Paine "Chapter 1 Part III" Books Ezra & Nehemiah.

 

Mr. Paine in his treaty continues now into the book of Ezra. 

"The only thing that has any appearance of certainty in the book of Ezra is the time in which it was written, which was immediately after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, about B.C. 536. Ezra (who, according to the Jewish commentators, is the same person as is called Esdras in the Apocrypha) was one of the persons who returned, and who, it is probable, wrote the account of that affair. Nehemiah, whose book follows next to Ezra, was another of the returned persons; and who, it is

also probable, wrote the account of the same affair, in the book that bears his name. 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. 

But even in matters of historical record, neither of those writers are to be depended upon. In Ezra ii., the writer gives a list of the tribes and families, and of the precise number of souls of each, that returned from Babylon to Jerusalem; and this enrolment of the persons so returned appears to have been one of the principal objects for writing the book; but in this there is an error that destroys the intention of the undertaking. The writer begins his enrolment in the following manner (ii. 3): "The children of Parosh, two thousand one hundred seventy and four." Ver. 4, "The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two." And in this manner he proceeds through all the families; and in the 64th verse, he makes a total, and says, the whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. But whoever will take the trouble of casting up the several particulars, will find that the total is but 29,818; so that the error is 12,542. What certainty then can there be in the Bible for anything?

Nehemiah, in like manner, gives a list of the returned families, and of the number of each family. He begins as in Ezra, by saying (vii. 8): "The children of Parosh, two thousand three hundred and seventy-two;" and so on through all the families. (The list differs in several of the particulars from that of Ezra.) In ver. 66, Nehemiah makes a total, and says, as Ezra had said, "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore." But the particulars of this list make a total but of 31,089, so that the error here is 11,271. These writers may do well enough for Bible-makers, but not for anything where truth and exactness is necessary." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Departing from his usual method of deceptive writing, Mr. Paine presents some legitimate facts concerning the text that is difficult to explain. One cannot fault Mr. Paine in his argument here, for his facts and numbers are correct. In his statements above he presents a difficulty, I will try and address it as logically as I possibly can. It is concerning the families returning from Babylon to Jerusalem and the discrepancy in their listing and numbering.  

I was first inclined to just write his argument off as scribal errors once again. However, when seriously considering the text, it seems very unlikely for that many errors of that magnitude to exist in one chapter in two different books. As I began to research the discrepancies I found that many apologists attempted to answer the question with that very argument. Others suggested that the differences amounted to simply not counting the women and children in the list and including them in the total. This would however leave a very large margin between the men and women, especially if you included the children in the count. Still, others suggested the counting was done at different times as Ezra was written about a hundred years before Nehemiah, thus the number of families varied.

I noticed a number of apologists pointed to something interesting which leads me to what I believe is a reasonable answer. 1st, for my own part, the fact that both lists give a total of  42,360 is too much of a coincidence. It would seem unreasonable to me for scribes to simply copy the text and not realize the numbers do not add up. So the fact they continued to copy the text as they found it and did not make corrections leads me to think something else is up here we may not be considering.  

Add to that, the list in Ezra mentions families Nehemiah doesn't and Nehemiah mentions families Ezra doesn't. The fact they do mention families together and give different numbers in their accounts can be understood in a variety of ways. Some apologists noticed if you add the families from Ezra that are missing in Nehemiah to Nehemiah's list you come up with 31,583. Then if you add the families from Nehemiah that are missing in Ezra to Ezra's list you again come up with 31,583. It is simply not logical for errors to add up equally. So again this leads me to think we are not working with errors. It seems logical to me if there were families that Ezra listed and Nehemiah did not, and there were families that Nehemiah listed and Ezra did not, and by adding them together the numbers match. It would seem logical that there remained families that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah listed and thus those being added as a total would be the 42,360 that is given as the total. I believe that explanation, as well as others that have been offered, is as viable of an answer as Mr. Paine's argument. 

In any case, if one wants to give Mr. Paine the nudge and say his argument stands unmatched, consider the fact Mr. Paine's argument so far has offered nothing substantial in his attempt to discredit the Christian faith. His efforts have been either misleading, misrepresented in ignorance of Christian doctrine, or quibblings over dates, places, and numbers. All charges can be answered by presenting actual Christian Doctrine or ascribing to Scribal copying error. If in fact all of the true errors he has submitted as his evidence were all added up, it would not affect or change any Christian Doctrine of Faith. The understanding of the rule and purpose of the Old Testament, as well as the Proclamation of the Gospel in the New Testament, remain true to their origin. None of the ancient Christian Creeds or Confessions are affected by any of his charges. His efforts in pointing out the variances in the text from thousands of handwritten copies amount to nothing which scholars have already been aware of for centuries and understand. 

