User:Pvasiliadis/Temp

=Καρυωτάκης= Αν τουλάχιστον, μέσα στους ανθρώπους αυτούς, ένας επέθαινε από αηδία... Σιωπηλοί, θλιμμένοι, με σεμνούς τρόπους θα διασκεδάζαμε όλοι στην κηδεία.

= The War and the Christians =


 * Cathal J. Nolan, The Age of Wars of Religion, 1000-1650: An Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization, 2006, Greenwood Press, ISBN-10 031333045X (ISBN-13 9780313330452), p. xliv:

Early Christians living in pagan Rome carefully distinguished between what belonged to God and what was owed to Caesar, but they fundamentally rethought this discomforting notion once the Caesars became Christian. From the 5th century, the Latin Church upheld a doctrine that ‘‘Two Swords’’ had been given to Man by God, one secular and one religious, one for the emperor and the other for the pope in Rome. For the next 1,000 years Latin Christians could not conceive of war being waged outside the just purposes of God and his anointed Church on Earth. Like pagans before them, they still believed that divine judgment was evident in the outcome of martial contests fought between knights, as between nations. Christian Orthodox in the east merged the role of warlord and high priest in the doctrine of ‘‘Caesaropapism,’’ which effectively lodged even military policy in the Holy of Holies, in the tabernacle of the doctrines of the faith.

= "new religious movement" or "alternative religion" replaces "cult" =
 * Peter B.Clarke, Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, 2006, ISBN 0-415-26707-2, pp. 144-146:

CULT AND NEW RELIGIONS

The term ‘cult’ has become quite problematic in recent years, particularly within the United States (Richardson, 1993). It now is understood by most members of the general public, as well as policy makers and the media, as a term that refers to controversial groups that are odd and even dangerous to group members and others. Usually there is the assumption associated with the term that there is an all-powerful leader exercising inordinate influence over members of the group who were persuaded to join through the use of unethical processes referred to under the also negatively connoted rubric of ‘brain-washing’ (Robbins and Anthony, 1982).

‘Cult’ has become a general term referring to a number of newer religious and quasireligious groups that have attracted attention from the media and government officials in recent decades (Dillon and Richardson, 1994). Such groups as the Unification Church (known popularly as the ‘Moonies’), Scientology, Hare Krishna, Divine Light Mission, The Way International, and International Community of Christ have been designated as Encyclopedia of new religious movements 144 cults by the media, often assisted by the efforts of the so-called Anti-Cult Movement. The negatively connoted term has become widely used for these and other newer, smaller, and more ‘culturally oppositional’ religious and quasi-religious groups (Campbell, 1972). The term has also been used to refer to the Manson group that murdered several Hollywood notables several decades ago, the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas, the Heavens Gate group that committed suicide in San Diego in the late 1990s, and the Solar Temple group that had several episodes of mass suicide and murders in the mid-1990s—all groups which were involved in very violent episodes. Thus the negative connotation of the term cult has been fostered by events involving some of the groups designated as cults by the media and policy makers.

The term cult has been used much less in some countries than in others, with the term sect being preferred as a somewhat negatively connoted term in Europe to refer to smaller controversial religious groups. The term in Europe includes both New Religious Movements (NRMs) and smaller non-traditional religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses that have existed for some time in European countries. However, the term cult has become an important cultural export from the US in recent years. It appears that the designation given to the controversial groups within the American context has been transported around the world as part of the baggage associated with the information disseminated about these groups. Thus the cult term has become more diffused, leading to its more frequent use in other countries such as in Europe, Japan, and China, to refer to groups that are not positively sanctioned by the government and general society.

Most scholars prefer the term ‘new religions’ or ‘New Religious Movements’ (NRMs) to refer to the groups popularly known as cults. This term is somewhat imprecise, given that some of the ‘new religions’ claim heritages that are centuries old. However, the term does not have the negative connotation of the term cult.

Sociological history of the term cult

The term cult was first developed in the writings of Ernst Troeltsch (1931) and has been used since in other socio-logically oriented writings since he wrote in the 1930s (i.e. Yinger, 1970; Wilson, 1970; Campbell, 1972). It has become something of a residual term in the traditional typology often referred to in the sociology of religion that includes such concepts as church, denomination, and sect (Niebuhr, 1929; Martin, 1962). As a technical term in sociology the characteristics of cult include: a small, transitory, amorphous group with porous or vague boundaries of belief and behavior. A few Scholars (Nelson, 1965) have taken issue with the transitory part of this definition, however, noting that some cult-like groups last over time. Van Driel and Richardson (1988) offer a lengthy comparison of the characteristics of the terms sect and cult, highlighting major differences that include much more exclusiveness and firm boundaries in sect-like groups. It is worth noting that from a sociological point of view many of the NRM groups popularly referred to as cults are in fact sects according to the characteristics usually associated with that term.

