Blog - Jehovah's Witnesses and (Academic) Dialogue with Non-Members at the Society of Biblical Literature?

by Mickey mouse 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-gilmour/jehovahs-witnesses-and-ac_b_987545.html

    Excerpt (bold added):

    Intrigued by this gap in the scholarly conversation about contemporary uses of the Bible, I recently proposed an SBL session examining the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's use of Scripture. I received approval to proceed but then dropped the ball before getting too far along and circulating a call for papers. Here's why. Though there are good reasons for scholars to engage this Bible reading community in a context like SBL, I wonder whether it is a responsible or even ethical thing to do if members of the organization are not part of the conversation. Said differently, is it appropriate for outsiders to put a religious tradition under the microscope without insider representation?

    The difference between the Jehovah's Witnesses and other contemporary reading communities examined at SBL is participation. Sessions treating other religious perspectives on biblical literature - such as the Latter-day Saints and the Bible section - enjoy active participation by adherents. To illustrate, scholars from Brigham Young University are active in this group. It seems unlikely this would occur in prospective sessions on the Jehovah's Witnesses. Indeed, the Watchtower views biblical scholarship with profound distrust so the very idea of a conversation about their hermeneutics at SBL is problematic. Their 1988 commentary Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand!, for instance, repeats suspicions about the integrity or acumen of biblical scholarship, referring with disdain to "Worldly commentators" who offer alternative readings of Revelation (120 and passim). And there's the rub. Can we have a substantial, respectful, constructive conversation about this group - or any other religious community - if there are no insiders, no representatives of the tradition involved?

  • JonathanH
    JonathanH

    That's an interesting article, and the JW apologists are already on it. They state that they used to debate, but it was unproductive. Now they just preach because jesus knows best. then there are the embarrasingly trite and obliviously offensive metaphors like "if you saw a bottle with a skull and cross bones on it would you drink it?" referring to learning about other religions. It's been a long time since I actually saw the witness mindset, and it's still sickening.

  • JonathanH
    JonathanH

    The academic paper linked to in the article is interesting as well. He critically examines the Revelation book, and the JW interpretation of revelation. he draws attention to the numerous violent images in the pages that seem out of place for a religion that is pacifistic, and also comments on the lack of methodology in making extremely specific interpretations of the text. Like how the seventh trumpet being blown is prophetic of an assembly in 1922 in Ohio held by Brother Rutherford, no other possible interpretation is given, that's just what that prophecy means, but exactly how that conclusion is drawn is rather vague and certainly less than methodical.

    It's great watching people with an actual education comment on a group that just insists that it's educated.

  • ScenicViewer
    ScenicViewer

    djeggnog is quite the scholarfly type, and posts here from time to time. His posts are long winded, but he's pretty good at presenting the Watchtower point of view. Would be very interesting to see him and the scholars exchange ideas.

  • JonathanH
    JonathanH

    Don't give DJeggnog the view that he can discuss things with actual scholars. That guy's academic level is not even remotely commensurate to his view of his own "genius". In JW land he's better than average at regurgitating their platitudes, but he's still just vomitting up what has been shoved down his throat.

  • moshe
    moshe
    if there are no insiders, no representatives of the tradition involved?

    The WatchTower Society would have to send the Faithful and Discreet Slave to that conference in order to have any credibility with the JWs- unfortunately, the F&DS are very scarce in WT land- every JW has heard of them, but no JW has ever seen one in the flesh- well gotta run, it's hunting season for Jackalopes- maybe, I bag one yet this year.

  • lisaBObeesa
    lisaBObeesa

    very interesting article, and some interesting comments...

  • blondie
    blondie

    The WTS does not consider themselves pacificts.

    *** w51 2/1 pp. 67-68 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists ***

    “Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.”—Ex. 15:3, AS; Yg.

    “JEHOVAH’S witnesses! Just a bunch of pacifists!” So a great many people will exclaim with scorn. And so they have been led to think by the charges hurled at these by their enemies. But are the witnesses pacifists, seeking refuge under the cover of “conscientious objection” because they are afraid to fight? Let us here honestly search for the right and fair answer to this hot question. What have they to say for themselves?

