"The evidence that I shall produce in this case is from the books themselves; and I will confine myself to this evidence only. Were I to refer for proofs to any of the ancient authors, whom the advocates of the Bible call prophane authors, they would controvert that authority, as I controvert theirs: I will therefore meet them on their own ground, and oppose them with their own weapon, the Bible. In the first place, there is no affirmative evidence that Moses is the author of those books; and that he is the author, is altogether an unfounded opinion, got abroad nobody knows how." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Mr. Paine has already attempted to address this in his volume one, however, he deemed it necessary to commit a very large portion of his treaties to the subject again in volume II. So we will not critique his assertions here for a second time, simply see Chapter 7 post on this blog for a full examination of his arguments concerning Moses and the author of the 1st 5 books of the Bible.
Next, Mr. Paine proceeds to accomplish the same with the book of Joshua.
"I proceed to the book of Joshua, and to shew that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that it is anonymous and without authority. The evidence I shall produce is contained in the book itself: I will not go out of the Bible for proof against the supposed authenticity of the Bible. False testimony is always good against itself." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Mr. Paine again commits a large portion of his treaty to a none issue. In the Christian understanding, the book is anonymous, it is simply thought Joshua is most probably the author of portions of the book. However, it is very possible an assistant whom Joshua groomed could have finished the book by attaching numerous comments. Some have suggested that certain sections were written by the high priest Eleazar, or even his son, Phinehas. It is believed it was completed before David's reign most likely somewhere between 1405 and 1385 B.C.
Mr. Paine's extensive efforts to discredit Joshua as the author was a wasted effort, for he proved nothing which Christianity itself affirms. He somehow had the notion if he could discredit the authorship he could discredit the authenticity of the book itself. His notion was false and unsupported.
In much determination Mr. Paine continues, "Having now shown that every book in the Bible, from Genesis to Judges, is without authenticity, I come to the book of Ruth, an idle, bungling story, foolishly told, nobody knows by whom, about a strolling country-girl creeping slily to bed to her cousin Boaz. Pretty stuff indeed to be called the word of God. It is, however, one of the best books in the Bible, for it is free from murder and rapine. I come next to the two books of Samuel, and to shew that those books were not written by Samuel, nor till a great length of time after the death of Samuel; and that they are, like all the former books, anonymous, and without authority." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Mr. Paine's description of the Book of Ruth is dishonest and vicious. Such statements reveal a deep hatred of the Christian religion which more and more moves us to understand this hatred as being the root and foundation of his efforts for this work. One only needs to read the Book of Ruth for themselves to understand this wonderful account of a faithful daughter-in-law is one of purity and peace. He either does not know or does not care to know concerning the customs and culture of the day. If he knows, he neglects to explain the text to purposely maline the account.
In his boast of proving nothing, "And now ye priests, of every description, who have preached and written against the former part of the Age of Reason, what have ye to say? Will ye with all this mass of evidence against you, and staring you in the face, still have the assurance to march into your pulpits, and continue to impose these books on your congregations, as the works of inspired penmen and the word of God?" - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason), he continues on throughout the rest of the books making similar accusations that neither prove nor assert his purposes. Mr. Paine marches through the books of the Bible as if he alone has the wisdom to decern their mythological aspects. He seems allusive to the fact these texts have been meticulously studied and examined for thousands of years by men of brilliance, many of whom have died in defense of their truth. Yet it is he alone in his arrogance who is able to proclaim with such confidence all those fallacies heretofore unknown to men.
"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, a people who, corrupted by and copying after such monsters and imposters as Moses and Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, and David, had distinguished themselves above all others on the face of the known earth for barbarity and wickedness." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
With his own words, Mr. Paine demonstrates his inadequacy. The very reasonings of his mind and the references of his flawed logic drive him to conclude the Bible cannot be true because of the character in which God's chosen people are presented when in reality, it is the whole purpose of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. It is the account of fallen man, the display of his depravity, (depravity we still see today) his hopelessness in ever saving himself from the depth of which he has fallen to the redemption of man through the great mercy and grace of God displayed in the Redeemer consummating in the true and final glorification of a faithful and loving people of God. How can Mr. Paine believe anything in the Bible when he does not understand even the basic premise upon which it is written?
Mr. Paine continues in his treaty by spending an enormous amount of time pointing to dates and events, apparent contradictions of times and places. His arguments are repetitive and redundant. I am becoming as weary of reading them as you are of hearing them. Rather than continue examining each of his so-called fallacies, we will use one as an example that will suffice to expose his irrational reasoning. Otherwise, this blog will be endlessly consumed with his foolishness.
"In my observations on the book of Genesis, I have quoted a passage from xxxvi. 31, which evidently refers to a time, after that kings began to reign over the children of Israel; and I have shewn that as this verse is verbatim the same as in 1 Chronicles i. 43, where it stands consistently with the order of history, which in Genesis it does not, that the verse in Genesis, and a great part of the 36th chapter, have been taken from Chronicles; and that the book of Genesis, though it is placed first in the Bible, and ascribed to Moses, has been manufactured by some unknown person, after the book of Chronicles was written, which was not until at least eight hundred and sixty years after the time of Moses." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Mr. Paine in the above statement which is common practice in his treaties tries to make an argument out of a none argument. Here he attempts to say the writer of Genesis borrowed a text from Chronicles when in reality it is only a transcription by a scribe from Genesis into the text of Chronicles. Paine reverses it to make it appear to be written near a thousand years later. His dishonesty or ignorance, whichever it is, makes this work a work of foolishness. His arguments with dates and places, even if he is found to be right concerning some of them are irrelevant in the Christian faith. The enormous amount of time spent accomplishes nothing. A scribal error with a date or place has little to no barren on Christian doctrine.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
The kings of Edom before the introduction of the kingship into Israel. This is a verbally exact repetition of Genesis 36:31-39, except that the introductory formula, Genesis 36:32, "and there reigned in Edom," which is superfluous after the heading, and the addition "ben Achbor" (Genesis 36:39) in the account of the death of Baal-hanan in 1 Chronicles 1:50, are omitted; the latter because even in Genesis, where mention is made of the death of other kings, the name of the father of the deceased king is not repeated. Besides this, the king called Hadad (v. 46f.), and the city פּעי (v. 50), are in Genesis Hadar (Genesis 36:35.) and פּעוּ (Genesis 36:39). The first of these variations has arisen from a transcriber's error, the other from a different pronunciation of the name. A somewhat more important divergence, however, appears, when in Genesis 36:39 the death of the king last named is not mentioned, because he was still alive in the time of Moses; while in the Chronicle, on the contrary, not only of him also is it added, הדד ויּמת, because at the time of the writing of the Chronicle he had long been dead, but the list of the names of the territories of the phylarchs, which in Genesis follows the introductory formula שׁמות alum ואלּה, is here connected with the enumeration of the kings by ויּהיוּ, "Hadad died, and there were chiefs of Edom." This may mean that, in the view of the chronicler, the reign of the phylarchs took the place of the kingship after the death of the last king, but that interpretation is by no means necessary. The ו consec. may also merely express the succession of thought, only connecting logically the mention of the princes with the enumeration of the kings; or it may signify that, besides the kings, there were also tribal princes who could rule the land and people. The contents of the register which follows require that ויּהיוּ should be so understood.