David

Paine "Chapter 1 Part II" Judges, Samuel, & Kings and Chronicles

Mr. Paine now marches on into the Judges displaying his complete lack of reason which one would think uncommon to such a gifted writer. Logically thinking, one could surmise his mind is simply clouded by his hatred of Christianity.

"In Judges i., the writer, after announcing the death of Joshua, proceeds to tell what happened between the children of Judah and the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan. In this statement the writer, having abruptly mentioned Jerusalem in the 7th verse, says immediately after, in the 8th verse, by way of explanation, "Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it;" consequently this book could not have been written before Jerusalem had been taken. The reader will recollect the quotation I have just before made from Joshua xv. 63, where it said that the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem at this day; meaning the time when the book of Joshua was written." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

In the statements above, Mr. Paine is assuming, or either being dishonest by suggesting the book of Joshua was written all at once. This is most unlikely being it is a collected history of events. Historical accounts such as these were written over time and many times by multiple authors when the history in view surpasses one's lifetime. For more details on this see Chapter 7 and the toledoth. 

In addressing the books of Samuel, he makes a montage of useless arguments similar to the one above. To take one example, In 1st Samuel 9 relating to the choosing of Saul as king, he attempts to take a phrase relating to the changing of a word meaning to prove Samuel did not write the book and that is somehow supposed to destroy its creditable. 

" . . . in order to make the story understood, to explain the terms in which these questions and answers are spoken; and he does this in the 9th verse, where he says, "Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a prophet, was beforetime called a seer." This proves, as I have before said, that this story of Saul, Samuel, and the asses, was an ancient story at the time the book of Samuel was written, and consequently that Samuel did not write it, and that the book is without authenticity, . . ." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)  

1 Samuel 9:9 ISV

(9)  (Previously in Israel, a person would say when he went to inquire of God, "Come on! Let's go to the seer!" because the person known as a prophet today was formerly called a seer.) 

Mr. Paine in his usual beguiling manner writes in such a way to imply the language definitively speaks of ancient times so that he could remove the author from the time being related. However, as you can see in the text above in a modern translation, the word simply means previously. I know of many words within my own lifetime, that have taken on different meanings than previously known. Take for instance in my own occupation, in the beginning, I was known in the Telephone company as a CST (Customer Service Technician). Later I was known in the same position as FST (Field Service Technician). 

According to Mr. Paine's reasoning, I could not be the same person, for in ancient times (Beforetimes) I was called a CST, therefore the FST must have been another person for he lived much later than the CST. 

In moving on to the books of Kings and Chronicles Mr. Paine states:  "In the same book the history sometimes contradicts itself: for example, in 2 Kings, i. 17, we are told, but in rather ambiguous terms, that after the death of Ahaziah, king of Israel, Jehoram, or Joram, (who was of the house of Ahab), reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram, or Joram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah; and in viii. 16, of the same book, it is said, "And in the fifth year of Joram, the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, began to reign." That is, one chapter says Joram of Judah began to reign in the second year of Joram of Israel; and the other chapter says, that Joram of Israel began to reign in the fifth year of Joram of Judah." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Mr. Paine in his profound theological study came across a contradiction in the Bible, therefore, it is not authoritative nor can be considered a credible historical source. I suppose the reader is to understand that Mr. Paine had found a previously unknown contradiction and we all must now bow to his scholarship. However, all Mr. Paine found was a copiest error. The contradiction he found is most likely not in the original text, again, in his beguiling manner he would imply it was. 

We find such errors often, for instance, in 1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. and in 2 Chron. 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. 

Which is it? Four thousand or Forty thousand? The obvious answer with only a little research will give you an answer of four thousand, the other is just a copiest error. Some of the later English translations correct it, such as the ERV, 1 Kings 4:26 ERV (26)  Solomon had places to keep 4000 horses for his chariots and he had 12,000 horse soldiers.

Copiest errors such as these are common, however, they do not present us a problem in most cases. There are so many ancient copies available for research and comparison in most cases the correct rendering can be determined. In either case, none of the so-called contradictions affect any major Christian doctrine. The faith has remained constant since its beginning. No serious student of the Bible would take Mr. Paine's arguments seriously. His logic was flawed or he was dishonest with his readers.

Mr. Paine may be a joy to like-minded readers who despise the Bible and troubling to nominal Christians who do but little study. However, when presented before a reader who is the least bit familiar with the Biblical text and has given at least some time to understand it his arguments fall to the wayside, having little to no effect. 

David