"age of reason" review pt 1 (looong)

Review

THE AGE OF REASON, by Thomas Paine

Part 1, the Old Testament

The Age of Reason was written by Thomas Paine in Luxembourg, about two hundred years ago. It was written in about six hours (according to him) with no bible in front of him. Thomas Paine is quick to assure his readers that he is NOT an atheist, that he DOES believe in a Creator, but the Bible as it has been presented to us by Christianity was suspect at least and completely unbelievable and untrustworthy at best.

Thomas Paine labored under two difficult handicaps that we do not have today. 1) Thomas Paine was burdened, or at least it would appear to be so, with the Bible in English, not the native language in which the Bible was originally written. It will soon be demonstrated, why this might have made a difference to his opinions had Thomas Paine had access to the Bible in its native language. And 2) By far the most knowledge we have had of Bible archeology has been gained in the last forty or fifty years, a full centruay and a half after Thomas Paines essay. I contend that if he had had access to the wealth of knwlege obtained from biblical archeology today, his essays may have turned out differently.

In any case, Thomas Paine begins with the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateauch. He states that he does not bleieve these books were written by Moses, but by someone long after Moses lived. Well, he is probably correct. Nowhere does the Bible SAY Moses was the writer. There is no doubt tho, that Moses is responsible for the collection and keeping of much of what was in the first five books of the bible. These books can stand on their own regardless of the writer is claimed to be.
Thomas Paine takes issue with the fact that the fourth of the ten commandments is different in Exodus chapter : ..< in which that called the fourth commandment is different from the fourth commandment in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. In that of Exodus, the reason given for keeping the seventh day is, because (says the commandment) God made the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh; but in that of Deuteronomy, the reason given is, that it was the day on which the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and therefore, says this commandment, the Lord thy God commanded thee to kee the sabbath-day .>

No it does NOT say that. God only gives the reason for BLESSING and making SACRED the sabbath day in Exodus (this is for himself); later, in Deuteronomy, is the reason given for KEEPING the Sabbath day (That was for the Hebrews).

Paine goes on to claim that the city of Dan was at one time called "Laimish" and therefore the writer of the account of Lot referring to the city as Dan was proof of disengenuity on the part of Bible chronolgers. Aside from the fact that the Bible doesnt say who or when the first five books were written (therefore no disengenuity can be charged let alone be proven) this is what we know today of the city of Dan: The mound of the biblical city of Dan is located at the foot of Mount Hermon in the northeast of the country. The site extends over an area of 200 dunams (50 acres). Today it is one of the most attractive archeological sites in Israel. Every year since 1966, large areas have been excavated; the discoveries are of special importance for understanding the biblical narrative which repeatedly mentions the city of Dan. Therefore, the city of Dan was a real place, thus bolstering the biblical narrative. The word "Laimish" may have been in use by some individuals and "Dan" by others. The name "Dan" certainly existed at that time, and even previously.
Paine complains that the book of Judges is not chronological. No, it appears not to be. It appears to be in three sections, the first being a summary of former histroy, the middle being the accounts of 12 famous Hebrews plus Deborah, and the third and last part being an appendix or reference, or what was left over if you will. Whoever compiled the book did not make a determination of what is important; everything was included. This lends support to the accounts being correctly chronicled, not the opposite view that Paine holds.
Paine goes on to say: "consequently that the book of Genesis, so far from having been written by Moses, could not have been written till the time of Saul at least." This is very likely true; the Bible does not say otherwise.

6) Paine continues: "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women- children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for Yourselves." He states that because this had the appearance of barbarism, God could not have commanded this; therefore the whole account must be untrue and therefore the whole book untrue and therefore the whole Bible untrue.

Whether Paine likes it or not, the account states that the Israelites were to clean out the land and inhabit it. In those days, these inhabitants practiced forms of worship that were health and life-endangering. As far as archeologists have been able to discover, venereal disease (from their sexual practices) other contagious diseases (from their health/sanitation practices) were rampant throughout this entire region. Why preserve anyone alive? As bad as conditions were, God did NOT want the Israelites to commit genocide. Therefore, they were to preserve alive the young virgin girls---these young woman, being virgins would be free of venereal disease. To preserve alive ALL the children would likely have been a terrible drain on the Israelites to feed, cloth and house all these children, in a desert terrain. In any case, the girls would be taken as wives by the Israelites, have children by them, and thus preserve alive their gene pool. Since all of those people are now dead and gone and their former lands are archeological digs, the Israelites having conquered them and taken them in like this is the ONLY hope they had of their race surviving. What a cooincidence. Paine reports: "that the number of women-children consigned to debauchery by the order of Moses was thirty-two thousand". Well, thirty-two thousand young women preserved alive will likely preserve their gene pool YES? This is NOT genocide NO? The Israelite men were ORDERED to take these women as wives and have children by them, and these children were deemed to have the same rights and privileges as full-blooded Israelite children.

Because this sentence is found in the book of Joshua: "Then Joshua wrote these words in the book of Gods law" Paine then goes on to claim that the writer of the book of Joshua claims to be Joshua. No, it says nothing like that. The "book of Gods law" is very likely some other document, and in any case there is no reason to bleeive that the book of gods law and the book of Joshua are one and the same. Thats a big leap in belief that is not necessary to take.
And, as in the past with other books, Paine complains that because the book of Joshua refers to events that taek place after Joshuas death, the book could not have been written by Joshua.but the book nowhere purports to be WRITTEN by Joshua ANYWAY.
Paine complains, and he is not alone in this, that the bible writers state that they had cleaned out the land and taken it, but then again that the children of the land still had control of parts of it. Yes, but we have already seen that the Israelites did NOT practice genocideand in fact were generally forbidden to do so. This means that they always left some inhabitants alive (in some rare cases they killed whole cities, but those were cities in large lands) and these inhabitants intermarried with the Israelites (per Gods command in some cases) and as they had a dual parenatage they could be referred to either as the Israelites or as the (whatever race or nationality their family had been prior to adoption by their Israleite conquerors). This is only one of many plausible explanations.
Paines comments about the book of Ruth are priceless. "an idle, bungling story, foolishly told, nobody knows by whom, about a strolling country-girl creeping slily to bed to her cousin Boaz." Ah yes, but Paine forgets that Ruth is noted as an ancestress to Jesus.
Paine goes on to complain, as he has complained before, that the book of Samuel could not have been written by Samuel, therfore it is without authenticity. This scenario should be familiar by now: "Samuel spoke to the people and wrote it in a book and deposited it before Jehovah" This may or may NOT be what we now know as the book(s) of Samuel. The book of Samuel makes no claim to be written by Samuel.
More of Paines priceless insight into the books of Kings and Chronicles: "These books are little more than a history of assassinations, treachery, and wars. The cruelties that the Jews had accustomed themselves to practise on the Canaanites, whose country they had savagely invaded, under a pretended gift from God, they afterwards practised as furiously on each other. Scarcely half their kings died a natural death" True. Fortunately for us, Thomas Paine did not live to see Woirld War 1 and 2 and thus it is not left up to him to decide that the Holocaust did or did not really happen based upon the barbarity of events. If barbarism in and of itself is a reason to dis-authenticate histroy, humans would have no history at alllet alone the Jews.
Paines statement: "Could we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would distinguish any nation of people by the name of his chosen people, we must suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest of the world of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a nation of ruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were," is a little off because all God stated is that he would raise the Israelites morality ABOVE the level of the surrounding nations. He didnt raise it very MUCH above their level,mind you; but he did raise it some. As tough as Israelite women and female prisoners of war had it, you can believe me when I tell you that the women of surrounding nations had it even rougher than THEM.
Paine goes on to complain that the books of Chronicles and Kings in some instances are inclusive and in other instances exclusive of one another. Unfortuantaely that is usally the case with historical records that have been collected and gathered, by Paines own admission, over 850 years. These books are not one running commentary, like a diary that was written in daily, and so should be unbroken. These books are documents, chronologies, geneologies, and historical records, gathered together and kept together and their compilations, preserved for us today, bear this distintive feature. Rather like a series of of photo albums kept by us today; there will be some duplicates, there will be some photos in one album not in another, and in fact it is these differences which give support to their authenticity.
Now Paine makes a comment (finally)that goes to the crux of the matter: "The last verse in Chronicles is broken abruptly, and ends in the middle of the phrase with the word 'up' without signifying to what place. This abrupt break, and the appearance of the same verses in different books, show as I have already said, the disorder and ignorance in which the Bible has been put together, and that the compilers of it had no authority for what they were doing, nor we any authority for believing what they have done.." And there you have the truth. This is not about the COMPILING or WRITING of the Bible; this is about the translating into English and the compiling of the English Bible, and shame on Paine because he should have enough sense to know that the ENGLISH/CATHOLIC Bible is not the original Bible, so what is the point of thrashing THIS Bible to death? Unless this is the point he is trying to make. We shall continue on and see.

