We now begin our examination of Mr. Paine's view of the Scriptures themselves. The arguments he makes are so absurd it is almost ridiculous to try and address all the fictitious statements that are made. It will be a most laborious task for almost every sentence is either a contrived unsubstantiated myth or complete ignorance of the subject at hand. I do not say the Scriptures should not be examined and challenged. Extreme care should be taken and the most rigorous efforts made to authenticate the accuracy of the text we have. So, in this examination of Mr. Paine's work in "The Age of Reason" we do not fault him for his questions, but the mythical arguments he puts forth presenting them as some kind of rational truth.
"When the Church Mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testament are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.
Be this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made should be the WORD OF GOD, and which should not. They rejected several; they voted others to be doubtful, such as the books called the Apocrypha; and those books which had a majority of votes, were voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all the people, since calling themselves Christians, had believed otherwise — for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the people were that did all this, we know nothing of; they called themselves by the general name of the Church, and this is all we know of the matter." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
There is so much wrong with this statement it is hard to know where to begin. This is one of the reasons I am addressing this work from a Christian perspective. "The Age of Reason" was widely circulated during his lifetime and remains in print today, thereby making its fallacies known to unsuspecting readers.
He begins by making this statement as someone in authority with knowledge of the subject of which he is speaking. The very premise of which he begins is irrational, describing in precise and vivid detail how and what occurred during what he estimates as the formation of the books of the Bible, then immediately precedes to tell us we can know nothing of these books or the people he suggests were there. This has been the pattern of his so called investigation, attempting to present his imaginations as truth that he may dismantle them with his arguments. He somehow suggest that this group of people of whom we know nothing about gathered a bunch of old books together of which we know nothing about and out of that quarry, choose what they would call the Word of God. I suppose we are to believe that the church which had survived the most severe and torturous persecutions for the previous 300 years had no uniform collection of teachings or instructions of faith. I suppose we are also to believe this church would accept such a concoction of books as the Word of God presented in Mr. Paine's imaginary story. As ridiculous as it is, he has made the charge so we must address it.
Since Mr. Paine does not say, we must suppose the event he is making reference to in his gathering of books would be the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. It is here Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, and an assembly of 219 Bishops with possibly as many as 1,000 other attendees gathered to consider various church issues. One of those issues being the affirmation of the 27 books of the New Testament along with the Old Testament books as we have them now.
The first such list to be affirmed was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books we now have except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) also affirmed these books.
The history and formation of the Biblical canon is a very interesting study, one we do not have the time or space here to embark upon. However, it is necessary to make some response to Mr. Paine's imaginary story. Very early on the church began collecting the letters together that were written by the Apostles. We must understand at first all the churches did not have access to all the letters that were being circulated. However, over time more and more copies were produced and the letters became more readily available to the churches. In Colossians 4:16 and 1 Thessalonians 5:27 we find examples of this in the letters themselves.
Colossians 4:16 ESV
(16) And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
1 Thessalonians 5:27 ESV
(27) I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.
Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The early Christians were reading and like us today, they were reading other books outside what was considered scripture. These were books they considered helpful and instructive, however, like today, there was always a distinction made between those and the ones considered scripture. We know this, because the church fathers mentioned above, when referring to scripture, never mentions a quote from any book other than those we now have in the Bible. Some books were more popular than others, so it took some of them more time to be accepted by the church as a whole. The books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. So by the time the books of the Bible began to be affirmed by the church authority, their list was already in use by the church. It became necessary to affirm these accepted books as false teachers troubled the church just like it does today. These heretical groups introduced books by pseudo-authors and unorthodox lists of scriptures which caused confusion. It was only an affirmation and had nothing to do with the imaginary story of Mr. Paine.
Perhaps we should give Mr. Paine the benefit of the doubt, considering he may not have had access to this information as travel and availability of books were limited in the 18 century. However, that does not excuse him for writing upon a subject of which at best he does not understand or at worst is a fabrication of his imagination.
Mr. Paine also asserts these books cannot be thought to be the one's that were written stating: "It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testament are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
This is a subject I have covered in previous posts, so I want repeat that effort here. However, we could not be more certain of those writings, there are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament alone. We have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri A.D. 125) and it reads like John today. There are manuscripts dating all the way back to 2nd and 3rd centuries still in existence, of which we can compare our text today. We have them in the original languages, we have them in translations of other languages, and we have them in quotes from the writings of the Church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This makes it possible to have a very high accuracy of preservation. Mr. Paine was again speaking upon a subject he was either ignorant of or purposely misleading his readers.
