Higher Criticism and the WTS

by Doug Mason 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    I have my idea why the WTS waxes so strongly against Higher Criticism, so I would like to hear the views of others on this matter.

    I do not want this Thread to degenerate into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of Higher Criticism, but rather for this Thread to explore the reason(s) why the WTS has to be so adamantly against it.

    As a clue to my own thoughts, I suggest that consideration should be given to the WTS's silence -- as far as I am aware (and I am open to correction) -- on the subject of Lower Criticism (and other forms of analysis).

    Doug

  • Mat
    Mat

    Higher Critisism presents a very plausable alternative explanation about where the bible came from and how it was written. The only reference the WBTS have made (to my knowlege) is in the book- Bible-God's Word Or Mans?- Naturally it misrepresents the concept and paraphrases it to a laughable extent. A more full explaination here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

    Or a very good book here:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1300624243&sr=8-4

  • Terry
    Terry

    JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WERE THE HIGHER CRITICS OF THEIR ERA.

    Setting themselves as above every other church, denomination and message they constantly criticized church and state in endless

    variations on a theme.

    Exposing error was the gimmick.

    Replacing doctrine or ritual with door to door activity was the plan.

    In Religious academic circles, higher criticism was mere internal bookkeeping, so to speak.

    Adding up this and that making corrections..

    For Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion it was never about that

    With Pastor Russell the End of the World elements and gimmicks of Adventist nonsense were a novelty to capture attention and lure the curious inside.

    Russell used his wealth and talent for detail to cherry-pick from among the more sensational ideas of his day.

    He used his writing skills to link elements from all sorts of shady and preposterous sources.

    Tying it all together into something SCRIPTURAL was his true talent.

    The PREMISE of Russellism was the combining of Bible, Adventist charts, Pyramidology, anti-establishment interpretation and leader charisma.

    The christians who followed Russell were kept interested by his CLAIMS because he was wrapping it all around a roll of the dice and putting his predictions on the line!

    Either those very specific dates were true or it was bunkum, right? Gotta love how brave and certain it all sounded!

    But--this was a very shaky foundation for anything but a flash-in-the-pan fly-by-night religious quack.

    How could he pretend to be right IF and when things started proving false??

    Maria Russell concocted the best reason, however, because it has proved the most durable: the faithful and discreet slave doctrine.

    The Doctrine of the Faithful and Discreet Slave rests entirely on interpretation and assertion:

    Near the End of Days Jesus would inspect and select among all religions the only one he found worthy of becoming his MOUTHPIECE.

    Using that MOUTHPIECE faithful believers could TRUST the instructions being given which would SAVE THEM FROM DESTRUCTION.

    Naturally, all of this only meant going along with weird and dysfunctional interpretations!

    Next, under President J.F. Rutherford a cult of personality developed with antisocial agendas.

    Jehovah's Witnesses was concocted as an iconoclastic, anti-authoritarian (church authority, government authority, etc.) brand name.

    The motto could easily have been: IF YOU ARE FOR IT---WE ARE AGAINST IT!

    Silly as this sounds it is true.

    Most "normal" christian people viewed worship as flowing from the authority of the bible and so did Jehovah's Witnesses.

    HOWEVER....

    JW's were set firmly in the role of ANTAGONISTS using the scriptures (really: interpretations of scripture) as weapons.

    They ranted and raved and criticized and set themselves up to be radical martyrs to gain notice.

    All the while spouting DATES for the end of the world!!

    Bait and Switch.

    Lure people in with urgency to avoid DOOM and switch to a sales work of door to door propaganda spreading!

    And so on...

    Jehovah's Witnesses ARE the Higher Critics---but--not of actual historical proofs!

    They are critics of society, worldwide religion and foundational error in mainstream religious dogma.

    IT ALL RESTS MERELY ON THEIR OWN ASSERTIONS.

    Mark this one fact and it all falls into place:

    The fragility of the bible as a source authority must NEVER be allowed to be discussed!

    Why?

    It is the bundling of their own peculiar interpretions (under the guise of "mouthpiece") with BIBLE that is the engine that drives the Governing Body's authority.

    If people ever really knew facts about the errancy of the Bible and started investigating on their on the house of cards would quickly tumble.

    THE BIBLE MUST BE PROPPED UP NO MATTER WHAT!

    The Governing Body presents itself as the champion of God's Word. In reality, they are the champions of their own crazy thinking.

    The Bible is fragile as an historical document because of 3 main reasons.

    1.The scriptures (bible) are man made, man assembled, man copied, man interpreted and man translated.

    2.There is no chain-of-custody (provenance) for documents, manuscripts, epistles from Apostles to Present Day.

    3.Original manuscripts vanished without a trace. What we today call THE BIBLE is a guess assembled from (not originals or even copies of originals)

    various scraps of this and that like so much garbage found in a landfill.