15) Paine cannot find fault with the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, but he has this to say: "But those accounts are nothing to us, nor to any other person, unless it be to the Jews, as a part of the history of their nation; and there is just as much of the word of God in those books as there is in any of the histories of France, or Rapin's history of England, or the history of any other country." Paine does complain that the numbers total of all the families are off by over 12,000 (or 11,000) without taking into account that the first number is "not counting the men and slave girls" and the second number appears to be including them. I see no reason for 30,000 people not to have 12,000 slavesdo you?

Anyway, Paines comments about the book of Job do not go to its authenticity or its canonicity, but here is what he says: "I have seen the opinion of two Hebrew commentators, Abenezra and Spinoza, upon this subject; they both say that the book of Job carries no internal evidence of being an Hebrew book; that the genius of the composition, and the drama of the piece, are not Hebrew; that it has been translated from another language into Hebrew, and that the author of the book was a Gentile; " which may be very true." It may also be observed, that the book shows itself to be the production of a mind cultivated in science, which the Jews, so far from being famous for, were very ignorant of.. The astronomical names, Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek and not Hebrew names, and it does not appear from any thing that is to be found in the Bible that the Jews knew any thing of astronomy, or that they studied it, they had no translation of those names into their own language, but adopted the names as they found them in the poem.." Very possibly true again.
Here Paine makes conclusions that are done without the benefit of two hundred years worth of archeological history. "the Jews, whose practice has been to calumniate and blacken the character of all other nations; and it is from the Jewish accounts that we have learned to call them heathens. But, as far as we know to the contrary, they were a just and moral people, and not addicted, like the Jews, to cruelty and revenge, but of whose profession of faith we are unacquainted" This is not so. These nations do not exist today, and this alone can be ascribed to their health/sanitation practices, which in turn made them easy prey for surrounding nations who did invest in technological advancements and more science-based hygenic practices. Sh***ing where one eats is not conducive to long-term survival for any race of people.
Paines commentaries on Isaiah are priceless: "Whoever will take the trouble of reading the book ascribed to Isaiah, will find it one of the most wild and disorderly compositions ever put together; it has neither beginning, middle, nor end; and, except a short historical part, and a few sketches of history in the first two or three chapters, is one continued incoherent, bombastical rant, full of extravagant metaphor, without application, and destitute of meaning; a school-boy would scarcely have been excusable for writing such stuff; it is (at least in translation) that kind of composition and false taste that is properly called prose run mad." It would appear that Paine cannot bring himself to believe that any of the book of Isaiah is or could be prophetic, and so he dismisses any historical importance it may have. However many of the places and names in Isaiah have since come to archeological light, something Paine had no access during his lifetime.
Regarding Isaiah some more: "I do not suppose that the compilers of the Bible made these books, but rather that they picked up some loose, anonymous essays, and put them together under the names of such authors as best suited their purpose. They have encouraged the imposition, which is next to inventing it; for it was impossible but they must have observed it." Unfortunately, beggars cannot be choosers. What archeological remains that we have in this world is what we have. It would be nice to have more than what appears to be compilations of scrolls, but this even today is not an unusual form in which to find records. Try doing a search for British ancestry sometime; you will hardly fare better, and this is in the last 100 years. Human warfare does it fair share of damage to the preservation of humany history. But that does not make it less historical.
Paine complains that Isaiah was a false prophet because he came to Ahaz? And told him he would be victorious IF HE WOULD DO AS HE WAS TOLD> Later, Ahaz was defeated. However, Paine leaves out (or didnt remember) the part where Ahaz forms an alliance with Syria, against the terms of the prophecy.