Richardson (1978) adds another perspective as he states:

The major criterion of the concept of cult is its oppositional nature: A cult is a group that has beliefs and/or practices that are counter to those of the dominant culture. Beliefs and practices may also be in opposition to those of a subcultural group. (emphasis in original)

This content oriented definitional approach, also used by other scholars such as Ellwood (1968), is useful in that it helps explain why otherwise small and relatively harmless groups may attract such attention and become the targets of normative efforts by media, government officials, and the general public. Such groups are viewed as threatening to dominant cultural values, and they have in recent decades attracted youth from dominant social classes in society.

The politics of the cult label

Groups successfully designated as cults are usually politically weak and cannot defend themselves well. They can become easy targets for politicians, traditional religious groups, the Anti-Cult Movement, or others seeking to use such controversial groups to further their own interests. This has been a common pattern in recent decades, especially in former Communist countries, as NRMs have become pawns in political battles for cultural dominance and hegemony in a number of societies (Dillon and Richardson, 1993; Shterin and Richardson, 2000; Richardson, 2004).

Controversial religious groups can be targeted by media calling attention to them, using labels that indicate their problematic nature. Politicians can decide to attack them, knowing that this can be done with impunity in most societies. The media usually follows the lead of opinion leaders and dominant groups in a society, thus contributing to the concern about such groups by labeling the targeted groups with terms such as cult. A ‘moral panic’ can ensue, which makes it very difficult for NRMs to receive fair treatment in legal actions that might be brought by the groups, or against them by others Richardson, 1991; Richardson, 2004).

Because of the problematic situation that exists with the use of the term cult, Richardson (1993) has recommended that scholars refrain from using the term when writing about NRMs. Or if scholars use the term, they should make clear that it is being used as a technical term, and not simply following—and promoting—the popularnegative usage of the term. Also, he makes another recommendation to disallow use of the label cult in legal actions involving minority religious groups, in order to avoid the baggage associated with that term becoming a factor in the legal action.


 * Charles H. Lippy, Faith in America : changes, challenges, new directions, 2006, ISBN 0-275-98605-5, pp. 228, 229:

MATTERS OF DEFINITION

Definition must be the first task in any discussion of new and alternative religions. For the purposes of this chapter, a ‘‘new religious movement’’ is a group that has been founded in the last three hundred years and offers something new that differentiates it from pre-existing religious traditions. The new religion may—and historically often does—derive many of its beliefs and practices from an established movement. At the same time, it offers a new religious prophet, sacred text, or set of rituals and beliefs that causes it to depart significantly from other religions. For example, Mormonism, officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is based in Christianity and uses both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Many Mormon beliefs and practices resemble those of theologically conservative American Protestantism. At the same time, it is not a branch of Christianity but a new religion because it offers a new prophet (Joseph Smith, Jr.), new sacred texts (The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, etc.), and various new beliefs and practices.1 Using this definition, all religions start as new religious movements. Christianity, for example, was once a new religion emerging from Judaism, Islam a new religion with Jewish and Christian sources, and Buddhism a new religion coming out of popular and elite Indian religious traditions. Unlike most new religions, however, these movements did not disappear, but grew to be the three largest world religions today.

Historically, the phrase ‘‘new religious movement’’ has replaced ‘‘cult’’ as the preferred scholarly term for new religions. Stemming from the Latin term ‘‘cultus,’’ meaning an organized system of worship, the term cult is at once sociological, theological, and popular parlance. Sociologically, it refers to a small, unstable group often focused around one or a set of charismatic leaders. The organization is often weak and the group usually does not last long. The term is part of a church, sect, and cult classification system that focuses on institutional structures and tensions with the environing culture. An example of the sociological meaning of cult can be seen in the writings of J. Milton Yinger, particularly Religion, Society, and the Individual (1957).

Theologically, cult has historically been a term twentieth- and twentyfirst-century evangelical Protestants used to distinguish ‘‘true’’ Christians from ‘‘false’’ ones. In his 1962 book, Cults and Isms, Russell Spittler gave the classic evangelical definition of the term when he wrote that a cult ‘‘is any group that claims to be Christian but falls short of an evangelical definition of Christianity.’’3 Perennial favorites in evangelical cult books included the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists, but liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics also sometimes appeared.

In terms of popular usage, cult has lost any original sociological meaning and now brings to mind charges of brainwashing, coercion, deception, and abuse. Beginning in the early 1970s and growing in the latter part of the decade and through the 1980s, the image of a cult as a volatile, dangerous group of fanatics dominated American media and popular culture. Elsewhere I have argued that for many Americans, these associations were and still are so taken for granted that they have become doxa, those socially constructed opinions, assumptions, and inclinations so ingrained they appear commonsense and natural.4 Because of the negative associations ‘‘cult’’ now holds for many Americans, scholars use ‘‘new religious movement’’ or ‘‘alternative religion’’ as value-free terms to describe particular new movements.

= Jehovah's Witnesses =
 * Eugene V. Gallagher & W. Michael Ashcraft, Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, Volume 2: Jewish and Christian Traditions, Greenwood Press, 2006, ISBN 0-275-98712-4, ISBN 0-275-98714-0, (vol. 2)

Jehovah’s Witnesses

David L. Weddle

Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught and practiced an alternative version of Protestant Christianity for 125 years. Originating in the United States in the late nineteenth century as a small group of Bible students, the movement spread across the globe, and in 2004 the Watch Tower Society reported over six million active members in 235 countries.1 Jehovah’s Witnesses belong to the Protestant tradition by virtue of their insistence on the Bible as their primary authority, yet they developed beliefs, practices, institutional forms, and a relation to culture based on their apocalyptic hope that distinguishes them from other Protestants.2

OVERVIEW

As Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that the Bible is the ultimate religious authority rather than Church tradition or personal spiritual experience; thus, they reject any belief or practice that is not supported by their reading of the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Bible is “a book from God,” given through inspired writers who faithfully recorded God’s message as a secretary transcribes a dictated letter. They assert that the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate and that its prophecies about future events are entirely reliable.3 In a consistent application of the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, Jehovah’s Witnesses reject many doctrines in the ecumenical creeds, such as the nature of God as Trinity, the divine nature of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the immortality of the soul, and the eternal punishment of unbelievers. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that these so-called “orthodox” beliefs are the result of adapting Christian theology to Greek philosophical ideas at the time Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century.4

Since that time, Jehovah’s Witnesses insist, all churches have departed from the true Christian faith by seeking power and wealth in the world, supporting earthly governments in waging wars, uniting in ecumenical organizations, and adopting pagan practices such as the celebration of Christmas and Easter. In these ways, Christian churches, along with the adherents of all other world religions, entered unwittingly into alliance with Satan, the fallen angel who opposes God’s purpose to establish his kingdom on earth. Jehovah’s Witnesses are convinced that they are the only true believers in a time of general apostasy. In these last days, Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate their loyalty to God’s kingdom by giving public testimony to their faith. In doing so, they prove their worthiness to enjoy the coming paradise on earth. Ever alert to Satan’s temptations and aware of the possibility that yielding to the allure of the world would betray their allegiance to Jehovah, Witnesses often quote Jesus’s warning that in the last days only “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13b). For that reason, they persistently canvass their neighborhoods and towns, explaining their beliefs and distributing vast amounts of literature. Most people first encounter Jehovah’s Witnesses at their front doors and must decide whether to invite the pleasant strangers in or send them on their way. In either case, the Witnesses have answered their calling to proclaim God’s kingdom and to warn of the judgment that is coming. Whether they are welcomed or rejected, they interpret their experience as confirmation of their role in the final drama of history: Jehovah’s Witnesses initiate conversations that are daily fulfillments of biblical prophecy. It is hard to imagine a more compelling religious identity in the Protestant Christian tradition.

HISTORY

Religion in the nineteenth century United States was marked by widespread enthusiasm, taking visionary and energetic forms in revival campaigns, utopian communities, and Adventist hopes of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God to earth. Heightened expectations of a glorious future, however, inevitably bred impatience. Even Jesus’s own disciples asked him: “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:4). Apocalyptic believers throughout history believed that the very date of the end of the world lies encoded in the prophecies of the Bible. One of the most persuasive decoders of millennial promises was William Miller (1782–1849), a lay Baptist minister whose followers expected the end of the world on October 22, 1844. For many, the failure of Miller’s prophecy was dramatic refutation of claims to calculate the exact date of the return of Christ.

For others, including those who sold their property and dressed in white robes for their ascension into heaven, the “Great Disappointment” became the opportunity for more ingenious interpretations. Hiram Edson reported a vision of Christ entering the “second apartment” or inner sanctuary of the heavenly archetype of Solomon’s temple where Israelite priests offered sacrifices. There Christ began conducting what later Adventists would call an “investigative judgment” of all people, based on their obedience to biblical laws, including Sabbath observance and strict attention to health and diet. Just as ancient Israelite priests entered the Most Holy Place in the temple once a year to cleanse the people of sin, so Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 in precise fulfillment of prophecy in the biblical book of Daniel, “to Jehovah’s Witnesses determine who through repentance and faith in Christ is entitled to enter His eternal kingdom.”5 When Christ completes the examination, he will return, suddenly and visibly, to initiate the apocalyptic events foretold in the Bible. The “sanctuary doctrine” was later confirmed by visions of Ellen Gould White (1827–1915), prophet of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and served as an influential explanation of how Christ could be in the heavens in fulfillment of prophecy, but remain invisible on earth where powers of evil increase their control of religious and political systems. In the title of her best-known work, White called the struggle between Christ and Satan The Great Controversy, and predicted that it would soon end in the victory of the Messiah at the battle of Armageddon and the eternal destruction of the wicked.6 Interpretations of biblical eschatology, especially in the biblical books of Daniel and Revelation, were always popular among American Christians. The detailed chronologies inspired by the dispensationalism of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), British founder of the Plymouth Brethren, provided the primary source for C.I. Scofield (1843–1921), who later incorporated the scheme of seven dispensations into his famous reference Bible. Each dispensation (from the Greek term for “economy”) is a different form of divine administration of the world during a particular period of history.7 Each dispensation has its own principles that regulate the relationship between God and the world, including the means of human salvation. The key to understanding any passage in the Bible is to identify the dispensation in which it was written and the historical period in which its teaching was binding. For example, most laws given to ancient Israel do not apply in the dispensation of the Church that began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). For dispensationalists the distinction between Israel and the Church is critical because they believe that prophetic texts in the Old Testament promising the messianic age will be literally fulfilled in the future of the Jewish people.

Before that dispensation of the kingdom begins, however, Christians in the present dispensation of grace will be taken directly into heaven in the “rapture” and those “left behind” will go through seven years of great tribulation. After “those days” Christ will return to earth to establish his millennial kingdom, a reign of peace and justice that will end with another test of human loyalties to be followed by the “Great White Throne” judgment and the final consignment of the wicked to the “second death.” The elaborate calculations of Adventists near the end of the nineteenth century aroused expectations that a comprehensive interpretation of human history, from its beginning in the Garden of Eden to its culmination in the “new heavens and earth” was possible by means of an authoritative correlation of the course of human history and the code of divine revelation. Among the many who were excited by that prospect was Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916). Russell was born in 1852 into a middle-class family in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Although he attended Presbyterian churches, he found Calvinist teachings of original sin and predestination inconsistent with his own sense of youthful initiative and selfdetermination and the preaching of eternal torment of unbelievers wholly contradictory to divine love. While still a teenager, Russell became convinced that “though each of the creeds contained some elements of truth, they were, on the whole, 64 Jewish and Christian Traditions misleading and contradictory of God’s Word.”8 Russell began to earnestly study the Bible, assisted by several Adventist associates. George Storrs (1796–1879), editor of Bible Examiner, convinced Russell that the soul dies with the body and that unbelievers would not endure eternal punishment, but simply cease to exist. Storrs also taught “a second chance of salvation for all resurrected people during the millennium,” a view that became “a key doctrine of Russell’s.”9 Russell learned from Nelson H. Barbour (1824–1908), editor of Herald of the Morning, that the invisible “presence” of Christ occurred in 1874, from which date Russell calculated that 40 years of “harvest” would elapse before the kingdom arrived. Despite these influences, however, Russell did not adopt Adventist observance of Saturday Sabbath nor the standards of dietary health taught by White. Russell modestly acknowledged that the views he promoted were not original with him, but were “scattered fragments of truth” preserved piecemeal by different Protestant groups over the centuries. Russell described his teaching as “less work of origination than of reconstruction, adjustment, harmonization.”10 That acknowledgement was crucial for discouraging any tendency to regard Russell as a prophet who received revelation by direct inspiration apart from the Bible. The biblical model for Russell’s role is closer to that of apostle, and the event in the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses that corresponds to Pentecost in the story of the early Christian church was the publication of the first issue of the monthly journal, Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence in 1879. By that action Russell and his supporters accepted the commission to proclaim the coming kingdom in the power of “Jehovah’s holy spirit.” The difference from the original apostolic message is that Russell taught that Christ assumed the place of rulership in heaven in 1874. Russell made that conviction even clearer in 1909 when he changed the name of the magazine to The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence. By 1880 Russell drew together the small congregations that had formed around his published views. He charged them with the role of the “faithful and discreet slave” who supplies spiritual food to the rest of the household in Jesus’s parable in Matthew 24:45–47. Already Russell was formulating the key distinction between the “little flock” of 144,000 who would assist Christ in ruling the kingdom from heaven (Revelation 14) and the “great crowd” of believers from all nations who would inherit the earthly paradise (Revelation 7). In 1881 he published the conviction that the “faithful and discreet slave” represented the collective ministry of those anointed by God’s “holy spirit” to share in messianic authority, and in 1884 he formed Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society as their unifying organization. Russell promoted his teaching tirelessly, through dramatic public lectures and prolific writing. He was a tall man, with a flowing beard, and made a striking stage presence. Never pretentious, Russell impressed others by his sincerity, modesty, and moderation, setting an example by spending time in missionary work abroad. For these qualities, his students fondly referred to him as “Pastor.” Russell’s central passion was “publishing” in every possible form, including contributions to newspapers and magazines. In 1913 Russell’s sermons reached 15 million readers through what Jehovah’s Witnesses 65 he called “newspaper gospelling.” He encouraged his students to go door-to-door with literature, accompanied by phonographs or dioramas.11 In 1886 Russell began an ambitious series of books titled Millennial Dawn, with the first volume called The Divine Plan of the Ages. He was convinced that he had discovered the key to the coherent interpretation of all prophetic passages in the Bible, thus deciphering the divine intention in history, including the knowledge of its end. This method of biblical interpretation was pioneered by Jewish sectarians at Qumran and has animated popular religion in the United States for three centuries.12 So Russell’s approach was not original, nor was his judgment that Christendom had fallen away from the moral discipline and spiritual fidelity that is required to survive divine judgment. That theme had resounded through American preaching from the time of the Puritans. What distinguished Russell’s apocalyptic rhetoric was his utter rejection of the hope of reforming apostate Christendom and his insistence that strict conformity to the model of first century Christianity required consistent separation from religious, as well as political, institutions. The only divine assistance Russell claimed in this discovery was the same guidance of God’s “holy spirit” that is available to any earnest seeker after truth. The key to Russell’s interpretation was a complex calculation, published in 1876, leading to the conclusion that the “seven times” of Daniel 4:16 referred to the “times of the gentiles” in domination over Israel (Luke 21:24), begun in 607 BCE and destined