"The Watchtower is publishing the opinion...of a man....", 1942

by compound complex 3 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  compound complex

  Dear Discerning-And-Not-To-Be-Duped Readers of THE WATHTOWER,

  "The Lord does not say to speak the words of wisdom of man, nor to be influenced or guided by the word of man. Those who are convinced that THE WATCHTOWER is publishing the opinion or expression of a man should not waste time in looking at it at all, because man's opinion proves nothing except when that opinion is based wholly on the Word of God. Those who believe that God uses THE WATCHTOWER as a means of communicating to his people, or of calling attention to his prophecies, should study THE WATCHTOWER with thankfulness of heart and give Jehovah God and Christ Jesus all the honor and credit and give neither honor nor credit to any man." - WT, 1 January 1942, p.5

  In the following issue of THE WATCHTOWER, 15 January, p.31, the point is made that the publishers are not to be credited with "the consistent contents" of THE WATCHTOWER, but the "great Author of the Bible with its truths and prophecies, and WHO NOW INTERPRETS its prophecies by EVENTS in fulfillment and thereby enlightens the meek ones concerning the establishment of his Theocratic Government and its blessings and requirements for those who shall live." [CC: emphasis]

  My question regarding the above is how credible [moot point, I concede]interpretation of Scripture is attained:

  Exegesis: an explanation or critical interpretation of a text.

  Eisegesis: the interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas.

  To some extent I understand how the Brooklyn Oracle and his predecessors divined sacred pronouncements from on high - but regarding the latter WT comment that the Bible's author interprets scripture "by events" - how do Bible commentaries that have a longer shelf-life than WT publications put forth what SEEM to be more credible explanations?

  Critical thinking is new to me, but it could be fun. Many thanx to Edmond C. Gruss and his amazing reference, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: Their Claims, Doctrinal Changes and Prophetic Speculation. What Does the Record Show?, p. 11.

  Thank you too,

  Compound-Complex
• 

  compound complex

  btttt
• 

  Narkissos

  Hello coco,

  Your question is intimidating because it sounds rhetorical: we all take for granted that exegesis is good and eisegesis is bad.

  Exegesis is the only solid approach to a text (the closest match to scientific in issues involving language). It aims at discovering (or, rather, reconstructing) an original meaning (ideally, what the author meant and what the first recipients understood, assuming -- but that's quite an assumption -- that it is identical). It ends up in educated guesses and any "message" it may find is bound to be culturally remote from the modern reader's world. Hence tedious and frustrating.

  Eisegesis, otoh, produces immediate relevance and meaning (which the reader mostly brings into the text). No wonder it is what religious Bible reading mostly looks for and generates, although not admitting it (because it would spoil the game).

  One could argue that in any reading (even the sternest German-scholarship-type exegesis) there has to be some eisegesis; shouldn't we expect something we would not bother to read.

  As Paul Valéry put it:

  Il dépend de celui qui passe
  Que je sois tombe ou trésor,
  Que je parle ou que je me taise;
  Ceci ne tient qu'à toi.
  Ami, n'entre pas sans désir.

  (It depends on who passes,
  Whether I be tomb or treasure;
  Whether I speak or am silent;
  This is up to you.
  Friend, do not enter without desire.)

  Now what the WT oracles (or any magisterium) do is making their own eisegesis (the fruit of their desire) authoritative to others, as if it were "objective" exegesis. And there is always a demand for that because it relieves the second-hand reader from his/her subjective responsibility in eisegesis.

  Still the position advocated in the above quote is pervertly circular, under the pretense of humility. It is God interpreting his own Word, yet the interpretation is supposed to be based on God's Word and unspecified "events". Where there is a basis or reference there is a potential ground for criticism, which is not the case of a really authoritative word. It actually calls for the reader to jump into the WT hermeneutical circle because it sounds based on something else; but checking its basis would be a 'loss of time' because it is only worth if it is from God...
• 

  compound complex

  Thank you Narkissos,

  Your clear and pointed answer will provide a basis for my future studies. I am laying an entirely new foundation, as the processed Bible answers of my WT past had become mere phrases uttered on cue - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." You have taken me beyond simple definition of terms into a structure of analysis of which I was totally unaware. Grateful thanks for the groundwork.

  CoCo