Is Christopher Hitchen a Sadducee?
I am on the whole a big fan of Christopher Hitchens and enjoy his writings even when I disagree with them. However, his recent essay 'Staking a Life' includes an extremely annoying misrepresentation of Scripture, unless of course he is a Sadducee. Now I know this post title may qualify for one of John Rentoul's 'Questions To Which The Answer Is No' series, but it may raise a more important point.
Hitchen's questions why America is alone as a western democracy that still embraces capital punishment, and concludes that it boils down to America's religiosity. In his own words:
"The reason why the United States is alone among comparable countries in its commitment to doing this is that it is the most religious of those countries."On this point I could even agree with him, however, he then goes on to to justify a religious belief in capital punishment since it is prescribed in Scripture. In his own words:
"Once we clear away the brush, then, we can see the crystalline purity of the lex talionis and the principle of an eye for an eye. (You might wish to look up the chapter of Exodus in which that stipulation occurs: it is as close to sheer insane ranting and wicked babble as might well be wished, and features the famous ox-goring and witch-burning code on which, one sometimes fears, too much of humanity has been staked.)"His logic seems to be that since Scripture is crazy, ergo, religious people will uphold that craziness. However, his basis for labelling scripture crazy is based on a rather strange and literal reading, a reading that would satisfy any self respecting Sadducee. He fails to recognise that the Rabbinical tradition has an entirely different interpretation of the passage that underscores the importance of human life and not the opposite. In the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Kama 83b) the reciprocal punishment is intended to mean financial compensation and does not involve retaliation of a physical kind.
For an interesting interpretation of these verses I recommend a short piece by Emmanuel Levinas under the title 'An Eye for an Eye' in Difficult Judaism. Also, I have recently been reading the writings of a little known 20th century thinker Rabbi Avraham Chen who has an even more original approach than Levinas to this idea which I hope to write about in a future post.
Hitchen's is often correct in his portrayal of religiosity, however, his opposition to religion will always be flawed if he only engages with the interpretation of the Sadducees. I am strongly opposed to capital punishment not in spite of my religion but because of it.