Paine is a believer in the theory of “individualism and human perfectibility,” which the enlightenment period of the 18th century brought out. His belief or disbelief is based on his own evaluation. He does not accept biblical authority but rather keeps asking till he gets things in tune to his common sense. Moreover, Paine believes that everything about God can be known through reason, as God does not exceed human understanding. “Paine honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation.” In contrast to Paine’s conviction, Watson contends that we can not always be right, being led by the dictates of our conscience, for it may err and mislead us. He forwards an example of an inquisitor who burns Jews guided by his conscience because it seems pleasant to him, and argues that “crimes may follow the dictates of conscience” (Apology, 6). Therefore, Watson does not agree with Paine’s thought, which states that we are pretty perfect to investigate truth by our own mind. According to him, as we are finite, we cannot fully understand God the infinite using our reason, and so God reveals himself to us in the way we can understand him. Thus, Watson emphasizes the guidance of the scripture, rather than the mere evaluation of our mind. For him, in the examination of truth and wrong, our judgements are not only formed from our reasoning but also from the religion we profess, the persons with whom we associate, the education we have had and the books we have read (Apology, 5).
Paine evaluated the Bible, being guided by his reasoning, and laying emphasis on its wordings, chronological order and accuracy of dating. He did not consider the findings of scholars nor refer to the books relevant to the issues he was dealing with. Commenting on Paine’s method of investigation, Watson writes, “had you made a learned appeal to all the ancient books in the world, sacred or profane, Christian, Jewish, or pagan, instead of
lessening, they would have established the credit and authority of the Bible as the word of God” (Apology, 9). Since Paine’s investigation lacks a learned appeal, in his biblical criticism he made a number of mistakes in terms of distinguishing history from prophecy and identifying the criteria for the authority of a books in the Bible. His mistakes were easily spotted by Watson, for Watson has a good knowledge of the Bible. Edward and Scheick agree with this point as they wrote: “Watson catches Paine in several glaring mistakes, such as his comments on the collection of tithes which Watson claims Paine owes to the sedulous aping of Volatire. Also, concerning Paine’s designation of the Decalogue as “delivered by God to Moses,” Watson states that the original Hebrew reads, Moses began to explain the law, not to declare the law.” In like manner, Stephen indicates that Paine’s errors resulted from his not being aquatinted with the Bible, and hasty reading.
Watson varies from Paine, since he is not an individualist. His apology demonstrates that he has a room for scholarship (the testimony of scholars). For instance, he quoted a paragraph from the writings of Dr. Hartley who wrote in favor of the authority of the Bible. Also he referred to the comments of Hobbes, Spinoza, Le Clere, Juvenal, Maimonides and Josephus. Moreover, Watson expresses his agreement with the saying of St. Austin which reads: “what proofs have we that the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other profane authors were written by those whose name they bear unless it be that this has been an opinion generally accepted at all times, and by all those who have lived since the authors?” (Apology, 18). Paine states that he accepts the writings of Plato and Aristotle as authentic. Thus, here Watson’s argument is that if Paine accepts the writings of Pluto and Aristotle without having any proof, his argument to reject the authenticity of the books in the Bible, and the genuineness of the Bible is not plausible.
Watson’s attitude towards the books of the Bible is based on their general feature, but Paine asks for more, investigating every portion. As an example, Paine quotes from Deuteronomy: “Moses dies in the land of Moab” and says, “the grammatical evidence implies that Moses was not the writer of the book.” Thus the book is anonymous and without authority. Moreover, based on this conclusion, Paine regards the book unworthy of credit. Contrary to Paine, Watson argues that anonymous testimony does not destroy the reality of facts. As far as it relates events as they really happened, an anonymous book can be authentic (Apology, 21). Also for Watson the accounts of Moses’ death in Deuteronomy do not indicate that the whole part of the book was not written by Moses, because they could have been added either by Joshua or Samuel (Apology, 28). Hence according to Watson’s understanding, it is not reasonable to discard the value of a book in terms of authorship with out considering the importance of its content.
In some cases Watson considers Paine’s argument “good for nothing” (Apology, 120). Paine compares the genealogies of Christ given at the beginning of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and having found a difference, he concludes that one of them lies and so if they cannot be believed in the very first part of their writing, then nothing that they say afterwards is to be believed (Apology, 121). In Watson’s opinion, neither Paine’s premises nor his conclusion are admissible, since it is unfair to reject all the accounts of the Gospel, saying that the evangelists differ in writing a pedigree of thousands of years ago. Again Watson reasons out that two persons may write a genealogy of a certain individual based on different sources they find without the least intention to write a falsehood. Likewise, Matthew and Luke took their accounts from the public registers and
wrote differently; Matthew followed the genealogy of Joseph (Jesus’ stepfather), and Luke the genealogy of Mary (Jesus’ mother). Had not their account been true, they would have been exposed by the Jews for having imposed a false genealogy on the Jewish nation (Apology, 122). Watson observes that Paine reads the Bible with a critical eye, pointing out what he thinks as an error, and disowns its moral and historical significance.
