Review of “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”
Part 4, The case of the Neanderthals: Preliminary concerns; Harari's interpretation of Jewish and Christian Scripture and of Christian theology
by Daniel H Chew
Book: Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (London, UK: Penguin Random House, 2011)
Outline:
Specific critiques: History of primeval human development: preliminary concerns
Specific critiques: The problem of induction; Christianity and the Nature of Religion
The case of the Neanderthals: Preliminary concerns
Harari’s speculation concerning the past becomes even more problematic when he moves onto the supposed cousin species of humanity. As defined by Harari, humans are to be defined practically as those of the species Homo Sapiens. All others of the genus Homo are still technically “human beings” (p. 8), but other human species, like Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals), are effectively “an animal from a different species” (p. 19). The “history” portrayed here is of Homo Sapiens either outbreeding or massacring the other Homo species, driving them into oblivion (pp. 19-20).
Again, we have to ask ourselves what the facts are, and what is pure speculation. We know that there are ancient human specimens containing slightly different DNA sequences from most of modern humanity (Neanderthals and Denisovans). We know that there are no humans currently who have those DNA sequences. We also do know that there are fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in the modern human genome. These are the facts; everything else is pure speculation. How do we know that Neanderthals and Denisovans are not extinct splinter groups of humans that are just as capable of all the things modern Sapiens do? We do not. When historians (or scientists) like Harari assert that only Sapiens went through the Cognitive Revolution (with the ability of abstract thought and to create inter-subjective reality), that is speculation; a speculative hypothesis to explain why Homo sapiens are around today and Homo neanderthalensis and Homo denisova are not.)
Harari’s interpretation of Jewish and Christian Scripture and of Christian theology
Before we examine the scientific data more closely, I would like to pivot and show how Harari does not understand Christianity. It is one thing for someone to reject Christianity, but it is another for someone to misrepresent Christianity. We have already seen how Harari misunderstands the Scientific Revolution, and is speculative in his history of primeval human society and “other human species.” With this I hope to fully dispel any notion that Harari is still objective and not in error in his uncritical embrace of liberal modernity. Liberal modernity is the progressive atheist wing of the Enlightenment, and while it partakes of the scientific rigor of the Enlightenment, it persists in obscuring its blind spots on the things that threaten its faith, hiding its unbelief in a façade of false objectivity and neutrality.
Harari misinterprets Scripture. First, he cites Deuteronomy 22:28-9 and claims that it teaches that women are the properties of men and rape is thus considered a property violation (p. 162). Scripture however teaches that Deuteronomy 22:28-9 is done for the protection of women. After a list of scenarios in which women are caught in bed with men (vv. 22-27), the situation is given where the woman is not betrothed to another man, thus she is not married and available. After the rape has occurred, the woman is no more a virgin and the chances of her getting married is rather slim. A woman who is not married is liable to be destitute in a patriarchal society, and therefore the Mosaic Law gave this statute for the provision of the woman, stating that the man is not allowed to divorce her as long as he lives and thus has to provide for her. Deuteronomy 22:28-9 therefore is given for the provision of vulnerable women, and it is reprehensible for Harari to read it as a condoning of rape.
In his chapter on capitalism, Harari misinterprets Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:24 as teaching that “making bundles of money was sinful” (p. 345), misusing Jesus’ words as an example of old-time economics wherein the asset pie is a fixed amount. Matthew 19:24 however has nothing whatsoever to do with making money, but about how rich people value their wealth so much that their attachment to money makes them unable to enter the Kingdom of God. It is not that making bundles of money was sinful, but rather it is one’s heart attitude towards money that is the problem (c.f. Jas. 4:13-16).
On poverty, Harari asserts that Jesus is mistaken in Mark 14:7 when Jesus says that the poor will always be with us, since “poverty is increasingly seen as a technical problem amenable to intervention,” and that “it’s common wisdom that policies based on the latest findings in agronomy, economics, medicine and sociology can eliminate poverty” (p. 296). First of all, it is not true that just because poverty has technical aspects therefore poverty is only a technical problem. If it’s “common wisdom” that poverty can be eliminated, then why hasn’t poverty been eliminated in any country in the world at all? Even the most progressive countries in the world have poor people who live on government handouts. The fact of the matter is that while poverty can be eliminated in theory, sin is present in human society and therefore poverty will never be fully eliminated.
Besides passages of Scripture, Harari also misunderstands some basic Christian teaching. We have already seen how he misunderstands what the authority of Scripture entails (c.f. p. 280). We see likewise the astonishing claim that “the infallible Scriptures had known only Europe, Africa and Asia” (p. 320), a false claim so unbelievable that it is a miracle anyone could ever come up with it. Harari is in error in thinking that the first chapters of Genesis teaches that humans were given “mastery over plants and animals” when they “promise everlasting devotion to the gods” (p. 236), when the first few chapters of Genesis were of man already given mastery over plants and animals and then they sinned against God. The God in the Old Testament was not a god whose “chief interest is in the tiny Jewish nation and in the obscure land of Israel” (p. 242). Rather, he was the Creator God who did focus on the entire world at one time (Genesis 1-11), and then subsequently focused on Israel, but He did thus for the salvation of the whole world (Gen. 12:2; Is. 60:1-3; Rom. 4:13)
Harari fails when he thinks he sees the “inconsistencies” in Christianity. First of all, he thinks Satan can “act independently, fight against the good God, and wreak havoc without God’s permission” (p. 247). But Christianity is not Manicheanism. We see in Job 1-2 how Satan had to get permission even to tempt Job, and that Satan is now on a short lease seeking whom to devour because his time is short (1 Peter 5:8; Rev. 20:2-3). In like manner, God does not need our help to “struggle against the Devil” (p. 248). The struggle against the Devil is fully the call of the Christian, not God’s (c.f. Eph. 6:10-18).