obvious fact that one of the fundamental reasons the New Testament writers wrote what they wrote was to make the argument that (a) Jesus really was resurrected, (b) he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises and covenants, and (c) the Christian faith is rational—well, that completely contradicts his entire argument. And so, he simply dismisses it. Let’s be clear, though, you can’t say on one hand, “Oh Christianity doesn’t even attempt to give rational explanations for its belief,” and then turn around and say, “Oh look at the stupid way they try to give a rational explanation for its belief!” That is, in and of itself, contradictory and irrational.
Near the end of his book, Harris unleashes his final salvo against Christianity:
“The problem with religion is that it blends this truth [extraordinary experiences are possible] so thoroughly with the venom of unreason. Take Christianity as an example: it is not enough that Jesus was a man who transformed himself to such a degree that the Sermon on the Mount could be his heart’s confession. He also had to be the Son of God, born of a virgin, and destined to return to earth trailing clouds of glory. The effect of such dogma is to place the example of Jesus forever out of reach. His teaching ceases to be a set of empirical claims about the linkage between ethics and spiritual insight and instead becomes a gratuitous, and rather gruesome, fairy tale. According to the dogma of Christianity, becoming just like Jesus is impossible. One can only enumerate one’s sins, believe the unbelievable, and await the end of the world” (204).
This quote clearly demonstrates that Harris thinks the basic message of Christianity is, “You’d better believe some really bizarre things, or you’ll burn in hell.” Such a caricature might be suited for an 8-year old, but it is hardly admirable for an adult like Harris to not even take the time to actually investigate real Church theologians and biblical scholars. To do that, though, would take honest research, and Harris seems content with schoolyard name-calling. Although Harris tries to make the claim that his objections are fundamentally based in logic and scientific reason, an honest and critical reading of his book proves that not to be the case, for his objections are not thought through, well-informed, logical, or rational. They simply display a shocking amount of intellectual laziness.
Simply put, Sam Harris, just as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and young earth creationist Ken Ham, is a biblical literalist who cannot conceive that the Bible uses creative and artistic ways to describe things. For him, if the New Testament says Jesus will come again on the clouds, then it must mean literal clouds, and that’s just a stupid, outrageous fairy tale. He’s too lazy to take the time to realize such a statement is an allusion to the apocalyptic vision of Daniel 7, and it a literary device to describe God’s ultimate victory. Unfortunately, art, literature, creativity and metaphor are lost on biblical literalists. That’s why their own writings are so tedious to read–they’re just so dreadfully unimaginative and pedantic.