The ongoing issues indicate that Paine’s and Watson’s contrary views resulted from the 18th century modern biblical criticism, which emphasized fact, discarding the value of faith. Paine got used to this method while Watson stuck to Biblical authority. Their difference can be seen in their understanding of truth. What Watson regards as “truth” appears to be a myth for Paine. Their attitudes towards miracles can be mentioned as an example here. Paine asserts that the miracles cited by Josephus, i.e. opening the sea of Pamphlilia to let Alexander and his army pass is related to the division of the Red Sea narrated in Exodus. Also the two miracles, curing a layman and a blind man which Tacitus relates with Vespasian are synonymous to the miracles told of Jesus Christ by his historians. All these miracles are not acceptable to Paine because they sound naturally incredible. Responding to Paine, Watson argues that the miracles recorded in the Bible are the works of God, and therefore superior to those mentioned by Tacitus (Apology, 22). While Paine views the Biblical miracles as mere fables, Watson values them as supernatural acts whose validity cannot be doubted. Taking seriously the sort of contradictions he found in the Gospels, Paine rejects the whole story of Jesus (his virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection), considering them as myths derived from heathen mythology. Conversely, based on his inference that whenever two individuals write about somebody’s story there may be a disagreement in minute points, Watson does not hesitate to accept the story of Jesus Christ as true. Once he is convinced that Christ’s birth and resurrection are miraculous in their nature, and the testimonies of the Gospels are deemed to be reliable source of divine inspiration, he does not leave any room in his mind to suspect the reality of the biography of Jesus.
As a deist, Paine does not accept anything that is opposed to his own experience. But Watson’s attitude towards things contrary to his experience is quite different from Paine’s. Watson states, “my philosophy does not teach me to reject every testimony which is opposite to my experience” (Apology, 48). The variation of their stand can be seen in the account of the standing still of the sun mentioned in the book of Joshua on which both of them commented. Paine contemptuously rejects the story as “a tale only fit to amuse children.” According to him, God works constantly through the universe, and so extraordinary accounts like the story in the book of Joshua are against God’s law. Defending the validity of the story, Watson brings proof from tradition. As stated by one of the ancient historian, in the time of Ahaz, the sun went back ten degrees. Also Herodotus said, “the Egyptian priests told me that the sun had four times deviated from his course, having twice risen where it uniformly goes down and twice gone down where he uniformly rises” (Apology, 52). In addition to this, as Joshua himself quoted (Josh. 10: 13), the miracle of the sun’s standing still was recorded in the book of Jasher. Therefore the testimony of tradition is enough for Watson to accept such a story which has never happened in his lifetime. Furthermore, as a believer in the supernatural deeds of God, Watson grounds his acceptance of the miracle in the book of Joshua on his conviction that “the machine of the universe is in the hand of God; he can stop the motion of any part, or of the whole of it, with less trouble and less danger of injuring it than one can stop his watch” (Apology, 53). Therefore, contrary to Paine, Watson emphasizes God’s freedom of action, asserting that he can do whatever he likes on the universe.
The difference of opinion between Paine and Watson can also be traced out from their treatment of prophecies. According to Paine, prophets are impostures and fortunetellers whose prophecies can have no greater avail than poems and music (Apology, 58). As for Watson, the prophets were divinely inspired to declare God’s will in various manners and degrees of evidence as best suited the occasion and time (Apology, 59). It is true that the prophets are fallible in their nature. But according to Watson, they are not fallible while they are professing to deliver the word of God (Apology, 59). Thus their prophecies are deemed to be real predictions, though expressed in poetic language, and their fulfillment approves the truth of revelation.
Paine points out contradictions in the Bible to which Watson replied, appealing to the text. Paine contends that the reason given for the observation of Sabbath in the book of Deuteronomy is different from that of Exodus (Apology, 31). In effect, he invalidates the authority of both books. In his reply, Watson states that as its name “Deuteronomy”
(a repetition of a law) indicates, the law which had been given to the Israelites was repeated to their children 40 years later because Moses their leader was soon to be taken
and they were to settle in the midst of idolatrous nations. Thus, for Watson, it is not surprising if some additions and variations appear when a legislator thought fit to republish it many years later its first promulgation (Apology, 32). Paine also investigated the Gospels and found some accounts mentioned by one evangelist, which are not mentioned by all or by any of the others, and deduced that the gospels are not the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (Apology, 125). For Watson the reverse is true. He infers that all the evangelists agree in a great many particulars of the life of Jesus: purity of his manners, publicity of his miracles, the manner of his death and resurrection. Hence, “while they agree in these great points,” Watson goes on, “ their disagreement in points of little consequence is rather a confirmation of the truth than an indication of the falsehood of their several accounts, because had they agreed in nothing, their testimony ought to have been rejected as a legendary tale, and had they agreed in everything it might have been suspected that they were a set of imposters” (Apology, 125).