About the book of Jeremiah, Paine says : "As to the authenticity of the book, it is only necessary to read it in order to decide positively that, though some passages recorded therein may have been spoken by Jeremiah, he is not the author of the book." But the book of Jeremiah does not claim Jeremiah as its author; it begins by saying "these are the words of Jeremiah" very much as I am telling you in this essay that "these are the words of Thomas Paine"(within the quotation marks), and Thomas Paine is not the author of this essay. Paine in any case goes on to say: "Were I, or any other man, to write in such a disordered manner, no body would read what was written, and every body would suppose that the writer was in a state of insanity. " Possibly true, unless one understands that the book is arranged according to subject matter, not chronologically. The entire book being arranged this way actually speaks to just one author.
Paine agrees that the books of Daniel and Ezekiel were most likely written by them. However he predictably adds this: "and as it is natural to suppose that men in the situation of Ezekiel and Daniel would be meditating the recovery of their country, and their own deliverance, it is reasonable to suppose that the accounts of dreams and visions with which these books are filled, are no other than a disguised mode of correspondence to facilitate those objects: it served them as a cypher, or secret alphabet. If they are not this, they are tales, reveries, and nonsense; or at least a fanciful way of wearing off the wearisomeness of captivity; but the presumption is, they are the former." Rather like unto John on his Isle of Patmos, yes?
Paine says this concerning the prophecy of Egypt: ""No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast pass through it; neither shall it be inhabited for forty years." And says this was a false prophecy and that it never came to pass. It did come to pass, however, even taking into account the differences in the Vulgate nad the Hebrew texts; the remains of these cities exist today, and it was proven upon their excavations that the areas between these named cities were abandoned and uninhabited actually more than once. (It is not unusual for cities to be built on top of ruins of other cities; the city of Tyre I believe it is, has seven layers, for instance)
Paine considers the book of Jonah "A fit story for ridicule, if it was written to be believed; or of laughter, if it was intended to try what credulity could swallow; for, if it could swallow Jonah and the whale it could swallow anything." One important insight he did make tho: "But these Gentiles, instead of sacrificing him at once without pity or mercy, as a company of Bible-prophets or priests would have done by a Gentile in the same case, and as it is related Samuel had done by Agag, and Moses by the women and children, they endeavoured to save him, though at the risk of their own lives: for the account says, "Nevertheless [that is, though Jonah was a Jew and a foreigner, and the cause of all their misfortunes, and the loss of their cargo] the men rowed hard to bring the boat to land, but they could not, for the sea wrought and was tempestuous against them." Still however they were unwilling to put the fate of the lot into execution; and they cried, says the account, unto the Lord, saying, "We beseech thee, O Lord, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood; for thou, O Lord, hast done as it pleased theeThe address of this prayer shows that the Gentiles worshipped one Supreme Being, and that they were not idolaters as the Jews represented them to be."

SUMMARY: Paine states that because we do not know who actually wrote the books of the Bible (except for Daniel and Ezekiel) then the books are not authentic and have no application to us today as Christians. Lets try an anaology to that. My birth certificate has a seal, and a witness name ascribed to it that says that they say this is a real copy. I do not know who that person is, they live in another state and may very well be dead by now. Does that mena my birth certificate may not be authentic? Possibly. Doe that mean I was actually never born? Hardly!!!

Paine was not able to avail himself of the Bible in its original languages. Nor did he live to see the discovery of Biblical archeological sites over a hundred years after his death. And lastly, he did not live long enough to see the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered, by which he might have had a totally different insight into Biblical historical and cultural application for us today.

And would it have mattered anyway?

Next up: Part 2, the New Testament.

"age of reason" review pt 1 (looong)

dungbeetle

Share this