This review of Thomas Paine and his premiere counter-religious work, The Age of Reason [Pain.AR], had a strange effect: It quite nearly made me a convert to Hinduism.

That's a shocking way of saying, that I was almost set to believe, upon reading this book (hereafter AR), that some skeptics I now know were Thomas Paine in a previous life. But rather than honor the sacred cow, I have decided that it is simply a case of our latter-day skeptics accepting Paine uncritically and parroting his lines without thought...and, adopting some of his mannerisms, as well. Perhaps they had no personalities of their own before reading Paine, and prior to reading him sat around doing nothing all day. They certainly weren't spending their time doing sound Biblical research.

Which leads to the point: Although many people featured here at Tekton are distinguished by the fact that they are dead, and like most (but not all, Earl!) living critics of the Bible are overall untrained in regards to the Bible and related fields of scholarship, their arguments continue to be spewed forth by skeptics as though Biblical scholarship froze in time shortly after Galileo. Furthermore, we shall see that the very same tactics and attitudes fostered by Paine persist even to this day, in the efforts of critics like C. Dennis McKinsey, Ken Smith (Ken's Guide to the Bible), and my old pal from AOL, Kornform. Some of the things we will see from Paine are exact matches to what we see from these skeptics today -- not that age is the key to truth or falsity, but it is an important consideration when so much has been done to advance Biblical scholarship since Paine and his ideological partners wrote their diatribes. Paine, et al. can hardly be blamed for not being up to the knowledge level of the 21st century. Modern skeptics, however, can be blamed for thinking and/or writing as though Paine is a reliable source whose arguments have not been soundly refuted time and time again -- that is, if they were not manifestly silly even at the time they were written!

To begin, a word about Paine personally. He was not, despite what you may have heard, an atheist; he was a deist. One suspects that if he had had Darwin at his disposal, that might have been different; nevertheless, it is a charge that should not be levied against him. And with that, we proceed to some particulars gleaned from the pages of AR.

• Who can blame Paine for being oblivious to certain things? He could not help but appeal to the "pagan borrowing" thesis of the origin of Christianity, for he hardly knew better -- but he cannot be excused entirely from culpability. As a supposed parallel to the virginal conception, he offers the story of Jupiter and Leda. For the mythologically-impaired, let me explain that this was a story wherein Jupey disguised himself as a swan, snuck up to this poor girl, and -- well, this is a family server I'm on; you'll need to piece together the rest. But Paine thought that this offered a parallel to the VC, and in part he established this parallel by reading into the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit by Mary, a case of her being "debauched by a ghost" [142]. Today I have seen many skeptics repeat this idea, as though Matthew and Luke depict some sort of divine sexual intercourse in the manner of Jupiter taking advantage of Leda; when in fact there is nothing but simple creative fiat. The comparison makes well for scurrilous allegation, but has no basis in fact. Still, it has survived at least this long.
• Likewise, who can blame Paine for this statement we now recognize as misplaced and ridiculous: The Gospels "do not give a history of the life of Jesus Christ, but only detached anecdotes of him." [22] So it was of all ancient Greco-Roman biography, and perhaps Paine should shoulder more blame for this miscue, since even in his time many such ancient biographies were well at hand, even if not available in paperback.
• The conspiracy theory was around when Paine lived, as well. He tells us that in the time of the church, forgery of documents was so common that "the probability is at least equal, whether (any of the NT documents) are genuine or forged." [25] We laugh at such reasoning today; but who can blame him? This was the beginning of the time when insufferable Enlightenment arrogance would charge that nearly any ancient document might be forged. Apparently the "chronological snobs" of this period felt that none of those stupid ancient people could have produced such heightened masterpieces as Tacitus' Annals, for example...after all, they didn't have the benefit of "modern" knowledge.
• An Australian reader has added this observation:

  There is one thing I found interesting about "Age of Reason" that you don't mention. Paine uses the following "logic" to "prove" that parts of the Bible are a forgery.

  1. Deuteronomy records Moses' death.
  2. Moses could not have recorded his own death.
  3. As it contained something that Moses didn't write, Deuteronomy therefore was not written by Moses.
  4. Deuteronomy is therefore a forgery.
  5. It being a forgery, it can be ignored as useless.

  My copy of "Age of Reason" was electronic, on a CD-ROM containing books from the "Library of the Future". The edition of "Age of Reason" they reproduced contained the following footnote:

  "* The former part of the Age of Reason has not been published in two years, and there is already an expression in it that is not mine. The expression is, The book of Luke was carried by a majority of one voice only. It may be true, but it is not I that have said it. Some person, who might know of the circumstance, has added it in a note at the bottom of the page of some of the editions, printed either in England or in America; and the printers, after that, have placed it into the body of the work, and made me the author of it. If this has happened within such a short space of time, notwithstanding the aid of printing, which prevents the alteration of copies individually, what may not have happened in a much greater length of time, when there was no printing, and when any man who could write could make a written copy, and call it an original by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?"

  Using Paine's own "logic", then, I can conclude the following:

  1. At is contained something that Paine didn't write, "Age of Reason" therefore was not written by Paine.
  2. "Age of Reason" is therefore a forgery.
  3. It being a forgery, it can be ignored as useless!

  To say nothing of Paine's illicit application of his personal experience to the Bible and ignorance of textual criticism!

• Does this sound familiar? "Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information." [28] O-kay...so Robert Price wasn't the first to haul up a form of this laughable argument. Hmm, unchangeable and universal sounds a lot like, oh, the laws of logic, for example.
• Thinking of studying ancient languages? Forget it, says Paine: "The best Greek linguist that now exists does not understand Greek so well as a Grecian plowman did, or a Grecian milkmaid" -- a-yup, that comes from someone who actually knows ancient Greek, right...? Fat chance. Paine had no knowledge of Biblical Greek (or Hebrew); much less did he go back in time and interview an ancient Grecian plowman. (Aside from not having time travel, the plowman would have been too busy conjugating obscure Greek verbs to talk to him.) This is remarkably similar to Dennis McKinsey's yahoo comments and commentary about apologists resolving contradictions by appealing to the vagaries of ancient languages. But at least McKinsey doesn't go on to say that studying ancient languages is a waste of time.

  Addendum: A reader noted that Paine may be alluding here to a comment made by the leading expert in Greek in his day, Richard Bentley, who compared his own knowledge of ancient Greek to that of an Athenian blacksmith -- though I have to think that Bentley was being self-effacing, or else hyperbolically emphasizing the complexity of Greek rather than being literal.

• Here's an argument that I've seen: If we accept the miracles in the Bible, then why not also those in Josephus, or for example, Tacitus' account of Vespasian healing a blind man and a lame man? [79] I have no problem accepting any of this, actually; but there's more to the issue that that. Nor do we have reason to doubt that Tacitus is making an accurate report...if we understand what is going on. The old politician seemed a bit "surprised" by the miracles himself! At the same time, if this is all that Vespy did that was miraculous, well, I don't think parallels to Jesus are going to hold much water, unless Vespy went around doing more healings, etc. -- and according to our sources, he didn't. (See this excellent article for more details!)
• And a plethora of old arguments, such as complaints of no record of the Slaughter of the Innocents, with the added laugher than no provision was made to protect the infant John the Baptist! No, I don't think Herod was interested in kids that far from Bethlehem...and also, this: A complaint that Matthew does not tell us more about the resurrected saints, like whether or not they had clothes on, who they visited, and wondering why they left no letters or notes behind!
• Paine is perhaps also the inspiration for a tactic I have seen time and time again from skeptics, especially from Cutner, and McKinsey. Basically it runs like this:
  1. When reading the Bible, do so on your own terms. Read it "plainly" without any references to outside sources that would aid understanding the Bible in its context (unless they happen to favor your position, of course). As Paine puts it: "...I mean not to go out of the Bible for evidence of anything, but to make the Bible itself prove" the points he wishes to make. [84] Is this not paralleled in modern times by McKinsey's advice to "read the Bible as you would a newspaper"? Do we not hear in this comment a precursor of the tired refrain about apologists "saying that the Bible does not mean what it clearly says"? Taking this approach to any other piece of ancient or extra-cultural literature would have these skeptics laughed out of the hall; but it is, of course, the privilege of the freethinker to interpret such things as he pleases!
  2. When apologists make their own answers, and in so doing appeal to outside sources or relevant scholarship, do not be swayed by it. Do as Paine does: Assert that you are not obliged to believe anything that you have not perceived with your own senses, which makes all historical study and analysis practically worthless (unless you do it yourself and/or happen to agree with it). As he says: "Supposition proves nothing; and if the advocates for the belief that Moses wrote (the books of the Pentateuch) himself have nothing better to advance than supposition, they may as well be silent." (!) So freely criticize the apologists on such grounds, and feel free to pick and choose your own beliefs this way; but don't actually go out and do any legwork and critical evaluation yourself, though: You are above that! Throw the burden of proof onto the apologist, even if you are the one making the claims about a book you have just picked up and read on your own terms. Cutner and McKinsey were not original in this regard. Also be sure to do as Paine did, and interpret scholarly interaction and dispute as working in your favor [75]. The fact that it is easier, as a freethinker, to believe in NOTHING, than it is for others to choose SOMETHING from among options, is an inconsistency that should not disturb you in the least.
  3. Be arrogant in your laziness! Paine assures his readers that his first part of AR is irrefutable, even "with a library of Church books" [71] at the disposal of any prospective apologist. Not that Paine cracked open any of those books, mind you. But when it comes to Enlightenment arrogance, the freethinker always puts himself at the top of the heap.
  4. Argue by outrage! Be sure to haul up the Canaanites at least once. Paine, to his credit, didn't go too far on this one; but he did commit the usual circular fallacy we find in this regard:
     1. God is good and just (as I define good and just).
     2. The atrocities described in the Bible are not good or just (by my estimation).
     3. God would not do anything that is what I consider to be not good or just.
     4. Therefore, the God of the Bible is obviously false.
  5. Finally, when the details get too detailed, bow out in a way that suggests that you are above all of this discussion, and that the apologist was lucky to have been graced by your presence. Refer to points of discussion as "quibbles", as some do; dismiss the details as irrelevant, or as coming from extra-biblical sources, or from self-interested, self-serving apologists as McKinsey does; posture mightily about how you have been answered by generalities, but do no research yourself, like Cutner did; or, say that you are tired of the absurdities, and just want to get the matter over with, like Paine did. There is no reason why you can't be lazy and not do primary research like the apologists do. After all, you are a freethinker! What you say, goes! And as a superior creature, you may freely shift the burden upon those superstitious apologists, absolved of all burdens of responsibility for proving your own points of view.
• Another tactic that found seed with Paine: Chauvinism and bigotry. As a freethinker, your mind is utterly clear, and your understanding utterly perfect. Therefore, the way you perceive things to be, is the way they are -- and how others perceived things is something not to be taken notice of. Read these comments by Paine, and ask yourself if we do not also hear the voice of Dennis McKinsey, and of Ken Smith, in these words:
  • The Book of Revelation Paine describes as "a book of riddles" [15] -- no regard for apocalyptic literature and those who understood and appreciated it is to be found here! Paul is a "manufacturer of quibbles" [24] -- no, not an educated student of the OT; his writings are "interlarded with quibble, subterfuge and pun" -- no, not a master of Greco-Roman rhetorical practices; not a brilliant mind, as even many hostile biographers of Paul admit today, but merely a quibbler, and also a fanatic. Ken Smith, you were beaten out at this one! Ruth is put off as "an idle, bungling story, foolishly told" [98] -- boy, even Ken's Guide to the Bible showed more appreciation for Ruth than that!! Isaiah is "one of the most wild and disorderly compositions ever put together", "prose gone mad" -- so might someone say 2000 years from now of Age of Reason, if they too are chauvinists with their own ideas on how to compile literature. (Had Paine never heard of an anthology before?)
  • Jesus could not have wanted to found a new religious system, for if he had, he "would undoubtedly have written this system himself." [22] Really? What did Paine know of oral transmission, the use of writing in ancient times as a supplement to the spoken word, the ancient memory and the use of mnemonics in the teachings of Jesus? Isn't this simply Paine's own logocentric chauvinism coming through -- the assumption that what is important MUST, of necessity, appear in writing, because he in his own culture has happened to have had great success in writing things like Common Sense? This is chronological snobbery and nought else. (Elsewhere he makes it a point to imply that there is some significance to the fact that "the art of printing was wholly unknown at the time Christ lived." [29] Stupid ancients! How did they even know which way to put their togas on in the morning? For more on this question -- the one about writing, not about togas -- see our item here.)
• Finally, it doesn't hurt to throw in a few completely wacky statements with absolutely no basis in fact. Remember, as a freethinker, it is not your burden to prove that anything that you say is true. As long as it makes things simpler, allows you to not have to do the homework others have done, and is beyond proof or disproof by any possible means of study, it will do the job. At the same time, don't be afraid to use vague generalities. Thus, these examples:
  • How was the canon formed? We are told that "church mythologists" simply "collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased." [16] Everything was decided by vote. (If this all sounds familiar, it should: One of McKinsey's few sources, Shmuel Golding, used these very words. As before, we refer the reader to our essay refuting this absurdly simplistic vision of canonical compilation.)
  • The book of Proverbs could not have been authored by Solomon, because they "discover a knowledge of life which his situation excluded him from knowing" -- they did? How? Paine does not tell us how; he merely throws this out on the mat without a single justification. Skeptics of his caliber will eat this stuff up uncritically, but where is Paine's knowledge of Hebrew society and culture? How has he been so informed of the life details of Solomon as to make such an assessment? (Lesson: When skeptics make assertions like these, press for details and ask how it is they know what they claim to know. 9 times out of 10 you'll be served a plate of fudge in return.)
  • Why was Jesus crucified? According to Paine, if he came to die for our sins, then dying by fever or by old age would have been just as sufficient. Well, I've never heard of executing someone by either of those methods, but...

What can be said in conclusion? Paine is truly a father of modern skepticism. His tactics and his arguments, though proven worthless many times over, are still in use today. Celsus is not alone in his legacy.

Owing to a challenge, we do a more in-depth review here.