Some other issues raised by Paine to show that the Bible contradicts itself were the massacre of the young children by Herod, the inscription on the cross of Jesus, and the time when Christ was crucified. Since the story about the massacre of the children of Israel by the order of Herod is mentioned only by Matthew, Paine regards it as a lie (Apology, 127). The reason why only Matthew wrote, according to Watson, is that his Gospel was addressed to the Jews and so he wanted to remind them of the melancholic experience. As the other Gospels were written to the gentiles, there was no need of mentioning the massacre (Apology, 127). Paine also observes a difference in the Gospels about the inscription put over Christ when he was crucified. Admitting the verbal difference, Watson explained that this happened because the inscription itself was written in three different languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Therefore the evangelists differed in their translations (Apology, 128). Again Paine contends that the evangelists disagree not only as to the subscription on the cross, but also as to the time of crucifixion. Mark said at the third hour and John at the sixth. John differed from Mark, according to Watson, because Mark wrote following the Hebrew time whereas John wrote his Gospel in Asia using the Roman timing method which is different from that of the Hebrew (Apology, 128).
Paine’s criticism of the Bible from historical perspective indicates that he was aware of historical critical method, the underlying principle of historical reasoning, which arose in the century he lived, i.e. the 18th. Criticizing the Bible historically, Paine argues that the town “Dan” mentioned in the book of Genesis had previously been called “Laish” till the times of the Judges, 30 years after the death of Moses. Hence the mention of the town in Genesis indicates that Moses cannot be the author of the book, since the writer of Genesis must have lived after the town “Laish” replaced Dan. Watson briefly replies, “Dan mentioned in Genesis was the same town as the Dan mentioned in Judges” (Apology, 128). Again Paine disapproves the attribution of authorship to Genesis raising a historical critical issue. The verse in Genesis: “these are the kings that reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel” could only have been written after the first king began to reign over Israel. Therefore it was not likely written by Moses. As a Biblical scholar, Watson provides a solution for Paine’s critique. The names of some kings of Edom might have been inserted in the book of Genesis after the book of Chronicles was written. But the insertion has never been considered as invalidating the authority of the books (Apology, 40.)
As a book handed down to us through tradition, Watson envisages the historical value of the Bible. By contrast, for Paine, the Bible is “a book of stories, fables, invented absurdities and downright lies” (Apology, 40). Dealing with the significant issues discussed in the Bible like the formation of the word from a chaotic mass, the fall of man and narration of his descendants; Waston nicely states: “the Bible is one of the most valuable and the most venerable record of antiquity which provides a more satisfactory proof of the being and attributes of God, of the origin and end of humankind, than ever was attained by the deepest researches of the most enlightened philosophers” (Apology, 41). From the aforementioned discussion it can be inferred that while Paine reads the Bible with critical mind using his reason, Watson views it as a blameless and perfectly organized source.
Even though Watson is the opponent of deism, he does not totally ignore reason. “There are but two ways by which I can acquire any knowledge of the Supreme Being,” Watson writes, “by reason and revelation” (Apology, 66). He values the exercise of our reason in the investigation of truth. But as reason may be misleading because of the weakness of our intellectual faculty, it should be accompanied by the truth of revelation. About his experience he confesses, “with a mind weary of conjecture, fatigued for certainty, and unable to attain truth by the best use of my reason in matters of the utmost
importance, I have long ago turned my thoughts to an impartial examination of the proofs on which revealed religion is grounded, and I am convinced of its truth” (Apology, 75). Thus, for Watson reason is deficient in finding truth so that it should be helped by revelation, which is not contrary to it. Watson is assured that Paine attempted to lessen the authority of the Bible more by ridicule than by reason. He asserts that had Paine used the right way of reasoning, he would have reached into agreement with the revealed truth. But according to Watson, as it can be seen in his opposition to Biblical authority, Paine
was guided by prejudice and wrong bias, which resulted in an unfair criticism of the Bible (Apology, 178). Paine himself has said, “I have gone through the Bible as a man would go through a wood with an axe on his shoulder, and fell trees; here they lie” (Apology, 111).
Paine clearly expresses his stand, writing: “deism teaches us without the possibility of being mistaken all that is necessary or proper to be known” (Apology, 193).
