It is inadequate to focus on individual words

by Doug Mason 4 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Doug Mason

  It seems to me, and I am open to be criticised, that the focus on individual words - as in considering revisions to this "new" NWT - is myopic and it misses the real issues.

  I have no problems with improving readabilty; I have no problems with committees representating a range of expert scholars reviewing textual evidence and producing better and more readable texts of the Bible. Indeed, I wish these experts would take the results of their studies to the Christain populace and produce a totally new Bible - rejecting books that are now in it (such as Acts), altering the sequence of books (Paul first), even inserting some (the Book of Enoch comes to mind, for example). In other words, to address the canon.

  There is another wide and more significant issue that has to be addressed - context. Not only the textual context of a word or passage, but the human context - the contemporary history at the moment a writing was composed and when it was edited and re-edited, changed and corrupted. I know this is Higher Criticism, which the WTS says it rejects - except for the following example on the subject of exegesis:

  "However, if a person ignored the context and directly applied the text to worldly conflicts, limiting it to that, he would lose the whole point of the apostle Paul's argument. He would then not really be letting the Bible speak. Besides the written context, a person should keep in mind the time period involved. This can prevent one from drawing wrong conclusions" (WT, Oct 1,1976, page 586).

  As I am wont to occasionally note: "a text without a context is a pretext".

  Douhg
• 

  slimboyfat

  On what basis would you remove Acts? And insert Enoch? I think you lost a few people there.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Acts is a late writing (possible date 125 CE) designed to provide a picture that smooths over differences in the schism between the Antioch church under Paul and the Jerusalem Church under James. It is historically inaccurate and it contradicts Paul's accounts. For example, scholars are incapable of reconciling Paul with the account at Acts 15 - which is a disaster for the WTS and its theoretical first century "governing body". Or the contrast between Acts' "Damascus Road" story againts Paul's account, where he says in Galatians that he was already in Damascus arguing against the followers of Jesus and that he left the place for 3 years after his confrontation there. Consider also the structure of Acts (Peter then Paul). Acts is commonly referred to as "religious fiction".

  I am certain there are numerous presentations on the www giving both sides of the argument. The fact they are there shows this is an issue of concern. Which side you accept is yours to make. I have shown you mine. The point I make is that this is the kind of issue the NWT should address, and do so objectively.

  The Book of Enoch underlies some of NT writings; at one stage it was part of the Canon and it is still part of the Ethiopic Bible. I write the following in my Study at:

  http://www.jwstudies.com/We_can_be_sure.pdf

  "The book of Enoch is quoted in Jude 14-15. Verbal echoes are found in Matthew, Luke, John, Hebrews, Thessalonians, 1 Peter and Revelation, and probably in other books. It exercised a greater influence on the New Testament than all the other non-canonical books together. It was considered sacred by Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria; and it is found in the Ethiopic version as a part of the Bible."

  See my study and the reason I wrote that.

  Do you see the reason I say such things are far more critical than arguing about a single word here or there?

  Doug
• 

  Doug Mason

  The WTS could justify any action in changing the list of books that make up the NT Canon (and perhaps the OT?). It says that the Church apostatised as soon as the last Apostle died, by the end of the 1st century (100 CE).

  The WTS claims to be assigned the authority given to the original Apostles, so it should claim superiority over the 4th century ("apostate") Trinitarians who were the first to provide the present list of writings. This is the list that the WTS accepts as Holy Scripture. Why?

  Doug
• 

  slimboyfat

  If you throw out Acts will you throw out Luke too, written by the same author?

  Are you approaching this from a Christian believer's perspective? Sure Acts is full of made up stuff, but so are the gospels. Revelation is an acid trip and Paul's letter were written to raise money. Lots of reasons for rejecting any or every NT book if you look for them.

  JWs take a pretty conservative view toward the canon as formulated by Athanasius and confirmed by the Protestant reformers. The chances of them changing their minds on that issue is vanishingly small. For that reason alone it's probably a bit fruitless discussing a possible change that will never happen. And more worthwhile examining the actual changes, however small fry they may be deemed.