to end in 1914.13 When World War I broke out, some of Russell’s followers (like those of William Miller) were certain that they would be taken immediately into heaven. By the end of 1915, however, Russell explained that the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, or Turkey, signaled only the beginning of the end. In the second installment of his series (retitled Studies in the Scriptures) Russell explained that the return of Christ involves a process of gradual recognition, “as a period of presence, as was the first advent.” But for how long? Russell eventually tied the length of delay to the generation alive in 1914 as the cohort to whom Jesus’s words were addressed: “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28). Russell translated the term parousia as “presence,” rather than “coming,” and emphasized the arrival of the kingdom of God as a slow “dawning” of the truth. In the meantime Christ called those chosen to reign with him as spirit beings in the heavens. Beginning with the apostles, God selected the 144,000 members of “spiritual Israel,” also called the “bride of Christ” and the “little flock,” whose last members were from the generation of 1914. Only they would be taken to heaven at the time of the kingdom. In 1909 Russell moved the center of his publishing operations to Brooklyn, New York, and named the complex “Bethel,” house of God. Not long after, Maria Ackley Russell, from whom he separated in 1897, served him with divorce papers, ending a long period of contention over her role in the organization. One official publication notes that she was motivated by “her own desire for personal prominence,” but critics charge that she was asserting her right to independent judgment. As an editor of the 66 Jewish and Christian Traditions Watch Tower, she objected to the requirement that Russell approve the contents of every issue. Clearly she was not following the biblical injunction for a wife to submit to the authority of her husband. Barbara Harrison believes that Russell was referring to Maria in the sixth volume of his Studies in the Scriptures, published in 1911, in a passage of decidedly misogynistic tone: “Depraved and selfish” women attempt “directly or indirectly, to usurp the authority of the head of the home, to take and to hold the control of the purse and of the family.”14 In any case, Maria served as a sign that women should be excluded from leadership, based on the biblical prohibition against women speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34–35) and denial of permission for a woman “to teach or to have authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:11– 12). While women are active “publishers,” going door-to-door with the message of the coming kingdom at least once a week, and some are “pioneers,” who devote 840 hours a year to preaching and teaching, no woman is allowed to hold a governing position in the Watch Tower Society or serve as an elder in a local congregation. Charles Russell died in 1916, on a train returning from a speaking tour. He insisted that his writings on theMillennial Dawn be regarded as “the key to the scriptures.” Yet today the Watchtower Society does not even reprint his works.15 Russell insisted that the Bible was the sole basis of authority and Jehovah’s Witnesses have honored that principle, even to the point of discounting Russell’s personal authority. The latest history produced by the Governing Body candidly portrays Russell as a fallible human being and acknowledges practices and teachings from the early days that were later abandoned. Nevertheless, the original convictions of a founder of a religious movement continue to inform its beliefs and practice. Russell’s conviction that biblical prophecy refers to future historical events inspired his successors to offer daring predictions and supply creative explanations for their failures. Russell’s successor as president of the Watch Tower Society was Joseph Franklin Rutherford (1869–1942). Also an imposing figure, he served occasionally on the circuit court and was thus known as “Judge.” Rutherford provided legal counsel to Russell in the purchase of land for Bethel and was a member of the board of directors of the Watch Tower Society. His disposition, however, was far less peaceful than Russell’s and his style of management more centralized. Shortly after his election, Rutherford replaced four directors opposed to his administration with his own supporters. Because of the fiery rhetoric of writings against American involvement in World War I, Rutherford and seven other directors of theWatch Tower Society were imprisoned under the Sedition Act of 1918. They advocated a neutralist (not pacifist) stance and encouraged young male Witnesses to refuse military service. All were released after nine months during which they organized Bible studies in jail. In the aftermath of this persecution Rutherford tightened control over the Brooklyn headquarters by challenging the election of several directors and putting his backers in their place (a move he interpreted as fulfillment of prophecy). Rutherford also required door-todoor callers to account for their quota of hours by filling out a monthly “service sheet,” increased the construction of Kingdom Halls, began publishing a new monthly magazine called The Golden Age (later, Awake!), and introduced the motto, “Millions Now Living Will Never Die!” Jehovah’s Witnesses 67 Rutherford wrote extensively, beginning with Harp of God in 1921. He predicted that the biblical patriarchs would return in 1925 to assist in rebuilding Jerusalem, and he built a mansion for them in San Diego, California. In their absence Rutherford occupied the residence from 1923 until his death. Faced with the task of reading prophecy in the aftermath of war and persecution, Rutherford identified “Babylon the Great” of Revelation with the League of Nations abetted by the Vatican, established clergy, and the barons of market capitalism.16 At the annual convention of 1931 Rutherford declared that henceforth “we desire to be known as and called by the name, to wit, Jehovah’s witnesses.”17 Since then, the use of “Jehovah” as the personal name of God has become a major point of doctrine and religious identity. The new name was a dramatic change from the generic designation of “Bible Students” and carried an implicit challenge to Protestants from whose English translations of the Bible the proper name of God was largely eliminated.18 In 1939, the Watch Tower Society sought to broaden the readership of its chief publication from the original group of “Russellites” to the larger company of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The present title, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom, gives prominence “to Jehovah as the Universal Sovereign, the one who gave ruling authority to his Son.”19 The name of the magazine is itself a coded reference to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ alternative reading of Bible prophecy. During World War II Rutherford led the Witnesses through a series of court battles, winning civil rights to distribute literature, refuse to salute the flag, and claim exemption from military service. Rutherford used the judicial system in a comprehensive and systematic way, a strategy Pauline Coˆte´ and James Richardson call “disciplined litigation.” In the process of pursuing legal protection for distinctive Witness practices, Rutherford also moved “from anti-religious propaganda to demands that the Witnesses be accorded a socially established religion’s privileges.”20 Rutherford struggled, however, with personal problems, including “a separation from his wife tied to an almost pathological animus toward any leadership role by women.”21 Rutherford’s unhappy marriage, like that of Russell, confirmed his reading of biblical passages warning against women who challenge the authority of male leadership and reinforced traditional gender roles for women that remain in place today. Rutherford’s death marked a major transition in the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses from charismatic to institutional authority. Nathan Homer Knorr (1905–1977) became the third president of the Watch Tower Society in 1942, after working his way through the ranks at Bethel to a place on the board of directors. Knorr’s long presidency was marked by increased growth, more sophisticated promotional and evangelistic methods, and greater uniformity in the programs of local congregations, including training in public speaking through Theocratic Ministry Schools. Unlike his predecessors, Knorr had modest writing skills and no ambition to produce his own series of interpretations of biblical prophecy. Instead, he inaugurated the practice of anonymous doctrinal publications, beginning in 1943 with The Truth Shall Make You Free. In 1960 the Watchtower Society published the complete New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, in which references to God and Lord in the King James Version are uniformly rendered 68 Jewish and Christian Traditions “Jehovah.” The names of the translators do not appear, although Frederick W. Franz (1893–1992) was probably responsible for this version. The stated reason for anonymity is that it discourages pride and the attendant lust for power, both associated with charismatic authority. On the other hand, no individual can be held responsible for the content of any publication. Further, most books from theWatchtower Society lack a distinctive style or fresh rhetoric. The effects of Knorr’s well-meaning policy resulted in the production of works of simple declarative sentences, composed in a stilted vocabulary and arranged in brief chapters. Each page is lined at the bottom with elementary questions calling for answers that consist of repetitions of sections of the text above. No questions call for criticisms of the text or explore assumptions behind the text. The strategy of anonymous authorship for official writings succeeds in achieving a uniformity of belief and expression, but also results in works that require no imagination from writers and no independent response from readers. In the years following World War II Knorr traveled extensively, rebuilding branch organizations in Europe and establishing others in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Pacific islands. During the countercultural revolution in the United States of the 1960s, the Watch Tower Society reacted by tightening discipline and expelling many young people from their congregations, usually for sexual misconduct. The process is called “disfellowshipping,” and under its terms no Jehovah’s Witness, apart from family members living in the same house, may have contact with the expelled person until he or she repents of sin and returns to the way of life prescribed in the Bible. In 1971 the board of directors of theWatch Tower Society reorganized into a new Governing Body on the model of the original apostles, composed of 11 men, plus the president, all of whom belonged to the “anointed class,” the 144,000 believers Russell taught were anointed as kings to rule with Christ over the coming paradise on earth. He also referred to them as “the faithful and discreet slave” of Jehovah charged with providing “spiritual food” to the entire congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In practice, however, the teaching authority of the anointed class is exercised by its “governing body.” The Governing Body held legal authority over the vast holdings of the Watch Tower Society, approved all publications, and was the final arbiter of doctrinal and behavioral questions. Knorr extended the apostolic model in 1972 by restoring to local congregations the authority to elect their own body of elders to replace the single overseer. Only near the end of his tenure did Knorr, like his predecessors, become involved in controversy over failed prophecy. In 1966 the Governing Body issued a major publication that traced the creation of Adam to 4026 BCE. “According to this trustworthy Bible chronology, six thousand years of man’s creation will end in 1975 … How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years … a great Jubilee Sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants!”22 Despite the tentative phrasing of “how appropriate it would be” for the kingdom to come in 1975, many Jehovah’s Witnesses took the prediction seriously and defected when the year 1975 came and went without the coming of the kingdom. While vigorous evangelism worldwide Jehovah’s Witnesses 69 restored the loss in total membership, the rate of enlistment in the United States has not regained its former level.23 FrederickW. Franz was elected fourth president of theWatch Tower Society at age 83. Under his leadership theWatch Tower Society responded to the decline in active members after 1975 with several publications calling for greater dedication and providing new resources for Bible study, including a reference edition of the New World Translation (1984), a commentary on the Book of Revelation (1988), and a twovolume Bible encyclopedia (1991). Franz bolstered educational programs and developed the Ministerial Training School to train single male missionaries. As a result of his efforts, the number of pioneers nearly tripled and the number of congregations grew to 70,000, many in Kingdom Halls that were constructed in a few days by special teams of builders. But his tenure also was not without controversy. The emphasis on greater dedication imposed stricter discipline and more rigorous application of standards for disfellowshipping. The most notorious of these cases involved Franz’s own nephew, Raymond V. Franz, who resigned from the Governing Body in 1981 because of doubts about the Society’s changing interpretations of prophecy and its authoritarian control over members.24 He was finally disfellowshipped in 1982 on the charge of eating with someone who was “disassociated” from the organization. The account of the proceedings echoes stories of the expulsion of heretics in the early church, by authority also wielded by an oligarchy of elders.25 The case of Raymond Franz illustrates the determination of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses to conform to the biblical model of apostolic authority, even at the expense of familial loyalty. Frederick W. Franz, who claimed the “mantle” of Rutherford, died at the age of 99. Milton G. Henschel (1920–2003), fifth president of the Society, completed the transition from individual authority to corporate bureaucracy. The Watch Tower Society continued to refer to itself as a “theocratic organization” governed by members of the “anointed class” identified by Russell as members of the generation alive in 1914. In 1995, however, the Governing Body revised its interpretation of Jesus’s promise that “this generation would not pass away” to mean that there will always be those who oppose the truth until the kingdom arrives. It is a term that will never lack a referent; there will always be “this generation,” provoking the faithful to energetic witness, causing the tragedy of martyrdom, and offering temptation to compromise with the world. By applying the principle of progressive understanding of the Bible, the Watch Tower Society insisted that Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer regard the generation of 1914 as “a rule for measuring time.”26 The new reading of Jesus’s words removed the last vestige of charisma from the Governing Body as men anointed for a destiny of heavenly rule and, therefore, invested with earthly authority. The institutional effects of this change in interpretation were far-reaching. In October 2000 TheWatch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania distributed its operations among three new corporations: Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (to supervise educational activities), Religious Order of Jehovah’s Witnesses (to manage staff in full-time service), and Kingdom Support Services (to administer building construction and maintenance).27 These corporations, with 70 Jewish and Christian Traditions their own boards, are independent legal entities responsible for the global operations of Jehovah’s Witnesses without direct administrative direction from the Governing Body. This was a critical stage in the process of redefining authority within the organization. It is typical for a New Religious Movement (NRM), following the death of its founder, to devise an institutional process for transferring authority. But in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses the crisis was postponed as the energetic and appealing “Pastor” Russell was followed by the equally dynamic, if not equally charming, “Judge” Rutherford. Through the tenures of subsequent presidents, however, the personal charisma of the founding figures gradually faded. As the members of the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Society became less visible and its publications anonymous, the president no longer provided a center of personal authority who inspired confidence in the official line of biblical interpretation. The final step in transferring authority from individual leaders to the institution was to separate the legal powers of theWatch Tower Society, now wielded by younger men of the “great crowd” not elected to rule in heaven, from the spiritual guidance of the Governing Body and to establish a rotating chairmanship of the Governing Body, reducing the post to one of first among equals. At the time of reorganization, all members of the Governing Body resigned from the board of the Watch Tower Society and Don A. Adams (b. 1925) replaced Henschel as president. But this change did not solve the problem posed by the advancing age of the members of the Governing Body itself. David A. Reed notes that “long-standing doctrine precludes appointment of younger men to the Governing Body” because they do not belong to the “faithful and discreet slave class,” whose membership Rutherford declared sealed in 1935.28 A recentWatchtower publication, designed for congregational study, affirms that position: “In our day the Governing Body of Jehovah’s visible organization is made up of spirit-anointed brothers from various lands and is located at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Under the headship of Jesus Christ, the Governing Body furthers pure worship in every land.…”29 Nevertheless, on August 25, 2005 new members born after 1935 were appointed to the Governing Body.30 These men claim to have received the conviction of anointing to the heavenly calling to replace original members of the 144,000 who fell into apostasy.31 While in principle this replacement process could go on indefinitely, as some of the newly anointed may also prove unfaithful and require substitutes, the explanation cannot prove satisfactory in the long run because it implies that Jehovah regularly calls unworthy people to provide spiritual guidance to his faithful witnesses. Eventually, if there are no available “spirit-anointed brothers” to constitute the Governing Body, the source of biblical interpretation for Jehovah’s Witnesses would no longer be those called to reign with Christ in heaven. Under such conditions of attenuated authority, the question is whether the Governing Body, which has functioned from the beginning of the movement as the recipient of progressive enlightenment, could inspire submission by Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide to demands for apocalyptic fervor, rigorous conformity to doctrine, strict separation from dominant cultural patterns, and abstention from patriotic activities and civic government. Will the loss of theocratic authority, completed by this reorganization, weaken adherence Jehovah’s Witnesses 71 to Watchtower ideology and hasten a process of assimilation to conventional forms of Protestant bureaucracy?32Much depends upon the power of the alternative system of beliefs and practices that Jehovah’s Witnesses offer.

