It can only be due to the unfathomable level of biblical illiteracy that Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, et al are seen by so many as Bible expositors and, as it were, the infallible interpreters.
Well in keeping with defining “atheism” as anti-theism Christopher Hitchens—who fancies himself to be an “anti-theist”—proposes the new commandments.
In reality, he is the latest in a long line of atheists who have done likewise. For example, Richard Dawkins proposed his New Ten Commandments (of which he lists fifteen) which he, in turn, merely copied and pasted from some random website (see Ecce Homo’s Commandments).
Indeed, this atheist preoccupation seems to imply at least two things: 1) The desire of the atheist to not merely be rid of God but to set themselves up in God’s vacated seat.
2) The atheist inability to provide an absolute moral standard from scratch.
As for 1) this is part of satanic and self-deception and as for 2) this is indicative of their constant insistence that the need not provide any sort of systematized morality but can merely build upon the shattered remains of the toppled Judeo-Christian morality. It is from the remains that they borrow things such as human value as they borrow from Judeo-Christian morality everything but that which gives it, and would give them, the ultimate premise—God Himself. They seek to replace Judeo-Christian morality with their own much like Indiana Jones sought to replace a gold statue with a bag of sand.
Of course, anyone at all can list their personal preferences and claim that these are the new commandments. This is not the point. The point is that none of these can provide for morals as consisting of 1) principles 2) imperatives and 3) accountability. They only thing that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al provide is dogmatheistic assertions.
Now, to Christopher Hitchens’ article, “The New Commandments,” Vanity Fair, April 2010.
He notes,
There is in fact a good biblical precedent for doing just that, since the giving of the divine Law by Moses appears in three or four wildly different scriptural versions. (When you hear people demanding that the Ten Commandments be displayed in courtrooms and schoolrooms, always be sure to ask which set. It works every time.)
He provides evidence for this as follows:
The first and most famous set comes in Exodus 20 but ends with Moses himself smashing the supposedly most sacred artifacts ever known to man: the original, God-dictated panels of Holy Writ. The second edition occurs in Exodus 34, where new but completely different tablets are presented after some heavenly re-write session and are for the first time called “the ten commandments.” In the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses once more calls his audience together and recites the original Sinai speech with one highly significant alteration (the Sabbath commandment’s justifications in each differ greatly). But plainly discontented with the effect of this, he musters the flock again 22 chapters further on, as the river Jordan is coming into view, and gives an additional set of orders—chiefly terse curses—which are also to be inscribed in stone.
We should be very pleased that personages such as Christopher Hitchens have come along since, apparently, no one in the past few millennia noticed this.
Firstly, let us note something which is, hopefully, obvious: how do we know that these events took place or, rather—playing Hitchens’ advocate—how are we aware of these stories? Because they are recorded in the Bible where they have been for millennia. They were not discovered via various archeological finds which then called the biblical record into question but it is the Bible itself that relates them to us.
Exodus 20—Moses received the following commandments but these are not written in stone by God and so, Moses did not smash them: The premise is based on the fact that God liberated the Israelites from centuries of slavery in Egypt which is why they are not to worship other gods and thus, are not to make idols. They are not to take the name of the LORD in vain. They are to keep the Sabbath. They are to honor their parents. They are not to murder. They are not to commit adultery. They are not to steal. They are not to bear false witness.
They are not to covet.
Exodus 31:18—“He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.”
It is in Exodus ch. 32 that the people worship an idol. In v. 16 we find that “the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets” and that “Moses’ anger became hot, and he cast the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain.” Perhaps Moses became unduly angry (as he did on occasion) or perhaps his action was parabolic of the people smashing God’s commandments by worshipping an idol.
Having issued commandments that were, in various ways, broken; God now has Moses who, keep in mind; was their leader, carve the stones. But where are the supposed two sets of commandments given?