"As to the account of the Creation, with which the Book of Genesis opens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition which the Israelites had among them before they came into Egypt; and after their departure from that country they put it at the head of their history, without telling (as it is most probable) that they did not know how they came by it. The manner in which the account opens shows it to be traditionary. It begins abruptly; it is nobody that speaks; it is nobody that hears; it is addressed to nobody; it has neither first, second, nor third person; it has every criterion of being a tradition; it has no voucher. Moses does not take it upon himself by introducing it with the formality that he uses on other occasions, such as that of saying, 'The Lord spake unto Moses saying. . . .' Why it has been called the Mosaic account of the Creation, I am at a loss to conceive." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Mr. Paine again continues presenting stories from his imagination as factual accounts and events. The story related above is found nowhere except in what was then Mr. Paine's own mind. He then precedes to suggest that if a book does meet with or form itself in style to his acceptance, then it must not be a true account. He presents nothing against the book of Genesis other than he cannot conceive of it being true. By making the statement, "Moses does not take it upon himself by introducing it with the formality that he uses on other occasions, such as that of saying, "The Lord spake unto Moses saying.'" - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason) he seems to be trying to suggest most think Genesis was dictated to Moses by God. Throughout the Pentateuch it is recorded that God spoke to Moses face to face, however, the phrase Mr. Paine is alluding to is missing in the Genesis text.
Though Mr. Paine's imaginary story adds nothing to his argument, his questioning the divine revelation account has some merit. To have Moses writing the book we have 3 options seeing the events occurred before he was born. 1st, he could have received it directly from God of which Mr. Paine points out was doubtful by its structure. 2nd, he could have received it from the oral tradition and written it down. 3rd, he could have received it through written records already existing.
Genesis is a mystery, however, recent discoveries since Mr. Paine's writing sheds a bit more light. In the structure of Genesis we find a Hebrew term called "toledoth" which means account, record, or genealogy. It’s also interesting that the word Genesis itself is derived from the Greek translation of toledoth. It seems the Jewish scribes translating Genesis into Greek (The Septuagint (LXX)), possibly believed this word to be significant enough, they chose it as the title for the book. Had they translated it to English, it may have been known today as The Book of Accounts, or The Book of Histories. 4,000 year old clay tablet with written language on them have been discovered. Many of these tablets end with what is called a colophon which are concluding remarks found at the end of written documents which identify the author or owner of the document, along with other important information. This is consistent with the use of the toledoth in Genesis. If the toledoth in fact serves as a colophon, what Moses used was a collection of records that had been collected and passed from their authors. Therefore, in Genesis 5:1 the “book of the toledoth of Adam” was actually an account originally written down by Adam—the same with Noah, Shem, Terah, etc.
Genesis 5:1 ESV
(1) This is the book of the generations (toledoth) of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
"The Book of Genesis was originally written on tablets in the ancient script of the time, by the Patriarchs who were intimately concerned with the events related, and whose names are clearly stated. Moreover, Moses, the compiler and editor of the Book, as we now have it, plainly directs attention to the source of his information." - Air Commodor P. J. Wiseman, New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, (Zondervan Publishing House, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI, 1946)
The first toledoth appears in Genesis 2:4.
Genesis 2:1-4 ESV
(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(2) And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
(3) So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
(4) These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
The NASB translators choose to translate toledoth in verse 4 as "account", and the NKJV translators choose "history" instead of "generations". All three are acceptable translations and it is easy to see that verse 4 speaks of the events in the previous verses not the following verses. If you apply this hermeneutic to each toledoth the passage flows and falls into place. It is also interesting this toledoth is the only one that does not have a name assigned to it. This is also the only one of which no human would have been an eye witness to.
This application answers Mr. Paine's charge that no author is assigned to the book. Hebrew tradition tells us Moses was the author, if that is so, it does not make the tradition wrong by applying this hermeneutic. Moses could have been the author of parts of the book as well as the compiler of the additional books noting their authors in the toledoth.
The next toledoth in Genesis is a bit more complicated, however, the hermeneutic still works very well. Reading from Genesis 2:5 to 5:1 would be one book. We have the toledoth in verse one of chapter 5, which generally would imply that it was tied to what follows in that Chapter. We must remember though that the chapter and verse divisions are not in the original and is a fairly recent addition. They are helpful tools to locate scripture and sometimes are helpful reading tools, sometimes they only confuse things such as possible here. Lets read from Chapter 2 verse 5 and stop with Chapter 5 verse 1 and for our exercise omit or ignore the Chapter and verse division. Looking at the last couple of verses of Chapter 4 and the first portion of Chapter 5 to save space, it would read like this.
(And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him. To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. This is the book of the generations {accounts} of Adam.)
