by VM44 15 Replies latest jw friends
Does anyone know who did the research and wrote the "Appendix to Chapter 14" in the book, Let Your Kingdom Come?
This is the only place where the WTS tried to refute the research COJ published in his book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered.
COJ's book is NOT mentioned directly in the Appendix! Obvioiusly, as the WT would prefer that people not even know COJ's book exists!
--VM44
Doesn't seem likely that they were trying to avoid mentioning Jonnson's works, since at the time it didn't exist to the general publisc. "Let Your Kingdom Come' was published in 1981. Carl's book was published in 1986.
Hi RR,
You are right, COJ sent Brooklyn the manuscript of his research sometime in the late 70s, or very early 80s.
The Watchtower does NOT want people to do research in Biblical chronology, and they came down hard on him.
Lloyd Barry is said to have written the main text of the Kingdom Come book, but someone else has been said to have written the Appendix. I am curious what background the author of the Appendex has.
--VM44
I don?t quite agree, RR. The unpublished manuscript was circulated in Bethel in the late seventies, and according to Jim Penton was photocopied and distributed to Australia and Canada where it led to defections. Because the work was well-known in some circles, there certainly was a rationale for not directly mentioning Jonsson?s work in the Appendix.
I actually wrote a paper in my discourse analysis class several years ago on the rhetoric and intertextuality in the Appendix. The Watchtower Society prefers not to ratify Jonsson?s work directly because of the existing discourse on apostates and the ban on apostate literature, so the actual catalyst of the discussion is never mentioned openly but the ?apostate voice? runs throughout the text. The wording, phrasing, and thought in many passages is directly dependent on Jonsson, and it presents a substantial portion of his evidence and conclusions. Some obvious examples of literary dependence:
?Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are?? (Appendix, line 18)?Seven lines of evidence have been presented above against dating the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.? (Jonsson, p. 80)
?Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B)? The figures given for these agree with those from Ptolemy?s Canon? (Appendix, lines 29, 32-33)?The royal inscription Nabon. H 1, B (the Adda-Guppi? stele) ?. The figures given on the stele are in complete agreement with the figures given by Berossus and Ptolemy? (Jonsson, p. 81).
?Business tablets. Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period? (Appendix, lines 41-46).?Business and Administrative Documents. Thousands of business and administrative records, dated to the year, the month, and the day of the reigning king, have come down to us from the Neo-Babylonian period. Thus we have many tablets for each year during the whole period. The length of reign of each king may, then, be established by these documents? (Jonsson, p. 82)
Two types of parallels are identified in the quoted passages above: verbatim words and phrases are in bold red and otherwise similar words and phrases are in italics. Thus, in the second pair of passages, both sources begin with ?The figures given?, with a prepositional phrase second, then a verbal phrase indicating agreement. Within the predicate, there is a with-PP containing a noun phrase referring to ?The figures given?. Finally there is a PP indicating source, with ?Ptolemy? in the complement NP.
The Society handles the dissident voice in several interesting ways. First, they merge his voice with that of dispassionate secular writers such as ?historians? and ?scholars? and refrain from characterizing the voice they are responding to with dissident-evaluative language such as ?ridiculers,? ?apostates,? ?enemies of true worship? and so forth. Instead, there are two main groups: Christians/Christians who believe the Bible/we and secular writers. Jonsson himself is lumped together with the latter as ?those who rely primarily on secular information,? ?some who have tried to explain away the problem,? ?some persons ? [who base their views] primarily on such secular records?. These latter appellations occur in sentences which explicitly embed views which originate with Jonsson. The focus on "secular information" and "secular records" hides the fact that the catalyst of the discussion was not a secularist but, in fact, a member of the religious faith. The use of the plural also obscures Jonsson?s individuality and posits a group linkable to ?historians? and ?some scholars?. Second, there is an inverse relationship between the explicitness with which the secular voice is identified and the stance vis-a-vis the aims of the Appendix writer:
Secularist Voice: Professor Edward F. Campbell
Representation: Explicitly quoted
Stance: In support of writer
Secularist Voice: Historians, scholars, secular chronology, lines of evidence
Representation: Not quoted, but identified and discussed at length
Stance: In support of Jonsson, but make concessions to the writer's view
Secularist voice: Those who rely primarily on secular information, some who have tried to explain away the problem
Representation: Not quoted and unidentified
Stance: Jonsson's own views
The statements which could only be attributed to Jonsson are minimally explicit while the statements maximally explicit are in support of the writer. The individual nonsecular voices may be ordered into the same categories in terms of explicitness:
Nonsecular Voice: God, Jeremiah, Josephus, the inspired Bible writer Ezra
Representation: Explicitly quoted
Stance: In support of writer
Nonsecular Voice: Theophilus of Antioch, the Bible itself, Daniel
Representation: Not quoted, but identified and discussed at length
Stance: In support of the writer
Nonsecular voice: Christians who believe the Bible
Representation: Not quoted and unidentified
Stance: In support of the writer
In this group a downward shift in representation does not correlate with a shift in stance. Between the two groups, the highest ranking secularist voice, Professor Edward F. Campbell, is low in authority compared to God and Bible writers, who are directly quoted quite freely. Secularist voices therefore may be muted in terms of explicitness and stance.
Another means of qualifying the secularist voice is the use of modal verbs and seem-type verbs, such as "Such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology" (lines 47-49). The Watchtower writer also freely uses stance adverbs which fall into the surely, honestly, and maybe categories. Finally, and most importantly, negative evaluations accompany statements in support of the secularist position and positive ones occur with statements confirming the writer's opinion:
"In an attempt to harmonize matters, they claim that [Jeremiah's prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 BCE]" (lines 94-96).
"More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that [Nebuchadnezzer took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year, and his 23rd year, not his accession year]" (lines 106-108).
These are a few of several examples. These evaluations approve the credibility of voices supporting the writer's claims, whereas they question the credibility of contrary voices. Thus, Jonsson, the dissident, condemned as an "apostate" publically, still speaks through the writer's own words. Shifts in stance, evaluations, and similar devices may downplay the "apostate" message contained within the official Watchtower publication, but it can still be extracted and assessed.
Wow!! See that, Bethel boys? Don't you try to slip anything past our Leolaia! She'll getcha every time!
SNG
Like I said, if the book hadn't been published (key word published) why mention it to the general public in an appendix?
RR
So what if it wasn't yet published. As I already said, the manuscript had a huge impact in the late seventies (playing a role in the "Great Apostasy" of 1980) and was circulated internationally in photocopied form. Witnesses were reading it in the U.S., Australia, and Canada. The Society was responding to a clear threat to its cornerstone doctrine, and it mattered not whether the manuscript was published or not -- it was having a detrimental effect and the Society felt it needed to be responsed to, or otherwise they wouldn't have responded to it! And they weren't "mentioning the book" (or manuscript) in the appendix, as you say, they were responding to the manuscript's evidence and arguments. The actual work or Jonsson himself was never mentioned explicitly. Instead, they camouflagued the response as merely critiquing what secular writers, scholars, and those who read them have claimed. But there can be no doubt that in the specifics they are responding to Jonsson!
It still wasn't known by the rank and file, so why mention it? Was it quoted from? No, then there was no need to mention a book that didn't exist, only somebody's notes. Here was a person's unpublished manuscript. Were they to mention it, how would anyone get a copy to read it?
RR
VM44
The author of the Appendix on chronology in the Kingdom Come book is unknown and I do not see any evidence that it was written as a response to the Jonsson hypothesis outlined in his original treatise. The Appendix sets out a brilliant explanation of biblical chronology and when compared to Jonsson's later published GTR, it champions the Biblical narrative exclusively.
I also do not believe that Jonsson's treatise was significant and that its impact upon the brothers is somewhat exaggerated. One must remember that Jonsson is a 'Johnny come lately' in the field of criticizing WT chronology. During the fifties, SDA scholars were foremost in publishing studies on chronology and in Australia there was in fact an SDA pastor who in the mid-sixties had researched material critical of WT chronology.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
Like I said, if the book hadn't been published (key word published) why mention it to the general public in an appendix?
RR
THE POSTER RASIES an excellent question, but there is something you need to understand about the wt writers, they firmly believe in cutting it off at the pass as it were
When they are concerned about something getting out INTO THE PUBLIC they will address it early and NOT MENTION WHY
CASE IN POINT
When 99% of the 6 mill jw saw this QFR at the bottom of this thread in the wt
they had no Idea of why it was there-
BUT FOR those who were at bethel about a month before we do
Fred fraz made the comment at breakfast that the snake DID NOT TALK but used body language
After breakfast everyone ran to the pay phones to call home and say WE GOT NEW LIGHT, it was the buzz around the job all morning
Then at lunch he came back and said ? I know I must have exasperated some of you this morning and then he corrected himself- but by then it was out-
So the next month the wt thru in a question from readers as if someone had wrote in, they addressed it
I understand when freddy got to work Scherdorer and Jaraz were in his office most of the morning
So unless you understand how the wt writers operate , you will see stuff and have no idea there is as Paul Havey says ----THE REST OF THE STORY
*** w84 9/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
ยท How did the serpent in the garden of Eden communicate the temptation to Eve?
