I say, "Oh, Wow!" because this article is a showcase for all of the ways that the Writing Dept. has lost any shred of authoritative ethos or credibility. I won't go into all the ways in this post, but want to share one gem in particular.
"Criticism of the Bible has taken many forms since then [referring to previous para]. For example, a recently published dictionary of the Old Testament contained detailed articles on form criticism, historical criticism, literary/narrative criticism, history of Pentateuchal criticism, source criticism, and tradio-historical criticism."
This is under the subheading "What the Critics Say." Now, it's clear that the writer has no clue what "criticism" means in the scholarly sense. He's trading on the popular/common definition of criticism as "faultfinding; censuring; disapproval," the intent being to show the great extent to which secular sources will go to discredit the Bible. (This is more of the WT's strategy to control information by trying to discredit anything written by secular outsiders.) But "criticism" as it's used in the context of a reference work, particularly when coupled with a modifier like "historical" or "source" means something quite different: investigation and analysis. While there may an evaluative or judgmental aspect to scholarly criticism, the point is not mere faultfinding or disapproval, as the WT's use implies.
There's a parallel in the distinction between the common useage of the word "theory" and the scientific use. "Theory" in common parlance usually means a best guess, while "theory" used in a scientific context means a systematic statement of principles of observed phenomena, which has been verified to a high enough degree to make it stronger than a mere hypothesis. In some cases, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it's all but proven (though nothing is technically proven in science). Same with the theory of evolution. But many WT speakers (and maybe this has happened in the publications, too, though I can't put my hand on a source) use the two terms interchangeably. I've heard speakers from the platform say about evolution that "it's just a theory but they teach it like a fact." Of course, it's "just a theory." It's also a fact.
But I'm not trying to talk about evolution here, rather a similar rhetorical move located in the June 1 WT. There are two possibilities, both of which are disturbing. Either the writer honestly didn't know the difference between the two definitions of "criticism," or he knew and deliberately chose to manipulate his use of the word. In the first case, if a writer has such a limited knowledge, he shouldn't be writing about this subject in the first place. (Duh!) In the second case--well, it's just plain deceptive. Neither possibility enhances the WT's already shoddy reputation when it comes to intellectual honesty or credibility.