This would be Adam's account recorded in the ancient language of the time from 2:5 to 4:26 which would include his toledoth assigning it to him in Chapter 5:1. Most of the events within those texts, Adam would have been an eye witness to, the few at the beginning that occurred before his existence would have been communicated to him by God, possible even before the fall.
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Mr. Paine here took issue with the Biblical accounts recorded putting on display human depravity. He is somehow trying to make a connection between the phase Word of God and the accounts of humanity, seemingly suggesting if it is one it cannot be the other. It is difficult to tell here if he is again drawing upon his own imagination or speaking from complete ignorance of the subject. I will not attempt to discern which, for neither will excuse him for his misguided efforts.
Is it not surprising Mr. Paine is offended by the obscene, voluptuous, debaucheries, cruel, and torturous executions, and unrelenting vindictiveness of fallen humanity that are recorded in Scripture, yet passes over the obscene, voluptuous, debaucheries, cruel, and torturous executions, and unrelenting vindictiveness of fallen humanity in his own time? A brief overview of the French Revolution of which he was witness would have produced enough for him to write about.
To omit all those things in Scripture which offend Mr. Paine would be to truly render it nothing but a myth, for the reality is, beginning in Genesis, man is fallen, and everything he touches in human history is corrupted. The Scriptures and human history both bear of this truth. For Mr. Paine to take issue with what Scripture records concerning man, he must also take issue with human history itself. The Bible was not written to make us look good, it was written to show us what we are, then lead us to our only hope. In the Bible we find not only our fall but our redemption.
Mr. Paine then moves on in his discourse speaking of Poets, Prophets, and Prophesying. He is difficult to follow in his next statements, for he attempts to suggest none of these words mean what we think they mean. Suggesting we have applied different meanings to the words than the original writer intended. He implies Poets, and Prophets were nothing more than musical instrument players and Prophesying was nothing more than the ability to play those instruments. It is all quit irrational and difficult to follow his confused efforts to discredit the text. It is best to quote him in his own words rather than attempt chiffer his musings.
"Now, were there no other passage in the book called the Bible than this, to demonstrate to us that we have lost the original meaning of the word prophesy, and substituted another meaning in its place, this alone would be sufficient; for it is impossible to use and apply the word prophesy, in the place it is here used and applied, if we give to it the sense which later times have affixed to it. The manner in which it is here used strips it of all religious meaning, and shows that a man might then be a prophet, or he might prophesy, as he may now be a poet or a musician, without any regard to the morality or immorality of his character. The word was originally a term of science, promiscuously applied to poetry and to music, and not restricted to any subject upon which poetry and music might be exercised.
Deborah and Barak are called prophets, not because they predicted anything, but because they composed the poem or song that bears their name, in celebration of an act already done. David is ranked among the prophets, for he was a musician, and was also reputed to be (though perhaps very erroneously) the author of the Psalms. But Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not called prophets; it does not appear from any accounts we have that they could either sing, play music, or make poetry.
We are told of the greater and the lesser prophets. They might as well tell us of the greater and the lesser God; for there cannot be degrees in prophesying consistently with its modern sense. But there are degrees in poetry, and therefore the phrase is reconcilable to the case, when we understand by it the greater and the lesser poets." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Mr. Paine does not tell us, but judging from his statements a few paragraphs before the one quoted here, the Scripture of which he is referring is 1 Samuel 19:20.
1 Samuel 19:20 ESV
(20) Then Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.
Mr. Paine is correct (I think, for he is quit confusing) that what is going on in these verses is praising and singing and playing instruments. What is confusing, is all his rhetoric about the changing of word meaning. The meaning of the words here are and have always been understood, the meaning is not being confused. It is Mr. Paine, who again is confused if he is indeed implying Prophet and Prophesying only and always mean playing, singing, praising. The meaning of the words in question is determined by the context in which they are used. This is a common principle one would think Mr. Paine would have understood. For we find a few chapters later in 1 Samuel 28:6 Saul looking for instruction from the Lord, and God does not answer. One of the means by which Saul is looking for an answer is from a Prophet to prophesy. The text interprets the meaning for us, for Saul is not looking for someone to play an instrument and sing, he is looking for a word from God. Mr. Paine's argument is ridiculously irrelevant, for it is no argument at all.
1 Samuel 28:6 ESV
(6) And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets.
Mr. Paine's comment concerning the greater and lesser prophets is nothing more than a confused misguided string of words that carry no rational meaning. The phase greater and lesser prophets mean nothing more than some wrote more extensively than others. It has nothing to do with one prophet being greater than another or that what God spoke through one was less important than the other. If Mr. Paine was confused about this, he could have asked any young lad or lassie and they could have explained it to him. I realize I am being somewhat sarcastic, but his foolish assertions seem to demand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment