Parchment and Pen » Greg Stafford defends Jehovah's Witnesses from the margins

Greg Stafford defends Jehovah's Witnesses from the margins

I just received the third edition of Greg Stafford’s book Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (Murietta, CA: Elihu Books, 2009). For those who are not familiar with Stafford, he is an unusually sophisticated Jehovah’s Witness who debated both me and James White earlier in the decade. The first edition of the book, published in 1998, ran 393 pages and was easily the best defense of Jehovah’s Witness theology ever published. (Page lengths cited here include front and back matter.) The second edition in 2000 was 654 pages in length and cemented Stafford’s reputation as the leading apologist for the Jehovah’s Witness religion. This third edition, which Stafford had announced was due out at least a couple of years ago, is 676 pages long.

Stafford’s first chapter, on the name Jehovah, has grown from 54 pages in the second edition to 126 pages in the third. This represents by far the most sizable addition to the book. He has added about 19 pages defending Christ’s real (though temporal) preexistence against the Unitarian position of Anthony Buzzard. Stafford’s already lengthy treatment of John’s “I am” sayings of Jesus now includes a 13-page discussion of the early interpretation of John 8:58. Perhaps of most interest to some is Stafford’s addition of a 50-page chapter that critiques a Reformed view of human will and predestination. Finally, Stafford’s chapter defending the Watchtower’s position on blood transfusions has been replaced with a chapter that, in part, critiques that position. The rest of the chapter urges a more tolerant approach on various issues of morality, notably “sexual orientation” (homosexuality), regarding which Stafford seems, well, ambivalent. In all, there are almost 200 pages of new material.

In order to add all of this new material to the third edition, Stafford has dropped almost as much material from the second edition. Gone entirely is the second edition’s chapter 3, a 57-page chapter rebutting Trinitarian proof texts for the deity of Christ (Zech. 12:10; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; Heb. 1:10-12; John 12:41; and the “Alpha and Omega” texts), as well as a 40-page excursus on Sharp’s rule. Gone also are some 13 pages defending the inferiority of Christ to the Father from various texts (John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28; Mark 13:32/Matt. 24:36; 1 Cor. 8:4-6). Stafford has also dropped all of his earlier appendices, which discussed Luke 23:43, defended Frederick W. Franz, defended the Watchtower’s citations of spiritist Johannes Greber on John 1:1, and defended the NWT rendering of John 14:14. In short, Stafford deemphasizes Christology in the third edition in order to give attention to a wider range of topics without making the book prohibitively long. According to his Introduction to the third edition, he will eventually reprint this omitted material elsewhere.

One apparent reason for the delay in the appearance of the third edition is that Stafford broke ties with the Watchtower Society a few years after the publication of the second edition. Stafford started his own fellowship, the Christian Witnesses of Jah, as a haven for disaffected Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not accept some of its nonbiblical restrictions (e.g., with regard to blood transfusions). Ironically, this means that most Jehovah’s Witnesses will not feel at liberty to read Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended.

From time to time, I will post some additional comments on Stafford’s book. I feel something of a responsibility to do so, because I am the number one target in his book. In fact, in a number of places in the third edition Stafford cites Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Kregel, 2007), which I co-authored with Ed Komoszewski. Stay tuned.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

25 Responses to “Greg Stafford defends Jehovah's Witnesses from the margins”

Jeff Downs on 12 Oct 2009 at 5:19 pm #

Very much looking forward to this. I’ll be sure to let others know what you are doing.
Kaz on 12 Oct 2009 at 6:26 pm #

Hello Rob,

Since you intend to comment on Stafford’s book, would you consider beginning with John 8:58? As you know, my own criticism of your book began with that verse, and so I’m naturally interested in whether Stafford offered similar criticism and what your response might be.

FYI, reflection on this verse vis a vis historical probability has led me to experience what Tom Wolfe calls the “Aha! Phenomenon”, and my own understanding of 8:58 is subsequently somewhat unique.