    2 At the 1950 international assembly of Jehovah’s witnesses in Yankee Stadium, New York city, 10,000 foreign delegates were there from more than sixty other lands. Most of these had been subjected to great religious discrimination, embarrassment, hardship and inconvenience because they were obliged to clear themselves of the false charge of “extreme pacifism”. An indignation meeting was held Friday afternoon, August 4, at the assembly, at which the 70,000 American delegates in the presence of these foreign brothers unanimously passed a “Regret and Protest”, and at the close of the afternoon’s session a million copies of this were distributed. This 4-page paper vigorously called attention to the “Discrimination on False Charge of Pacifism” and said: “The smearing of us as extreme pacifists is without foundation and is a deliberate lie to provoke prejudice against us and this international assembly. They have done as the Scriptures prophesied, ‘framed mischief by law.’—Psalm 94:20. Extreme pacifism is not our preachment. We are not pacifists. . . . To charge that we are extreme pacifists is a lie.”

    3 As defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d edition, unabridged, of 1943) pacifism means: “Opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose; especially, an attitude of mind opposing all war, emphasizing the defects of military training and cost of war, and advocating settlement of international disputes entirely by arbitration.” Such pacifism not even the Bible itself can be charged with teaching, and neither can Jehovah’s witnesses, who stick most scrupulously to the Bible.

    4 When expressing a judgment upon Jehovah’s witnesses people are inclined to think of them as a religious body less than a century old. True, this unique name came into the limelight in 1931, when, by public acclamation, these faithful Christians all over the earth adopted resolutions rejecting the contemptuous names the enemies had tagged onto them and accepting the Scriptural name “Jehovah’s witnesses”. But their history is much longer than a century. Already in the eighth century before Christ the prophecy declared to God’s chosen people: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; . . . I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.” (Isa. 43:10-12, AS) In fact, the history of Jehovah’s witnesses runs all the way back to Adam’s son Abel, whom his brother Cain killed because Abel had received favorable witness from Jehovah God. The apostle Paul, in chapters 11 and 12 of his letter to the Hebrews, shows that fact. In all that history of almost six thousand years the record fails to show Jehovah’s witnesses accusable of “opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose”, which is the definition of pacifism.

    5 We could go through the list of Jehovah’s witnesses from Abraham onward to show they were not pacifists. The apostle Paul tells us about Abraham “returning from the slaughter of the kings” and receiving the blessing of King Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:1-4; Gen. 14:14-21) He tells of Moses who led the Israelites to the borders of the Promised Land. Then he mentions one high light in Joshua’s war to purge the Promised Land of the immoral pagan inhabitants, and adds: “And what more shall I say? For the time will fail me if I go on to relate about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David as well as Samuel and the other prophets, who through faith defeated kingdoms in conflict, effected righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, stayed the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from a weak state were made powerful, became valiant in war, routed the armies of foreigners.” (Heb. 11:30-34, NW) Every one that Paul there names was a fighter. Jehovah gave them victory. Only because Jerusalem proved unfaithful to God after repeated warnings by his witnesses Jehovah yielded the Jews over to the Babylonian armies and did not fight for them. He had forewarned them of punishment for disobedience, and so he let that come upon them in vindication of his word.—Deut. 28:36-67...

    *** g97 5/8 p. 23 Should Christians Be Pacifists? ***True Christians love peace. They stay completely neutral in the world’s military, political, and ethnic conflicts. But, strictly speaking, they are not pacifists. Why? Because they welcome God’s war that will finally enforce his will on earth—a war that will settle the great issue of universal sovereignty and rid the earth of all enemies of peace once and for all.—Jeremiah 25:31-33; Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10.

  • yourmomma
    yourmomma

    I think the guys who would have done this in the past like Greg Stafford have all either been DF'd or DA'd themselves. Those days or discussion are over. Now its a handful of uneducated JW's who dont even know their own docterine on internet forums who barely can make cohesive arguments and usually resort to insults. The forum with the most JW's is probably topix, and most of them are either not baptised, inactive, or lie about not being a JW. And their idea of a retort is to just post links to the watchtower website and call you an apostate. LOL

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Ohhh thank you for posting this! I had no idea that such a symposium was being considered. I just might fire off an email to Gilmour since the conference is happening in my neck of the woods, and I think it would be really cool to chat with him. I haven't ever been to the annual conference but I did once attend a West Coast SBL conference and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit