A Review of the Age of Reason (Part 8): The Bible (2)
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Before beginning his attack on Moses, Thomas Paine, in “Part Second” of The Age of Reason, belittles just about all ancient writings. He says: “Nobody believes the Trojan story, as related by Homer, to be true” (104). Perhaps it would be better to say that we do not know how much of an historical basis there is to what Homer relates in The Iliad. Was there a Paris and a Helen? Was a Trojan Horse actually constructed? No, we do not accept the references to the Greek gods and goddesses because we know that they are mythical. The Odyssey is a story of great adventure, which we do not believe is true. Virgil’s Aeneid is likewise fiction, and it too involves the gods.
Just because some things that were written with supernatural elements (The Odyssey) were not true does not prove that all such writings (the miracles in the Old Testament) are false. One would think that Paine might have noticed that these miracles were still regarded as true 1700 years later while the supernatural claims of other ancient books were discarded.
Likewise, he mentions that the historian Tacitus related that Vespasian performed two miracles involving the curing of a lame man and a blind man (104). Vespasian was Roman emperor from A. D. 81 to 96. Three things come to mind: 1) These were two actual miracles performed by Jesus which could have later been “borrowed” by Tacitus; 2) Tacitus could have promoted these alleged incidents to court favor with the emperor (something no one would do for Jesus, since He had already ascended into Heaven); 3) Few in Paine’s time (or today) are even aware of Vespasian’s alleged miracles, which means that people probably did not think the reported events were true. However, with Jesus, the miracles were so many and had such a number of witnesses that no one could deny them (Acts 2:22). Paine says that Josephus reported that the Sea of Pamphylia opened to let Alexander and his army pass through, just as occurred with Moses and the Red Sea (104). However, Josephus was not an eyewitness; he relied on what others had reported. Once again, no system of theology is based on this alleged event, and most people have never even heard of it.
But almost everyone has heard of what happened in the Old Testament with Israel leaving Egypt. Did Moses write such things as a great adventure story—or did he record the truth? Readers can tell the difference in the writings between Moses and Homer—even if Paine could not discern the differences. Likewise, people can tell the difference between an historian schmoozing an emperor and John, who recorded the miracles of Jesus that people might believe He is the Son of God (John 20:30-31). The writings of John have been accepted by the whole world while people have generally forgotten Tacitus; such is not a quirk of fate—it speaks to the credibility of the evidence.
The Five Books of Moses
The author of The Age of Reason makes it clear that he believes that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy “are spurious, and that Moses is not the author of them” (105). His first reason is that no evidence exists to establish the fact that Moses wrote them. Apparently, Jesus’ endorsement of Moses as the writer is insufficient for Paine. For that matter, how do we know that Homer wrote his great works of poetry or that Virgil wrote the Aeneid? Is there anything that denies the historical evidence? Is there some reason to doubt it? Have some documents been found to cast suspicion on the legitimacy of what people have accepted for centuries? No.
Therefore, Paine provides some other reasons for the rejection of Mosaic authorship, such as “not the least allusion is made to him” in Genesis (106). How shocking! Apparently, the fact that Moses was not yet born is not a good enough excuse for omitting him!
The next objection is that Moses speaks in the third person instead of the first person (106). How valid is this quibble? Is there some requirement that a writer cannot speak of himself in the third person? Besides, the real author is the Holy Spirit, Who inspired Moses to write down the words of God. Is it just possible that the Spirit wanted God to be the focus of attention and not Moses? Writing of himself in the third person is one way to achieve that purpose.
Paine argues that Moses could not have written Numbers 12:3: “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were on the face of the earth.” Paine’s assessment is that, if Moses wrote these words of himself, “he was one of the most vain and arrogant” of men (107). Such would be the case if he were writing his own memoirs, but he was recording God’s assessment, not his own. Besides, it may be the case that editorial comments were made later by another writer at God’s direction.
The critic also affirms that Deuteronomy is written in an entirely different style but offers scant and unconvincing evidence of the claim. His chief criticism is that the death of Moses is recorded in Deuteronomy 34 (108-109). Of course, if God had told Moses to record the details in advance, what would be the problem? Peter was told about his death when he was still a young man (John 21:18-19). But there is another explanation, and that is that another inspired writer closed out this book, which would explain the comment “that no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day” (Deut. 34: 6). Paine points out that verse 10 carries with it the same problem: “But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”
Joshua could have written those words; so could another inspired writer, such as Samuel. If a later prophet did add such a comment, it would not prove that the remainder of the book was not written by Moses. The critic gets carried away, saying that someone else composed Moses’ words—perhaps from oral tradition (110), which is simply not the case. God inspired the words to be recorded, regardless of who wrote them. Peter makes that clear in the New Testament when he wrote that “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).
When God speaks the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:11, He mentions that the Sabbath is a day of rest and cites Himself as the model for it: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” Paine thinks there is a great contradiction because these words are not repeated in Deuteronomy 5 (110). Instead, the fact that God delivered them out of Egypt is given as a reason to remember the Sabbath day (v. 15). Neither one denies the other, and the second one is 40 years later. Likely, they now knew the original reason, and the second was just added to it.
Brutality Again
Although Paine has already objected to the extermination of the Canaanites by Israel, whom God was using as His means of justice, now he sets forth additional complaints against God. He begins by taking exception to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. He says that the passage “authorizes parents…to bring their own children to have them stoned to death, for what it is pleased to call stubbornness” (111). What this charge actually shows is that “spin” is not a new invention; Paine was using it more than 200 years ago. To look at the way he couches this situation, one would think that if one’s children were a little disobedient one day, their parents would take them out and have them executed. One only needs to read the text in order to get a more accurate picture.
The passage is dealing with long-term rebellion, where a youth will not listen to either his father or his mother. When they chastise him, he will not respond in a positive way. His case was to be brought to the elders of the city. But the individual in question was neither in grade school nor even a rebellious teen. He refused to obey his parents continually (which is a disgrace), and he was a glutton and a drunkard. Presumably, he was a self-indulgent, lazy slob. This type of individual was to be stoned. Why? He had no respect for authority, and he had failed to honor his father and mother—one of the Ten Commandments. He had been warned time and again; if left unchecked, he would prove to be a bad influence upon others. Under Judaism, he was (justly) to be put to death.
Prior to Moses’ death, God instructed Moses to take “vengeance…on the Midianites” (Num. 31:2). Israel killed all the males, along with Baalam who had counseled the enemy on a plan to get Israel cursed by God (v. 8). If Paine did not like the fact that Israel was to administer justice later to the Canaanites, he really abhorred what occurred here. Moses asked why they saved the women alive since they were the ones that had seduced the Israelite men previously. Therefore he rendered the following decision: “…kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately” (vv. 17-18). Paine’s reaction is: “Here is an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and debauch their daughters” (120).
Obviously, this kind of spin does not take into account the circumstances that were prevalent in the world at that time (such as the young men growing up to revenge their fathers’ deaths), nor does it state the facts correctly. The young women were not to be used as prostitutes (as Paine implies), since God wanted a holy nation. They would later be taken as wives when they matured. Does this make Judaism a false religion? No, the people lived in times when no particular nation ruled, and laws varied from country to country. Many nations took what they could conquer. God’s judgment was righteous, when all factors are weighed.
Another Shot at the Priests
Already noted previously was Paine’s animosity toward priests (not entirely without cause). Once again, he cannot help bringing up the subject.
But priests have always been fond of preaching up Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preaches up tithes; and it is from this book, chap. xxv., ver. 4, that they have taken the phrase, and applied it to tithing, that thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn; and that this might not escape observation, they have noted it in the table of contents at the head of the chapter, though it is only a single verse of less than two lines. Oh, priests! priests! priests! Ye are willing to be compared to an ox for the sake of tithes (111-12).
Actually, one might find a worse animal to be compared to than one who possesses great strength. If someone put summary notes into a version and put tithes as a heading for Deuteronomy 25, no one can imagine what they were thinking, since the word does not even occur there. It does, however, in the next chapter, as well as in 12 and 14. In fact, references to the concept are frequent in the Old Testament. Thus, this complaint is frivolous. In the New Testament, there is no application to tithing from this passage. It is used, however, in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 to demonstrate that those who spend their lives preaching the gospel or serving as elders overseeing the church are worthy of financial support—something that Paine would undoubtedly disapprove of.
Anachronisms?
The author now returns to his campaign against Moses being the author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Previously answered were his comments on Deuteronomy 34; now he wishes to add many others to the list. He calls attention to Genesis 14, which gives the account of Abraham rescuing Lot and pursuing the captors even to Dan (v. 14). Paine confidently asserts that “there was no such place as Dan, till many years after the death of Moses, and consequently, that Moses could not be the writer of the book of Genesis…” (113).
The skeptic thinks he really has this contradiction nailed down, but his wrecking ball is only attached to assumptions. He rightly points out that the city of Dan did not come into existence until a much later time. He is guessing on how much later because the events at the end of the book of Judges (in chapters 17-21) are not necessarily chronological. They are two incidents that occurred during the time period of the judges, but they did not necessarily occur after the time of Samson. It is true that some from the tribe of Dan conquered the city of Laish and changed its name to Dan (Judges 18:27-29). Neither Moses nor Joshua could have referred to this city by the name of Dan during their lifetimes, since it did not exist.
What Paine fails to consider is that other possibilities exist. If a later, inspired editor did not make use of an anachronism for more modern readers (and there is no reason to suspect that one did), it is still fully possible that there was another city in the time of Abraham that had the same name. In fact, a Dan Jaan is mentioned in 2 Samuel 24:6, which may or may not have any relation to this matter. It is not unusual for two cities to have the same name, such as the Antioch in Syria and the Antioch in Pisidia; these two cities are only 200 miles apart (by air). Moses said that Abram pursued the captors as far as Dan but then divided his forces and pursued them as far as Hobah, which was north of Damascus (Gen. 14:15). We have no way of knowing exactly what city Moses meant when he said Dan, and neither does Paine. He is wrong when he states that “no such place as Dan existed in the time of Moses…” (115). He possesses no list containing every city in the world at that time and therefore cannot make such a claim.
From this failed effort he lumbers along into another one equally lacking in merit. He cites Genesis 36:31: “Now these were the kings in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel.” “Aha!” thinks Paine. “This line could only be written after there were kings in Israel, which did not occur for another 400 years.” His ignorance of Bible teaching allows him to make blunders such as these. In fact, he goes so far as to suggest that “this part of Genesis is taken from Chronicles” (118)! That’s certainly a unique suggestion—one which few, if any, would join him in. Moses knew that Israel would one day have kings. He records this truth in Deuteronomy 17:14-15:
“When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses….”
The fact that Moses knew this future event is all that is necessary to explain the Genesis 36:31 comment. Once again Paine lets his arrogance show:
Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author…and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. The story of Eve and the serpent, and of Noah and his ark, drops to a level with the Arabian tales, without the merit of being entertaining… (118).
The Bible was not designed for entertainment but rather to reveal truth, which is precisely the way people have received it for centuries—billions still do. Paine might have asked himself why no one put the Arabian tales on a par with the Scriptures. Most people can tell the difference even if he could not. Apparently, Paine was unaware that almost every culture has a story of a flood with only a few people being saved. They have such stories because the event actually occurred.