    CHRISTIANITY itself is built on a MISREPRESENTATION of inerrancy.

    Authority claims cannot be verified!

    It threatens their source authority and exposes their counterfeit claims.

    The closer you get to discovering that secret the louder they scream and emote curses, threats and doom!

    The Catholic Church simply made things up as they went along inventing one doctrine after another.

    People all through history who were intellectually honest have researched for themselves and passed through the fire of discovering the LIE.

    When the Church could do so they burned them, hanged them, tortured them and labelled them Apostate and Heretic.

    With the coming of the Protestants that authority quickly turned into warfare, witch trials, Inquisitions and Reformation.

    Pastor Russell started out as an intellectually curious pious man.

    He made the discovery that many teachings of the mainstream were based on false ideas, traditions and error.

    He exposed this and gained the confidence of other like-minded christians eager to know THE TRUTH.

    However---

    (and this is very important to realize)

    Russell's honest investigations were SIDETRACKED by his crazy obsession with DATE SETTING Adventist ideas!

    He was derailed by it!

    The Great Pyramid, date setting and personal interpretations wiped out the good in his DISCLOSURE of the LIE of doctrine purity.

    Judge Rutherford used Russell's technique of taking on the ESTABLISHMENT and exposing error to build his own empire of crazy ideas.

    Jehovah's Witnesses went from a good work of revealing the errors of christianity (based on the fragility of the bible's authority) to a bad work

    of REINFORCING that authority so that they could SUBSTITUE their own errors and present them as ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

    HIGHER CRITICISM is the number one enemy of inerrantists today.

    Jehovah's Witnesses will be found fighting on the side of the Evangelicals against it.

    Once the true nature of scripture is actually known---the AUTHORITY of such absolutists vanishes into mere opinion posing as Truth.

  • Mat
    Mat

    I think their main reason for not mentioning it is that it isn't one they get on the doors very much, and it is a subject I haven't seen many TV shows mention. So, they won't want to make people awair. I'm sure in time it will be more well known. It is worth knowing when you are recovering from the mind control of a bible based cult.

  • Spade
    Spade

    The faithful and discreet slave has always conducted itself as an analytical lens that examines all things.

    However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:15-16)

    “Higher criticism,” the numerous cyberghosts that run amok on the internet and exploit the imperfections of others rarely have a name and a face to criticize. When they do (e.g. http://www.freeminds.org/) identify themselves, the participants grossly contradict themselves while Jehovah's Witnesses speak in agreement.

    Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought. 1 Corinthians 1:10

    http://www.freeminds.org/life-stories/bethelites/my-story-my-return-to-christianity-the-early-years-part-3.html

    My Story - My Return To Christianity: The Early Years - Part 3
    http://www.freeminds.org/blogs/a-gilead-grad-s-guide-to-leaving-jws/from-missionary-to-atheist-how-is-that-possible-part-2-all-about-evolution.html

    From Missionary to Atheist - how is that possible? Part 2 - All About Evolution | A Gilead Grad's Guide to Leaving JWs

    The list goes on...

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW
    “Higher criticism,” the numerous cyberghosts that run amok on the internet and exploit the imperfections
    of others rarely have a name and a face to criticize. When they do (e.g. http://www.freeminds.org/) identify themselves,
    the participants grossly contradict themselves while Jehovah's Witnesses speak in agreement.....Spade/AliceInWonderLand

    This is what JW`s used to Believe..

    Now they don`t..

    Many JW`s don`t Know..

    They don`t believe this Anymore..

    ........................... ...OUTLAW

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I remember some author (perhaps James Penton) suggesting that early JW writers misunderstood the term "higher criticism" and took it imply looking down on the biblical text, rather than as you say a technical term that contrasts with lower criticism.

    The early Bible Students in particular often made such errors on the basis of simple linguistic misunderstandings, like how their whole teaching on what they called "present truth" was based on a misunderstanding of the sense in which "present" was used in the scripture.

  • wobble
    wobble

    You are dead right Slimboy, for many a long year they just did not understand what Higher Criticism was, they often referred to it as "So-called higher criticism" if you remember.

    As to exactly when it got through to their un-educated minds exactly what H.C was I am not sure.

    I think the motive for not mentioning Lower Criticism, and other forms of analysis, is that they know the textual accuracy of their NWT does not bear too close a scrutiny, and they do not want the R&F witnesses to look at it too closely.

    Once you get an interest in what the best early manuscripts actually said, you become aware of how much their translation is affected by their doctrines , that is true of a number of translations of course, ( a trinitarian bias being evident in some) but for the faithful Witness it is a bit of a shock to find out that they are not so interested in transmitting the thoughts of the early manuscripts, so much as bolstering their own teachings.