In Exodus 20 we have the commandments given and now in Exodus 34 these are reiterated and also others are commanded. Note that in v. 1 God tells Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke” note that God seems to have noticed the same thing that Christopher Hitchens noticed millennia later. The tablets were to contain the same commandments as in Exodus 20. It seems that Christopher Hitchens, et al become confused by the fact that directly following this, God offers more and later more guidance as, keep in mind the historical context, He was literally building up a nation from the ground up. Indeed, this was a nation of people who had just been freed from the physical, emotional and psychological enslavement; they were institutionalized. Thus, we see how God builds them up from the premise of the basic and first Ten Commandments to those others which follow; the ritual laws, etc. Thus, in Exodus 34 we find that the commandments of Exodus 20 as written upon the stones and then the following are commanded as well: There is a reference to God’s ability to “do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation” such as had occurred during the Exodus. They are not to make idols. They were to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt. “All that open the womb are Mine, and every male firstborn among your livestock” are dedicated to the LORD and “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” via an animal (this places the incident on Jephthah and his daughter into context, see here). They were to keep the Sabbath. They were to observe the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Ingathering. “Three times in the year all your men shall appear before the Lord.” They are not to “offer the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, nor shall the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover be left until morning” (the Feast of the Passover had been commanded in Exodus 12).
“The first of the firstfruits of your land you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
Thus, there is only one set of “Ten Commandments” or one “Decalogue” which were followed by other commandments which, in total, number 613 (it may be of interest to dispel with a common misconception by considering that A Jew Never Had to Keep 613 Commandments). In fact, further context which dispels Hitchens’ pretext is that after stating that after God states in Exodus 34:1 that the commandments upon the stones will be the same as in Exodus 20 He states in v. 10 “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people…” and it is from this that comes the further commandments: the text is alerting us to the difference between the two—there is simply no indication that the further commands were written upon stone.
If it truly “works every time” to ask which set of Ten Commandments is to be displayed in courtrooms and schoolrooms then this is further evidence of an unfathomable level of biblical illiteracy by believers and unbelievers alike.
Deuteronomy 5—Christopher Hitchens rightly notes that in this case “Moses once more calls his audience together and recites the original Sinai speech” as a reiteration but we are told that it contains “one highly significant alteration (the Sabbath commandment’s justifications in each differ greatly).”
Exodus 20:8-11 reads:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
You gotta love a God who commands you to rest. Note the beautiful compassion and equality: you are not to work, your children are not to work, your servants are not to work (both male and female), your animals are not to work, even Gentiles are not to work (so much for the Shabbos Goy). Here the premise is that “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (this is, by the way, is a scientific prediction of the First Law of Thermodynamics, see
The First Commandment of Thermodynamics).
Now, let us consider Deuteronomy 5 where the “highly significant alteration” is found in the form of “the Sabbath commandment’s justifications” being “greatly” different. Note that Christopher Hitchens does not bother pointing out what the alteration, the difference is; he merely asserts it, perhaps, hopes that a low level of biblical illiteracy coupled with apathy will cause one to take his word of it.
The fact is that the commandment does not change; Hitchens is not claiming that it does but this is what he is supposed to be proving. Furthermore, the justification does not change: the Sabbath commandment is reiterated without mentioning the Exodus 20 premise. Rather, Moses offer the Exodus 20 description of the compassion and equality of the commandment and then also states v. 14, “And” get it? “And,” “also,” “furthermore,” “moreover,” do we need more synonyms to make the point? “And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.”
Do you discern why historical and cultural context is just as significant as grammatical context? God gave you a day of rest (you and yours, male and female, Jew and Gentile, etc.) “And remember that you were a slave” which was a time when you did not rest “therefore” now that you are free “the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.” This is not a different justification but a reminder of God’s compassion.
As for Deuteronomy 27—it is as if Hitchens is attempting to plump up his point by simply throwing in irrelevant points. Indeed, Moses musters the flock again in order to offer further direction and these are “also to be inscribed in stone.” No indication, neither from the Bible nor from Hitchens, that these are replacements or anything of the sort; these are merely further commandments.
Thus, the Bible presents the original Ten Commandments that were followed by others—nothing less and nothing more. There is simply no indication whatsoever that “the giving of the divine Law by Moses appears in three or four wildly different scriptural versions” as the supposed “versions” are actually different occasions wherein different incidents are being recalled.