To this, Watson replied that deism would be as Paine favorably speaks if it could teach
the three necessary and proper things, i.e. the being of God, the providence of God, and a future state of retribution (Apology, 193). Unfortunately Watson does not find these things in deism but in Christianity. Deism may consist of a belief in God and a teaching of moral character. Yet is does not have an answer about the future life. Here Watson’s interesting comparison of a Christian and a deist is worth noting:
The Christian has no doubt concerning a future state, but the deist is over-
whelmed with doubts insuperable by human reason. The Christian has no
misgivings as to the pardon of penitent sinners through the intercession of
a mediator; the deist is harassed with apprehensions lest the moral justice of
God should demand with inexorable rigor, punishment for transgression. The
Christian has no doubt concerning the lawfulness and the efficacy of prayer;
the deist is disturbed on this point by abstract considerations concerning the
goodness of God (Apology, 158).
As one of the “intellectual party of the church,” Watson defends revealed religion, showing the defect of deism. His apology demonstrates his zeal and dedication to Christianity. Also as reported in his anecdote, a number of Christians who had been perplexed by the writings of Paine expressed their appreciation to Watson, for he has relieved the church, which was on the way to be subverted by deism. The over all discussion illustrated above implies that Watson rests his mind in the revealed religion being guided by scripture, the inspired word of God. In contrast to Watson, Paine uses the exercise of his reason for the investigation of truth.
In conclusion, we have seen that Paine and Watson approached the Bible differently. As a deist, Paine was opposed to revealed religion, and deduced that all religious truth should be discerned in accordance with human reason. As a result, like any one of the writers of the enlightenment period who criticized the Bible, he investigated it according to his own understanding. His evaluation of the Bible demonstrates that Paine was familiar with Biblical criticism and historical critical method, which began to appear at the beginning of the 18th century. By contrast, Watson stood as a defender of the supernatural revelation, avoiding any criticism of the Bible. He was convinced that supernatural revelation is rational in its nature. Moreover, contrary to Paine, Watson believes that reason is misleading so that we cannot examine the Bible by reason alone. The teachings of the church, which were accepted through tradition, are desirable. Hence, Watson stands as the negative image of Paine and vice versa.
Bibliography
Cragg, Gerald R. Reason and Authority in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1964.
Davidson, Edward and Scheick, William J. Paine, Scripture, and Authority, The Age of Reason as
Religious and Political Idea. London: Lehigh University Press, 1994.
Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary (v.1). New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1992.
Gordan, Alexander. “Richard Watson” in Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford university
Press, 1899, available on a CD Rom.
Harris, R. W. Reason and Nature in the 18th Century Thought. London: Blandford Press, 1968.
Paine, Thomas. The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology. New
York: Putnam’s Sons, 1924
Paine, Thomas. The Religion of Deism Compared with Christian Religion. [Online].1795. [Cited on
March 30, 2003]; available at http://www.deism.com/paine
Soulen, Richard N. Hand Book of Biblical Criticism. Atlanta: JohnKnox Press, 1981.
Stephen, Leslie. History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century v. 1. New York: Peter Smith, 1949.
Waterman, A M.C. “A Cambridge ‘Via media’ in late Georgian Anglicanism” in The Journal of
Ecclesiastical History v. 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Watson, Richard. An Apology for the Bible. New York: American Tract Society, 1901.
Watson, Richard. Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson. London: T. Cadell, 1817.
Weaver, Mary Jo. Introduction to Christianity. New York: Wadswprth Publishing Company, 1998.
R. W. Harris, Reason and Nature in the 18th Century Thought, (London: Blandford Press, 1968), 9.
Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century v. 1, (New York: Peter Smith. 1949), 374.
Gerald R. Cragg, Reason and Authority in the Eighteenth Century, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), 29.
David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (v.1), (Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1992), 730.
Alexander Gordan, “Richard Watson” in Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1899), available on a CD Rom.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology, ed, (New York: Putnam’s sons, 1924), 120.
Richard Watson, An Apology for the Bible, (New York: American Tract Society, 1901), 80.
Thomas Paine, Of the Religion of Deism Compared with Christian Religion. [Online].1795. [Cited on March 30, 2003]; available at http://www.deism.com/paine.
Mary Jo Weaver, Introduction to Christianity, (New York: Wadswprth Publishing Company, 1998), 121.
Op. Cit, Paine, [on line.]
Edward h. Davidson and William J. Scheick, Paine, Scripture, and Authority, The Age of Reason as Religious and Political Idea, (London: Lehigh University Press, 1994), 91.
Richard N. Soulen, Hand Book of Biblical Criticism, (Atlanta: JohnKnox Press, 1981), 87.
A M.C. Waterman, “A Combrisge ‘Via medis’ in late Georgian Amglicanism” in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History v. 42 (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1992), 416.
24 Richard Watson, Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson, (London: T. Cadell, 1817), 73.