  • JuanMiguel
    JuanMiguel

    I agree with Slimboy. It's like people misunderstanding the expression "theory of evolution" and saying: "See, even scientists don't believe it is proven because they themselves label it a 'theory.'" Some are unaware that "theory" in this instance refers to an established observation of nature that is supported by empirical evidence and independent verification.

    To be "critical" of the Bible sounds bad to some who are not educated in the scientific method. Regardless if one believes the stories of the Bible factual or not, one can still use some academic disciplines to produce a verifiable text as well as an accurate translation of its books. These methods in turn allow broader exegesis on stories that can even be reasons to support Scripture's claims, but interestingly many "Bible-only" believers never get far enough in learning about the process to discover these things.

    For instance, with the discovery of texts in Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Masada, as well as non-Jewish literary discoveries of recent years, a critical analysis theory of the first part of Genesis teaches that practically all ancient societies told the same story of creation-paradise/flood/and restart of humanity. The characters are all different as well as the gods that play into the stories, but the framework was shared and used as a backdrop fas a once well-accepted model of history, whether or not that model was ever meant to be taken literally to begin with.

    The religious insight was found in the players, not the events, and how the players reacted to or caused the various events of the framework. The Hebrew text follows the same framework but introduces a different type of God, one constantly drawing humanity back when they stray and promising a hopeful future.

    Whether or not this latest critical analysis proves to be popular enough to withstand time or acceptance, it would work in favor of those who claim a belief in the Bible against those who are always pointing to the framework details as proof that the Bible is false. According to this theory, details like the size of the ark, the number of animals, the location of the Garden of Eden, the hundreds of years people were said to live, etc. are not the focal point of the story, but a shared paradigm of ancient culture. The cynics would have to concentrate on the lessons provided by the interplay and abandon all hope of finding fault with a framework not exclusive to the Hebrews (or so the argument goes).

    I personally don't know if I share this view, but this does bring up another factor as to why the Witnesses might reject it. This would prove that the Bible wasn't always being chronologically literal in its retelling of history. This would therefore mean that one could not rely on the dates often offered in this section of the Bible, and this would eventually destroy their "time prophecies" they cling to in their on-going desperate attempt to claim the world is ending.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    I think, in general, they are down on "higher criticism" since it is often anti-Biblical. For instance, you will find many scholars commenting that the Bible's history is not accurate, or that it has changed over time or been revised, or is a collection of various events. One of my favorites is the idea that the story of the Exodus is a combination of several events in ancient Israelite history and is not a true event. Thus they often imply for the Bible what might be true of other historical cultures, in general. Even archaeologists that believe the events in the Bible to be at least semi-historical will rationalize, such as Dame Kathleen Kenyon, though dating the destruction of Jericho by Joshua between 1350-1325 BCE, also claimed that the walls might have been destroyed by some natural force, such as an earthquake. So "higher criticism" often reflects on unfounded presumptions, so witnesses are warned against this.

    But in reality, "higher criticism" is really a misnomer. It suggests superior examination of the facts, but just the opposite is often true. Those with big degrees use those degrees and the concept of "peer review" to foster their own agenda and propaganda. A perfect example of that is the Exodus. The Exodus was always dated at the end of the rule of Amenhotep III by Manetho. "Higher criticism" would criticize Manetho as being removed from the time and/or part of a forgery. But since the Exodus actually did occur at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III, at least that historical reference is actually correct, so "higher criticism" has been incompetent in this regard.

    Thus the Bible itself is really the measuring rod. It is the highest criticism of everything else. So in this case, I tend to agree with the WTS and others who use the Bible to preempt what the academic world is trying to promote as truth when it directly contradicts the Bible. For instance, Martin Anstey concluded the Persian Period was 82 years too long in his 1913 "Romance of Bible Chronology" in the face of all the secular references supporting the current timeline that would date the 1st of Cyrus c. 538-537 BCE. The Biblical dating is closer to 455 BCE. Opposing all the "higher criticism" to the contrary, Anstey surmised the Persian Period must be 82 years too long. We now can confirm that is precisely the case and can remove those fake 82 years from the Persian Period, vindicating the Bible's timeline and dating. This is done by secular sources, such as the VAT4956 which contain the original dating of 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. So "higher criticism" is often behind the times and incorrect, even when their own documents, such as the VAT4956, SK400 and others would confirm revisionism and manipulation of the timeline and also support the Bible's true timeline. So criticizing "higher criticism" is a valid position. The crux of the issue is assuming those with degrees and who have become experts in a certain field are also honest--they are often not, with many conflicts of interests and their own agendas, often anti-Biblical agendas.

    So the best position is to become a higher critic of "higher criticism"! The WTS is right on point with that.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit