Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #3927264 in Books
• Published on: 2000-07
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover

Customer Reviews

Deepens your appreciation of the Bible while defending JWs
I like JWD because it deepened my appreciation for how the Bible is woven together and translated! This is definitely a scholarly/technical defense of Jehovah's Witnesses. It also advances Bible scholarship.

Please note: JWD is NOT a re-hash of Watchtower literature. While Stafford does quote from Watchtower literature, I think he certainly breaks new ground and discusses scriptures in a unique way. He also buttresses his presentation with nice figures and charts. Even though I am not a language scholar, I found the bulk of it to be absorbing reading!

JWD covers more material than its 1st edition (blood abstinence, chronological prophesy, salvation, and more on the Trinity) and includes a partial reply to White's criticism of the 1st edition. (The rest of Stafford's reply is on the Web.)

Stafford in the Introduction (p.xxv) says he's been "one of Jehovah's Witnesses for the past nine years." He also says in his Acknowledgements (p.xxi): "Neither the first nor the second edition of this book was written at the request of the Watchtower...Society." He respectfully acknowledges in the Introduction (p.xxvii-i) that the Watchtower Society could doubtlessly produce a book superior to his, but that they are rightly focusing on Bible education--on what God requires of us. Also on p.xxvii he says, "I have endeavored at all times to encourage balance and an absence of diatribe in discussions." This is a good foundation for JWD, and must be recalled when reading it.

Stafford appraises numerous criticisms using various translations of the Bible and ancient Judeo-Christian literature. He then professionally shows why every criticism fails completely. Why they fail is clear: the critics were lacking accurate knowledge of both the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Stafford writes enthusiastically, and never looses his cheerful, confident edge. He's also very respectful. He never describes the critics as "absurd," but as "surprising" and "remarkable," even "extraordinary."

Stafford gives a lot of attention to scriptures like: John 1:1, Col. 3:15, "Wisdom" verses in Proverbs, Rev. 3:14, and many more. Addressed too is whether Jesus is the "Alpha and the Omega." He also has written an Excursus that delves into "Sharp's rule" on Greek grammar and how it relates to John 1:1.

Some portions of JWD may be difficult to understand at first. That's why it's important to read it cover to cover. When that is done, the difficult parts may be easier to understand.

Anyone who is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses or is not sure about them owes it to himself/herself to check this book out. Opposers have no choice if they want to be honest: they MUST read this. Bible scholars in general should read this too.

If you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses and like knowing how the Bible is woven together and translated, and how various objections have been answered, then you will find this to be useful. (You'll also like knowing how the KL book discussed John 1:1 in a new way!) If you do get this, get out your Watchtower Library CD-ROM and your Kingdom Interlinear Translation (an unabridged dictionary would also be helpful).

Regardless of who you are, one thing is sure: your appreciation and understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses--as well as the Bible--will be deepened.

An excellent literary, work; HOWEVER...
An excellent literary work; however, Greg Stafford is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I want everyone to be clear on this point. He has apostatized Jehovah's Witnesses publicly on the distribution site of his book. If you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses, understand that you are purchasing a book written by an apostate. If you aren't, be clear that he does not actually represent the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, nor is he one of Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing. Here is a link as proof:

[..]

a valuable scholarly contribution
On page 264, Greg Stafford makes a good point: "Genuine scholarly analysis looks at the evidence and only the evidence; those who are preoccupied with a person's credentials or whether they are a 'liberal' or 'conservative' scholar give evidence that they are not genuinely interested in a critical analysis of the issues." Stafford demonstrates a remarkable ability to be objective in examining questions in which he has made a personal commitment and profound psychological investment. As Byington once put it in his review of the NWT, it is easy to first notice faults, but I'd rather first mention those features I found most commendable.

_Jehovah's Witnesses Defended_ interacts with Judeo-Christian literature on a scholarly (i.e., grammatical-historical) level. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Stafford on specific points, one cannot help but approve of the way he conducts himself. His awareness of Judeo-Christian literature is not limited to those texts he views as theologically authoritative, and he demonstrates an ability to engage in textual criticism and grammatical discussion in a mature and yet creative way. (For example, though I have a different solution, Stafford's logic in advocating and then explaining the more difficult reading at 1 Corinthians 2:16 is worthy of the respect Furuli gives it in the "Forward.")

Stafford is right to take issue with scholarly Christians reading the Trinity back into the NT. (By the way, Stafford cannot be accused (as Witnesses often are) of misunderstanding the Trinity doctrine (64-65)--though some might take issue with his contention that if "there is more than one center of consciousness then there is more than one person" (188). Trinitarians would view this as an instance of more than one _nature_ (even speaking of the human nature of Jesus as having a will, personality, and center of consciousness unmixed but harmonious with his divine nature), not person.) Since the doctrine was articulated long after the NT corpus was produced, it is an unsound scholarly practice (though a perfectly legitimate practice in devotional writing) to interpret NT text as if it were produced after Nicea and Chalcedon. However, if one is going to adopt this principle, one ought to be consistent. Just as post-Nicean doctrines ought not to be introduced into ante-Nicean documents, Christian beliefs ought not to be introduced into Jewish texts (cf. 106-107). This is not to say that Christian interpretations of Jewish texts have no place in scholarly writing; nor am I implying that one cannot (as a Christian) see Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messianic hopes and visions of divine beings (such as Wisdom) surrounding Jehovah in the OT. One simply ought to be careful.

With regard to Stafford's conclusions about the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the NT of the NWT, his analysis is generally valid but was written before BeDuhn's study. For this reason, the book does not answer some of the points BeDuhn makes. On this same subject, Stafford's question: "Since all of the Hebrew and Greek texts that were used by the NT writers contain the divine name (and all known copies support the view that they did), why, then, if the divine name is not part of the original NT documents, did God not preserve His word from the OT into the NT?" makes it sound like those who argue that the NT never used the divine name all lack faith in God's ability or willingness to preserve the text of the NT. This is not the case. The preservation of the OT and the NT is different from the preservation of the OT _in_ the NT. Furthermore, Stafford's argument in defense of the hypothetical emendation of the NT to contain the name "Jehovah" borrows from the arguments for an eclectic text but cannot be pressed to the degree Stafford advocates (24-25). It is true that one must "consider the circumstances and controversies surrounding the composition of the original NT documents," but this does not mean one can start inserting into the text of the NT theologically and emotionally charged words that we hypothesize were removed from the autographs. Such a mentality would soon have us making all the ancient documents over in our image.

Stafford's discussion of the expression "Son of God" is firmly rooted in the Jewish mindset (99, 113-115), but it could be supplemented by a consideration of how the expression would have sounded to Roman ears, given that the emperor was viewed as the son of a god. Also, he could have discussed the ways in which being a Son of God identified one as a King. Similarly, Stafford's argument based on the story of the Tower of Babel (not to mention his validation of violent and primitive literary characterizations that inspire fear of God) (11-12; cf. 73), his refutation of Bowman's claim regarding Jesus' receiving _latreuo_ at Revelation 22:3, his discussion of the possible meanings of the word "paradise" in Appendix A, his rejection of the idea of an impersonal God (58, 67; cf. 61: The difference in sense between _elohim_ (absolute Deity) and YHYH (the manifest and personal God) is alluded to here (cf. the heading "GOD" on p. 891 of _The Emphatic Diaglott_ published by Jehovah's Witnesses).), and Appendix E are weak and could be more fully developed or discarded.

My principal objection is that the work does not really address those aspects of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion that are most peculiar to it. The majority of Stafford's book details a very accurate textual analysis of certain texts significant to Christological studies. He has a good handle on how Christ was originally viewed (127), and he acknowledges that Witnesses (usually when pressed) can speak of Jesus in very lofty terms, even in terms of divinity. However, as Stafford points out in his discussion of salvation, faith without works is dead. If people can only sing about Jesus but never to him, talk through him but never to him, and talk about bowing to (worshiping) him but never bow, their faith is not alive; their words are empty.

As I mentioned above, Stafford does not give sufficient space (or gives none at all) to discussing those beliefs and practices that are most unique to Jehovah's Witnesses and most offensive to observers of the movement. When he does discuss such Witness teachings as the division of the Christian congregation into two classes, the subordination of women to men (195), the fixation on doing certain Watchtower-related works in order to survive Armageddon, and the date-related predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses, Stafford's consideration lacks his usual objectivity. He acts as if it is enough to be able to come up with a few proof texts and to defend the NWT translation of those texts. His treatment of the Watchtower publications he cites does not take into account the authoritarianism of the Watchtower Theocracy and its tendency to infantilize people. In a different type of organization, end time speculation about certain dates, imaginative and allegorical interpretations of ancient prophecies and "prophetic types," and absurdly literal interpretations of Scriptural texts would not be hurtful to believers. But when an authoritarian organization (such as the Theocracy created by Rutherford) states that its "interpretation" of the Bible leads it to "conclude" such and such, an individual member cannot (as Stafford does) easily appeal to the assertions that the organization's interpretation is not inspired (even if they are printed in the Watchtower).

Finally, I'd like to provide a rather informal and non-exhaustive _Corrigenda_:
"could" for "cloud" (21); page number needs to be filled in: "????" (545); "it is" for "is it" (63); missing a closing bracket ("]") after "Trinitarians" (72); "IN" for "in" (110); "I certainly not" for "I certainly am not" (428); "flexion" for "inflexion," which is the British form of the word "inflection" (153); last part of last sent. in par. 2 (132); "judgment (compare" for "judgment. (Compare" (185; along these lines, the book alternates between the usual convention for citing scriptural references and the Watchtower convention); "thee" for "three" (169); "gat" for "begat"? (234. Perhaps, the quote needs a "[sic]"? I have not had a chance to look it up.); due to the bold subheading which interrupts the flow of the argument, the fact that the statement "It is not only possible" is made in response to the preceding quote is not clear (237); omit the space between the quotation mark and the word "for" (260); omit third bracket ("]") (443); missing period: "code[.] For" (516); finally, Stafford's use of the quote from the _Watchtower_ on page 494 is totally contrary to the sense of the original.

His statement that Witnesses do not regard the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8 "as a literary device personifying the abstract concept of Hebrew wisdom" seems to simply be a mistake (235, ftn. 111). He may mean that Witnesses do not view Wisdom in Proverbs 8 as _merely_ a personification but also see in her a prophetic type of the Christian Logos. Though the most recent and most detailed discussion of Proverbs 8 was made after the publication of _Jehovah's Witnesses Defended_ (_Watchtower_, March 15, 2001, 25-28), the article does not contain anything substantially different from what has been said by the Society before its publication (_Insight on the Scriptures_ (1988), Vol. 2, 52).