Why is Watchtower (JW) Scholarship inferior to others?

I am not a JW, but I often do agree with some of the things they say.

I disagree heavily with their views on the Afterlife and the Soul and the Mosaic Law and Canon.

But I agree with them very much on the issue of the Trinity. They are not the first however to take up this position, it was a minority view to question the Trinity often in history, and the "word was a god" translation that their NWT is famous for is not their own invention but showed up in many scholarly and minority (non Church sanctioned)

Some prominent Secular Scholars like Arizona Professor Dr. Jason Beduhn agree with many of their choices of translation and theology. They are not without their supporters, but have many critics who are more concerned about their Theology than the actual grammar, and apply double standards to their own "scholarship" for translation, when in fact many of the same "scholarly" translations they trust have controversies and issues that are mired down in arguments about the language itself, with the Theology (i.e. Trinity) at stake which guides the honesty of the people on each side of the scholarly debate. Traditional "Conservative" Scholars have even supported concocted grammar rules meant to support their faltering and weak doctrines like with their spurious "Colwell's Rule". Liberal and Secular scholars as well argue with each other on particular details. What makes their scholarship superior?

One of my favorite anti-Trinity sites, ExaminingtheTrinity, was recently called "Drivel" just because it's run by JWs. Does that mean everything in their arguments is drivel? Does that mean one can write off all the things they say? Is it a valid excuse to write off a JW link about the claimed proof texts of the Trinity just because its JW? By this logic, why is a non-JW link supporting the Trinity not drivel?

Examining the Trinity

With that said, can it be argued that the Watchtower scholarship is not any less reliable in terms of Greek manuscript study than any other "Christian" scholar? Why is the Catholic and Protestant Greek scholar acceptable but not the JW? Why is the JW's scholarship motivated by Theological goals and not the others?

I agree with a lot of what the JWs say. There are some differences that are reasons why I am not a JW. I always read the Watchtower they bring when they come to our door, too. I believe that most Christians believe in the Trinity and that is why they don't trust the Watchtower- I can't think of any other reason.

I don't know about their scriptural scholarship... but the articles they produce on science vary from ok to pretty awful.

wa:do

I can think of other reasons. Their beliefs are not reasonable. They aren't supported by evidence. They bolster their case with confirmation biased, a priori 'evidence.'

painted wolf said:

I don't know about their scriptural scholarship... but the articles they produce on science vary from ok to pretty awful.

wa:do

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see what you consider "ok".

Seyorni said:

I can think of other reasons. Their beliefs are not reasonable. They aren't supported by evidence. They bolster their case with confirmation biased, a priori 'evidence.'

Click to expand...

So what makes them, by this conclusion, inferior to the scholarship of Secular and Conservative cases? Secular and Liberal scholars have just as much Confirmation bias and a Priori conclusions that aren't supported by evidence and are totally theoretical based on interpretations. What makes the Watchtower any less reasonable?

Because their core beliefs are supported by fables with no objective supporting evidence, Shermana.

Legitimate Biblical scholars use more objective scriptural and historical analysis in their approaches to understanding christian mythology.

Because their core beliefs are supported by fables with no objective supporting evidence, Shermana.

Click to expand...

Okay, so how does that make them differ from traditional Christian scholars, how does that make them inferior to them? Don't you think its your own confirmation bias to write them off as inferior for merely believing in the literalness of the belief? Secular Scholars have concocted all kinds of things like the Documentary Hypothesis that is disputed even amongst themselves that have no actual evidence beyond a particular interpretation of the text that discounts a lot of Ancient Jewish writings and commentary on the issue that easily explain the "contradictions" they feel somehow makes it four different authors. Much Secular Scholarship is more revisionist than some of the Fringe conservatives. That's a whole thread's worth.

Legitimate Biblical scholars use more objective scriptural and historical analysis in their approaches to understanding christian mythology.

Click to expand...

That may be true, but in what specific ways do JW scholars in their field of textual and Greek language studies and articles actually differ in terms of objective historical analaysis on a specific level? Why is their analysis of the Greek of John 1:1c inferior to a Traditional Christian's? What sorts of beliefs do Secular Scholars promote about the text that you feel is a demonstration of "superior" scholarship? Does it have to do with your own confirmation bias of if they believe its literal or fable? Is your definition of "Objective scriptural analysis" that which means "Secular Liberal non-Literal" Scholarship? If so, then why is the JW any less than the Traditional Christian Conservative scholar, and why is that view the "objective" one necessarily?

Shermana said:

I'd be interested to see what you consider "ok".

Click to expand...