~Kaz
Mike Felker on 13 Oct 2009 at 8:41 am #

Hey Rob, i’d really be interested in some responses to this book. I feel that though there are a lot of good responses out there to Watchtower-style arguments against the deity of Christ and such, there are not enough detailed responses to works like Stafford’s. I would most certainly benefit from whatever work you put forth in responding to Stafford.
John on 13 Oct 2009 at 8:56 pm #

Witnessing Bowman/Stafford debates in times past was I’m sure one of the things that influenced me to become an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Reason being that Stafford and Bowman are both smarter than me, and frankly I can’t refute Stafford. The arguments are extremely complex and hard to evaluate, and I’m someone who has dabbled quite a bit in Greek. Reading these debates for me is the pinnacle of evidence that the man in the pew needs a better authority than scholarly argument about the biblical text.
Charles Love on 15 Oct 2009 at 1:21 pm #

There is no defense to Jw’s doctrines. That is why I wrote the book 20 Questions Jehovah’s witnesses cannot answer. I am so positive on our position in opposing their doctrine that my website, love4jws.com has a $10,000 challenge.
EricW on 15 Oct 2009 at 1:39 pm #

John on 13 Oct 2009 at 8:56 pm #

Witnessing Bowman/Stafford debates in times past was I’m sure one of the things that influenced me to become an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Reason being that Stafford and Bowman are both smarter than me, and frankly I can’t refute Stafford. The arguments are extremely complex and hard to evaluate, and I’m someone who has dabbled quite a bit in Greek. Reading these debates for me is the pinnacle of evidence that the man in the pew needs a better authority than scholarly argument about the biblical text.

1. You admit that Stafford is smarter than you.

2. You admit that Stafford’s JW arguments can’t be refuted by you.

3. You become Eastern Orthodox, whose Trinitarian theology and Christology oppose what JW’s teach.

I don’t see how/why you go from 1. & 2. to 3. It seems to me that 2. would prevent you from taking step 3. I.e., if you can’t refute Stafford’s arguments, how can you defend Eastern Orthodox doctrine and teachings against his irrefutable (by you) counter-arguments?
Perry Robinson on 15 Oct 2009 at 6:20 pm #

I remember meeting Greg on a doorstep about 8 months after he was baptized a JW. At one point we spent 9 hours straight going round and round.

Stafford’s fundamental problem is that his metaphysic, which guides his exegesis won’t allow him to make a distinction between person and nature.
Kaz on 15 Oct 2009 at 6:59 pm #

Hi Perry,

Greg would probably say that the real problem is that Trinitarians see a distinction in “person” and “nature” (or, more accurately, in “being”) when no such distinction is articulated in Scripture. I have to agree with him in that regard.

~Kaz
Perry Robinson on 16 Oct 2009 at 2:20 pm #

Kaz,

Ic, so there isn’t a difference between you and Adam inScripture since you are the same nature, you must be the same person, right? Or perhaps just diferent instances of the same type? Even then, there is a difference between what I am and who I am.
Kaz on 17 Oct 2009 at 11:59 am #

Hi Perry,

I’m sorry if I was unclear, though I did qualify Stafford’s objection by adding in parentheses “or, more accurately, in ‘being’”. One of Stafford’s objections to Trinitariansism is that it depends on a distinction between “person” and “being” that is not articulated in Scripture. He and I would both readily agree that Adam is a different person, yet we also understand that this ipso facto makes him a different being. It is not that Stafford doesn’t understand a distinction between “person” and “nature” but that he sees a *division* in both person and nature vis a vis all persons, including the persons of God and His Son. As he pointed out during the Stafford/Bowman debate, just as there was a division in “nature” between every member of the audience that day (i.e. each was an individual being), so likewise there is a division in nature between the Father and the Son. He also pointed out that persons can own the same nature without necessarily being equal in all attributes. For example, I am older than my brother, but he is much more powerful than I have ever been or could ever be.

