The B-I-B-L-E! That’s Not the Book For Christopher Hitchens!

It is now time to analyze Christopher Hitchens’ take on the Bible. It should come as no surprise to find that, although Hitchens’ main argument is “religion” (of any sort) is poisonous, and although he does spend an entire chapter on Islam, the bulk of his criticism is directed at Christianity and the Bible. The “Christianity” he objects to, though, is more often than not that of a small period within the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church had become quite corrupt.

For now, I would like to simply go through a number of Hitchens’ criticisms involving the Bible and comment on where he is just historically wrong, pure and simple.

Hitchens on Noah: A Proper Understanding of “Myth”

Early on, Hitchens discusses Noah’s ark. He states: “However, even the religious myths mention periods of darkness and plague and calamity, when it seemed that nature had turned against human existence. The folk memory, now confirmed by archeology, makes it seem highly probable that huge inundations occurred when the Black Sea and the Mediterranean were formed, and that these forbidding and terrifying events continued to impress the storytellers of Mesopotamia and elsewhere. Every year, Christian fundamentalists renew their expeditions to Mount Ararat in modern Armenia, convinced that one day they will discover the wreckage of Noah’s Ark. This effort is futile and would prove nothing even if it were successful, but if these people should chance to read the reconstructions of what really did happen, they would find themselves confronted with something far more memorable than the banal account of Noah’s flood: a sudden massive wall of dark water roaring across a thickly populated plain” (88).

Hitchens makes the initial speculation that perhaps is not too far from the truth: namely that the “flood story” of Genesis 6-8 was inspired by actual catastrophic flooding in the Ancient Near East. Hitchens falls into the trap, though, that so many “Christian fundamentalists” fall into. He has an incorrect understanding of the definition and role of “myth.” He seems to assume that everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. When I look at the Noah story, I can well appreciate the possibility that it was inspired by actual flooding throughout the Ancient Near East. (As a side note, despite what Ken Ham says, there really is no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood). But whatever the case on that point might be, we are completely missing the point of the story if we think its entire purpose was to “prove a world-wide flood happened.”

Properly speaking, the flood story (as the entirety of Genesis 1-11) is a myth. This is not to be understood as a “false story” or “fairytale.” “Myth” is an actual genre of ancient literature that attempted to speak about the realm of the divine and its relationship to mankind. Among other things, the ancient myth of Gilgamesh ultimately teaches that the flood occurred because people were too loud and this ticked off the gods, so they decided to wipe out mankind. The ultimate point? The gods are vicious, petty, and cruel. This would be an example of a false myth, in that it teaches something wrong about the nature of the gods. The story of Noah, on the other hand, clearly teaches that the reason for the flood was mankind’s sin and oppression. The ultimate point is that the One Creator God is righteous and just, and that He must punish mankind for their sin. This would be an example of a true myth, in that it teaches the truth about the nature of God and the reason for judgment. Whether or not there was a literal world-wide flood is quite secondary to the veracity of the story.

Hitchens on the Creation Account

Hitchens makes a further peculiar observation regarding the creation story. He states: “How can it be proven in one paragraph that this book was written by ignorant men and not by any god? Because man is given ‘dominion’ over all beasts, fowl and fish. But no dinosaurs or plesiosaurs or pterodactyls are specified, because the authors did not know of their existence, let alone of their supposedly special and immediate creation” (90).

First of all, Hitchens’ understanding of the basic doctrine of inspiration is just plain wrong. It does not claim that the Bible was “written by God.” It does not mean that God dictated precisely what he wanted said to the biblical writers. That simply is not the understanding of inspiration by the historic church.

Secondly, if Hitchens simply looks at human history, he should see the obvious: human beings do indeed exercise dominion over animals. We have pets, we collect animals in zoos, and we employ animals in various tasks for our betterment. There are many things in the Bible one could reasonable question, but this is not one of them.

Thirdly, Hitchens’ rationale concerning dinosaurs is deeply flawed as well. His line of his logic is this: since the writers of the Bible were not aware of dinosaurs, and therefore are “ignorant” of their existence, that this somehow makes them “ignorant” of everything, and therefore disqualifies them from saying anything truthful. That is simply nonsensical. Hitchens is basically saying: “Since the writers of the Bible didn’t know about dinosaurs, they are wrong to say that humans have dominion over animals, even though humans do, in fact, have dominion over animals.”

Hitchens on the Ten Commandments

Hitchens also takes the time to criticize the Ten Commandments. He first takes issue with the warnings that state how “the sins of the fathers will be visited on their children even unto the third and fourth generation.” He says, “This negates the moral and reasonable idea that children are innocent of their parents’ offense” (99). What Hitchens fails to understand is how this statement functions. It is not so much God saying, “If you screw up, I’m going to beat your kids and grandkids,” as it is saying, “The sins that you commit will have lasting consequences and will inevitably affect later generations.” For example, if Hitchens becomes abusive to his children, chances are that his children will do the same to their children. The point is clear: the sins of parents do have lasting consequences on their children and grandchildren. What Hitchens criticizes as “barbaric” commandment in the Bible is really just a truthful statement of the lasting consequences of sin.

Hitchens then criticizes the very giving of the laws themselves when he says, “But however little one thinks of the Jewish tradition, it is surely insulting to the people of Moses to imagine that they had come this far under the impression that murder, adultery, theft, and perjury were permissible” (99-100). This is simply the epitome of sophomoric thinking on Hitchens part, as any clear-thinking person can see. Using this logic, Hitch would have us believe that no one in America “knew” that murder was wrong either, until we actually had a law on the books. What he fails to understand is that the “revelation” found in the Torah is not necessarily the specific laws, for many of them were already common throughout the ANE.

Rather, it is found in Exodus 20:2-6: that there is one God, and it was this God who acted within history to redeem the Hebrews out of Egypt. It was because of this act of God on behalf of the Hebrews that the laws that follow have merit. Not only is the basis for those laws is different, but many of the specific laws themselves are radically different than the laws of the ANE, precisely because of that foundational basis of understanding there is one God.

Ironically, though, right after he criticizes the Ten Commandments for “stating the obvious,” Hitchens then criticizes them for not stating enough: “Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide?” (100). Now, let’s be clear about what Hitchens is actually saying here. Essentially, he is saying, “Since the Torah doesn’t address every sin for all time, we should discount the whole thing!” Notice his implication: since the Torah doesn’t specifically address child abuse, rape, slavery, and genocide, then it must endorse those things. Using that logic, I can say, “Hey, since the Torah doesn’t specifically say, “Thou shalt not cheat on your 2015 federal tax forms,” then that must mean I can!” Just because the Torah isn’t all-encompassing with every law for all-time, that doesn’t mean it is not from God.

Conclusion

Hitchens isn’t done with the Bible, and I’m not done with my analysis of him. Come back tomorrow for some truly astoundingly wrong accusations Hitchens levels at the Bible.