They did a decent lay article about the history and use of corn smut in mesoamerica. It would have made a good high school or freshman college essay.

wa:do

The overbearing agenda is a bit of big one

ForeverFaithful said:

The overbearing agenda is a bit of big one

Click to expand...

And Trinitarians and Secular scholars have no agenda of course.

Traditional "Conservative" Scholars have even supported concocted grammar rules meant to support their faltering and weak doctrines like with their spurious "Colwell's Rule". Liberal and Secular scholars as well argue with each other on particular details. What makes their scholarship superior?

Click to expand...

Shermana said:

And Trinitarians and Secular scholars have no agenda of course.

Click to expand...

They aren't known to disfellowship dissenters and demand large commitments of money and time

They aren't known to disfellowship dissenters and demand large commitments of money and time

Click to expand...

Trinitarians have never disfellowshiped because of dissent or demanded people to have commitments of money and time?

ForeverFaithful said:

They aren't known to disfellowship dissenters and demand large commitments of money and time

Click to expand...

if I could just say, there is no demand for any money. We dont have tithing, we dont even hand around a collection plate at our meetings. If someone wants to donate money they do so of their own choice...the amount they give is their own choice too.

When it comes to the time we spend in the preaching, again, there are no demands for any specific amount of time. If we want to spend 1 hour a month or 100 hours a month, the choice is ours.

Shermana said:

Trinitarians have never disfellowshiped because of dissent or demanded people to have commitments of money and time?

Click to expand...

The scholars at least, however I'll drop the anti-JW rhetoric for a second alright

Disfellowship is seen as unpalatable to most western because it makes excommunication pale in comparison, when one is Excommunicated from Rome they are barred from the Sacraments, not much else.

And ya ever Church encourages commitment, people don't like the the door to door, nothing to do with my country, kinda commitment the JWs give

Sure one could say the dogma of Papal Infallibly is burdensome, however the Church only have ruling on faith and morals, I don't quite understand where the WT draws its lines

The WT has earned a distrust with Americans in just the way in which JWs are seen as extreme and odd, the fact that the WT has so much power of them scares a lot of people.

Personally I don't trust any restorationist movements simply because of (get ready to get outraged) the idea of a great falling away doesn't mesh with the Biblical promises of Christ being forever present with his church, founded on Peter btw

Shermana said:

Okay, so how does that make them differ from traditional Christian scholars, how does that make them inferior to them? Don't you think its your own confirmation bias to write them off as inferior for merely believing in the literalness of the belief? Secular Scholars have concocted all kinds of things like the Documentary Hypothesis that is disputed even amongst themselves that have no actual evidence beyond a particular interpretation of the text that discounts a lot of Ancient Jewish writings and commentary on the issue that easily explain the "contradictions" they feel somehow makes it four different authors. Much Secular Scholarship is more revisionist than some of the Fringe conservatives. That's a whole thread's worth.

Click to expand...

Full disclosure: I don't find traditional Catholic or Protestant mythology perticularly convincing, either. As ForeverFaithful mentioned, they're operating from an agenda. They cherry-pick and interpret scripture to fit their particular mythos.
Scholars, ideally, don't cherry pick. They critically analyse. They have no agenda; no preconceived theology.

Shermana, i just have to point out that the watchtower society do not have scholars. That is why the NWT bible and our explanations of scripture are criticized so highly.

Pegg said:

Shermana, i just have to point out that the watchtower society do not have scholars. That is why the NWT bible and our explanations of scripture are criticized so highly.

Click to expand...

Then what word would you use to describe those who are specialists in the Greek that actively counter the "Traditional" interpretations like with the author of the site I mentioned.

Shermana said:

Then what word would you use to describe those who are specialists in the Greek that actively counter the "Traditional" interpretations like with the author of the site I mentioned.

Click to expand...

we use the work of many different scholars who are not JW's.

For example, with regard to our teaching on 'hell' & 'soul', the following few references state:

“The concept of ‘soul,’ meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ‘body,’ . . . does not exist in the Bible.”—La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.

“Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ‘soul,’ it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ‘soul’ but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ‘life,’ or ‘vitality,’ or, at times, ‘the self.’”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236.


“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

“The Hebrew term for ‘soul’ (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an ‘animated being’ and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē (‘soul&#8217 was comparable to nefesh.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152.

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

These scholarly views are not from Jehovahs witnesses, but we take their views onboard when determining our theology. that doesnt mean we agree with everything they state, obviously the still support an immortal soul and hellfire, but the information they provide regarding the original words and what those words mean in the original languages have certainly helped to shape our theology.