Stafford also believes that one of the biggest problems with the orthodox doctrine of Christ is that it is unintelligible and results in a person who is both A and non-A at the same time. We are told that the incarnate Christ was/is both “fully God” and “fully man”. As one who is “fully God” he is said to be omniscient, all-powerful, and omnipresent, yet as one who is “fully man” he would have to be limited in knowledge, power, and location. To say that a person can have all of these attributes at the same time is not just to utter something unintelligible, it is to affirm that which would normally be considered impossible. The sentence “Jesus is all-knowing yet limited in knowledge” appears to have the same logical content as the sentence “Bob is a murderer who’s never killed anyone” or “Joe is a baseball player who’s never played baseball.”

Non-Trinitarians such as Stafford and myself don’t necessarily reject the idea of believing in something that one might call “mysterious” but we have a problem believing in that which is logically impossible. Well, reason *is* part of the image of God that he stamped upon us to enable us to determine what is true and what is not true, and I can’t imagine why we’d discard that attribute when asking the most important question of all: Who/what is God?

During the Stafford/White debate, White accused Stafford of “dividing him up” (him = Jesus) and insisted that Jesus is “one person”. The non-Trinitarian response is: We agree that Jesus is one person, and so without dividing him up, please explain how Jesus can know all things yet not know all things at the same time. White didn’t; can you?

~Kaz
Chris on 17 Oct 2009 at 11:17 pm #

Kaz,

I would imagine that you have heard the answer before but just consider it a contradiction.

I believe with the disciples that Jesus knew all things:

John 16:30 “Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”

I also believe that there were things that Jesus didn’t know:

Matt 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Jesus is “one person” with two natures. Within his one person he is both 100% deity and 100% human. I’m sure that you are well aware of the scripture verses that trinitarians use (ones that you dispute) to show this.

Knowing all things and not knowing them are not the only issues. Jesus also had a begining as a human by being born into this created world and “kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”Luke 2:52 while at the same time is said to be “before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”Col 1:17

As you must know we as trinitarians believe the two natures within the one person are not divided but united. Hence the theological term “hypostatic union.”

From this union within the one person it would be possible for our Lord to be born and to be the creator of all things, for him to know all things and not know all things.

I agree with Dr. White, Christ is not divided. We shound not try to cut Christ in half!

Chris
Rob Bowman on 18 Oct 2009 at 12:43 pm #

Kaz,

Stafford’s third edition includes his earlier critique of five or six pages in my 1989 book _Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John_, where I discussed the “present of past action still in progress” (PPA), but that’s it. He ignores the rest of my treatment of John 8:58 in that book. He also says nothing about my discussion of John 8:58 and the other “I am” sayings of Jesus in John in my more recent book _Putting Jesus in His Place_. Stafford also says nothing about my 2004-2005 written debate (which ran hundreds of pages) with Jason BeDuhn on the Evangelical and JW Theologies Yahoo Group, where BeDuhn and I thoroughly revisited the issue of the PPA.
Kaz on 18 Oct 2009 at 7:17 pm #

Hi Chris,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. As far as I can recall, you may be the first Trinitarian who has ever simply admitted during a conversation with me that the notion that Christ knows all things and doesn’t know all things is a contradiction.

Regarding John 16:30 and Matt. 24:36, there are other ways to harmonize these accounts. Yes, you can choose to take them both hyper-literally and subsequently believe in that which clearly seems impossible, or you can allow that John didn’t intend his audience to believe that he was speaking hyper-literally. There is biblical precedent for this.

Take John 9:32-34 for example:

“32 From of old it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. 33 If this [man] were not from God, he could do nothing at all.” 34 In answer they said to him: “You were altogether born in sins, and yet are you teaching us?” And they threw him out!

Here Jesus healed a blind man who goes on to defend Jesus to the religious leaders. When the blind man said “If this [man] were not from God, he could do nothing at all”, he didn’t mean that Jesus would be unable to eat, drink, trim his ear hair, etc. The “nothing at all” clearly seems to be a reference to the sort of miraculous works Jesus had just done.

Note also John 5:19:

“19 Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”

Here again I would argue that while the text says that the Son “cannot do a single thing of his own initiative”, this is in reference to doing God’s work in the carrying out of his commission as God’s representative. It does not mean that Jesus was incapable of eating, drinking, tying his sandal laces, etc., without having first beheld “the Father doing [it]”.

John 15:5:

“5 I am the vine, YOU are the branches. He that remains in union with me, and I in union with him, this one bears much fruit; because apart from me YOU can do nothing at all.”

Although Jesus tells his disciples that apart from him they can “do nothing at all”, he clearly didn’t mean that in an all-encompassing way. He is speaking in reference to “fruit” that his disciples can bear as “branches”. In other words, he was speaking of the work they would do as representatives of him and his Father, not about other things like eating, drinking, buying fish at the market, etc.

I would suggest that the same applies to John 16:30. The disciples did not have in mind an all-encompassing reference, but they knew that Jesus was not lacking when it came to providing them with the knowledge that they’d need to be empowered for what was to come while they fulfilled their commissions as representatives of God and his Son.

~Kaz
Kaz on 18 Oct 2009 at 7:28 pm #

Chris,

In light of our discussion, I thought that you might find this article interesting:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yk9z9cj

One of the beauties of the alternative I’ve offered, esp. taken in conjunction with the Unitarian view of God and Christ, is that it seems to allow you to avoid all of the problems inherent to the orthodox understanding of Christ.

~Kaz
Chris on 18 Oct 2009 at 10:34 pm #

Kaz,

You said:

“you may be the first Trinitarian who has ever simply admitted during a conversation with me that the notion that Christ knows all things and doesn’t know all things is a contradiction.”

Just for clairity I never admitted that. Here is what I did say:

“I would imagine that you have heard the answer before but just consider it a contradiction.”

Notice I was speaking about your position not mine. Nor did I admit a contradiction in what followed.

Regarding the verses that you used as an example as to why we should not take the disciples words hyper-literally, I disagree with you that that is what I was doing. I was simply taking it literally.

You give a false dilemma in saying that I only have to options:

“believe in that which clearly seems impossible”

or

“or you can allow that John didn’t intend his audience to believe that he was speaking hyper-literally.”

You left out the position that I hold which is that John simply recorded what the disciples said and believed in a literal fashion. From your perspective I understand that you think that I am reading it hyper-literally, but it would seem that you have no other choice given your position and can’t allow for Jesus to truly “know all things.”

I agree with you about the blind man in John 9:32-34 the context seem rather clear.

In John 5:19 I would agree with you as well to a point. In doing the works of God Jesus could ONLY do what God could because of the very fact that He was God in the flesh. In his humaness he did not act on some separate will contrary to God. This is also why his death on the cross is so unique and the only thing that could save us namely God in the flesh.

Samething with John 15:5, I agree with you to a point. The context is talking about bearing fruit. At the same time it is true that apart from Jesus no matter who you are you could do nothing.

Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Heb 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

Here is another verse I suppose you would say that I take hyper-literally as well, but the context seems clear that Peter believed that Jesus really and truly knew all things:

John 21:17 He *said to him the third time, “Simon, {son} of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.

Peter knew that only God looks at the heart.

1 Sam 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God {sees} not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD…
Chris on 18 Oct 2009 at 10:43 pm #

Kaz,

You said:

“One of the beauties of the alternative I’ve offered, esp. taken in conjunction with the Unitarian view of God and Christ, is that it seems to allow you to avoid all of the problems inherent to the orthodox understanding of Christ.”

The funny thing is one of the reasons that I believe the orthodox understanding of Christ is because I believe that is what the bible teaches and that is why it’s orthodox.

Another reason is because I believe it avoids all the problems inherent to the unorthodox understandings of Christ, and there are many.

Thank you for the link I won’t promise that I’ll read it but I may. I just received JWD third adtion as well and have many books and articles on my list to last a lifetime.

Chris
Jeff Downs on 19 Oct 2009 at 11:17 am #

Kaz,

This chapter of a forthcoming book, might be of interest to you Introduction to God…with Us, by Scott Oliphint.
Kaz on 24 Oct 2009 at 2:23 pm #

Hi Rob,

Thanks for clarifying this, I appreciate it. As you know, my own view of your latest discussion of John 8:58 (i.e. in Putting Jesus in His Place, pp. 96 & 97) is that you simply didn’t develop your arguments sufficiently, and so I was curious if Stafford had the same impression.

Aside from your observation that most scholars believe that John 8:58 is implying more than K.L. McKay apparently sees (i.e. you appeal to authority) along with the reaction of the Jews in verse 59 (which Stafford addresses in depth), the only other “argument” you offered was a perceived connection between Psalms 90:2 and John 8:58. To this I would simply say that there doesn’t appear to be any reason to think that there is a connection. One is poetry while the other is dialogue, and the subject and context are completely different. Thus, to this part of your argument I would simply remind you of your own words:

“It is a common error to bring together two or more unrelated texts of Scripture and thereby derive a doctrine or practice completely foreign to the Bible.” (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 34

~Kaz
Kaz on 24 Oct 2009 at 2:24 pm #

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the link, I’ll try and find time to check it out.

~Kaz
Rob Bowman on 24 Oct 2009 at 4:21 pm #

Kaz,

_Putting Jesus in His Place_ is an *overview* of the biblical material pertaining to the divine identity of Jesus Christ. The Scripture index alone runs 26 pages. We did not have the space to “develop” each argument to the nth degree, nor did we claim to do so. That’s why the book has 75 pages of endnotes, filled with references to additional literature that “develop” the points made in further detail. So your criticism that my argument on John 8:58 was insufficiently “developed” ignores the nature of the book you are criticizing.

Your objections to the comparison between John 8:58 and Psalm 90:2 (89:2 LXX) are irrelevant. Prose statements in the NT often echo statements in the poetic literature of the OT, including the Psalms; this is not a cogent criticism. NT texts also frequently use OT language where the “subject and context” are different, so this is not a valid criticism, either. My argument turns on noting the unusual verbal-grammatical parallels between the two Greek texts and drawing the inference that Jesus in John 8:58 is expressing his preexistence in a way that is verbally parallel to the way God’s preexistence is affirmed in the Psalm. This is not a violation of the hermeneutical principle you quoted from my book.
Kaz on 24 Oct 2009 at 8:15 pm #

Hello Rob,

I grant that your argumentation vis a vis John 8:58 could be said to be sufficient for the purpose of the book, as said book appears to be designed as a sort of pro-Trinity quick reference manual for those who already believe in the Trinity. Just know that the sort of argumentation you offer vis a vis John 8:58, John 1:1c, and other verses, is not likely compel many who are informed and who don’t already agree with you about Jesus’ appropriate “Place”, which, for you, is not just as God’s Son but as the same God whose Son he is said to be, a proposition that appears to dance with a cryptically-dressed oxymoron.

Your dismissal of my comment about your failure to show a connection between John 8:58 and Psalm 90:2 appears to be, well, “irrelevant”. I would suggest that it actually _is_ relevant to point out that the two verses are found in very different contexts, and that there doesn’t appear to be any connection between the two accounts. It _is_ relevant to point out that John 8:58 is found in a context in which the question has to do with both Jesus’ age and his identity, and that the implicit identity is more naturally satisfied by “Messiah” than by “eternal God”, whereas in the account in Psalms 90:2 God’s identity as such is explicitly declared. It _is_ relevant to note that, if Psalms 90:2 does in fact focus on God’s eternality, then this emerges, not from the present tense verb or the grammar alone, but from the context, which includes the combination of the present tense verb with “everlasting to everlasting” (if such is in fact the best rendering of the underlying Greek/Hebrew).

Of course, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the point of Psalms 90:2 isn’t God’s enternality in both directions, but his Godship from the eternal past up until the point of the Psalmist’s speech. One commentator was close when he declared that a better translation would be:

“‘before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hast formed the earth and the world, Even from age to age thou wast God.’ This assertion simply states that God existed from one age to another in all of the eternity in the past–prior to the creation of the world. This, is what Moses by the Spirit of God, said.”

Found here:

http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page92.html

Better yet, I would suggest the following translation:

“Before the mountains were born or ever you formed the earth and the world, even from age to age you have been God”.

If I were a betting man I’d be willing to wager that if I could establish that the translation I’ve offered were incontestable, you’d eagerly embrace McKay’s preferred rendering. I can hear you declare: “The use of the PPA at John 8:58 reminds us of the use of the PPA at Psalms 90:2 where God is said to exist in the eternal past. Yes, the PPA proves that Jesus had no beginning, and that he therefore must have always existed as the eternal Deity.”

Sound about right?

~Kaz
Rob Bowman on 24 Oct 2009 at 8:40 pm #

Kaz,

Your way of characterizing my understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ is, understandably, prejudicial.

Describing my book as a “quick reference manual for those who already believe in the Trinity” does not do justice to the cumulative weight of the evidence presented. You are doing exactly what Ed and I predicted anti-Trinitarians would do: fixate on a few select points where you think an alternative reading of a text is possible or preferable, and treat that isolated point as if it were representative of the entirety of the evidence presented in the book. Not surprisingly, more than two years later, this is what we find, not only from individuals posting casual comments like yours (where little more can be expected), but even in books supposedly refuting the position we take in our book. This includes the third edition of Stafford’s book, David Barron’s new book, and at least one other book. The strategy in each case is the same: include a few citations from _Putting Jesus in His Place_, enough so that the author presumably can claim to have “dealt with it,” but fail to engage the spectrum of evidence.

Most if not all of the points you bring up concerning John 8:58 I have already thoroughly discussed in my online debate with Jason BeDuhn, cited in my book. This includes the suggestion that Psalm 89:2 LXX might also be described as a PPA. So, you’re a few years late with this argument.
Kaz on 24 Oct 2009 at 9:38 pm #

Hello Rob,

I don’t think it’s “prejudicial” to point out that under-developed argumentation is not likely to make the “cumulative case” that you seek to make, at least not for those who are well informed and who disagree with you based on well-informed conclusions. In presenting a “cumulative case” argument you wish to establish a “pattern” of thought/understanding that supports your conclusion. However, as you are no doubt aware, a pattern only exists if the threads of the pattern really exists. If one removes enough threads then a perceived “pattern” can disappear or even change into something different.

One can reveal how evidence really supports one’s view or one can message evidence in an effort to make it seem to support one’s view. Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians are probably alike in that they both feel that the other is guilty of the latter while they believe that they themselves practice the former. Because of this, if someone from either of these camps wishes to establish his/her case to the other camp, then under-developed argumentation will not suffice. Only rigorous argumentation will have the potential to persuade. If one is not determined to persuade but seeks instead to provide those of like mind with a sort of quick-reference guide to support what they already believe, then that one will be content to offer a book such as the one you’ve recently co-authored.

By the way, the fact that you “discussed” the Psalms 90:2 vis a vis the possibility that it is an example of a PPA doesn’t mean that you’ve addressed it satisfactorily in support of your view, just as the fact that you “discussed” John 8:58 with Professor BeDuhn doesn’t mean that you established your view as correct or that his is wrong.

~Kaz
Kaz on 24 Oct 2009 at 9:56 pm #

Oops, replace “message” with “massage” in paragraph 2 of my last post.

~Kaz
Rob Bowman on 24 Oct 2009 at 10:25 pm #

Kaz,

This discussion has reached a point of diminishing returns. Perhaps you can point me to a book that you think exemplifies argumentation all the way through that is not “under-developed” and that presents a solid case for the Christology that you favor. Then we can all judge for ourselves whether this criticism you are making is at all meaningful.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that no such book has been published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Wouldn’t you agree?