BELIEFS

For Jehovah’s Witnesses there is only one supreme “God of gods” (Psalm 136:2). His sacred name YHWH occurs thousands of times in the Hebrew Bible and, although its exact pronunciation is now lost, Jehovah’s Witnesses prefer the familiar translation Jehovah because it preserves “the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH or JHVH.”33 Jehovah created the entire world in six days as recorded in Genesis 1–2, making each species separately (“after its kind”). While Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize that many adaptive variations may occur within a species, they deny that all animals have a common ancestor. Further, they find it incredible that living beings spontaneously emerged, as a random event, from inanimate forces. “The Bible’s explanation that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts.”34 Similarly, God arranged the heavenly bodies “according to laws that keep them in perfect relation to one another … Surely it would be foolish to think that the billions of stars just made themselves, and, without any direction, formed the great star systems that move with such marvelous order.” As in all arguments for the existence of God from the perception of design in the universe, the conclusion follows: “This highly organized universe could not have just come about by itself. An intelligent Creator with great power was needed.”35 While Jehovah’s Witnesses “give no date for the original creation of the heavens and the earth,” they maintain that the seven days of creation recounted in Genesis extended over a period of 42,000 years, with the creation of Eve about 6,000 years ago.36 Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that Jehovah is an “invisible spirit” with classic attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and eternality, but at the same time he is a person of love, mercy, patience, and compassion. As Creator, Jehovah is the rightful king of the universe, even though rebellious angels and humans refuse to acknowledge his rule. Jehovah’s Witnesses, by contrast, insist that their very name is a testimony to their loyalty to God. The phrase “Jehovah’s Witnesses” comes from a passage in Isaiah: “You are my witnesses … I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior” (43:10, 12, KJV). Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that calling upon the personal name of God follows the example of Jesus, establishes an intimate relation with God, and identifies the true religion.37 To honor God’s name is to acknowledge his sovereignty over the universe and to submit to his righteous rule, thus preparing the way for the coming of Jehovah’s kingdom to earth. “All of God’s purposes,” according to one Watchtower publication, “are linked to his name. Mankind’s problems began when Satan first profaned Jehovah’s name by calling Him, in effect, a liar and unfit to rule the human race. (Genesis 3:1–6; John 8:44) Only when God’s name is properly vindicated will mankind enjoy complete relief from the disastrous effects of Satan’s lie.”38 Jehovah’s Witnesses view history as constituting a sustained test to determine whether humans will choose to obey God’s law rather than live under 72 Jewish and Christian Traditions Satan’s dominion. They believe that sanctifying the proper name of God is essential to restoring Christian worship as practiced by Jesus and his apostles and recorded unerringly in the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that all things were created through the agency of the Word of God, called Logos in John 1 and Wisdom in Proverbs 8. This “master workman” is chief among the “sons of God” (Job 1:6) in the heavenly court. The heavenly being who is described in John 1:1 as “with” God in the beginning and is himself “a god” became incarnate in Jesus (John 1:18). Thus, he is called the “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). Jehovah’s Witnesses pray to God in the name of Jesus, but insist that the Bible never identifies Christ as an eternal “person” within the Godhead as in Trinitarian theology. After all, “how can an individual be with someone and at the same time be that person?” By reading John 1:1 in light of John 17:3, where Jesus addresses “the only true God,” Jehovah’s Witnesses argue it is only reasonable to conclude that “Jesus, the Word, is ‘a god’ in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God.”39 Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the incarnation of the Word in literal terms: “…Jehovah God caused an ovum, or egg cell, in Mary’s womb to become fertile, accomplishing this by the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth … it would appear that the perfect male life-force (causing the conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary’s ovum.…”40 Jesus developed in a normal way, but upon reaching maturity “he was granted full remembrance of his previous association with God in heaven.”41 At his baptism by John the Baptist Jesus was anointed by God’s holy spirit into his calling as Messiah and adopted as Jehovah’s “spiritual son.”42 He lived a life of total imitation of his Father’s moral character, revealing God’s sacred name, and offering his perfect human life as a “ransom” for sinful humanity.43 Following an ancient model of thinking of Jesus Christ as an angel, both in the sense of a messenger of divine revelation and a champion of God’s people, Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that in his heavenly form Christ is the archangel named Michael in Hebrew Scriptures. The argument for this identity rests on parallel descriptions of the two in the Bible. Both Michael and Christ are seen as leading an army of angels. “Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven … it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.” 44 The identification of Christ with the archangel is a way of accounting for what in more traditional Christology would be called the divine and human “natures” of Christ. Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, is humble, compassionate, and forgiving: the perfect human being who reveals the love of Jehovah. Michael, the archangel, is formidable, destructive, and vengeful: the perfect warrior who reveals the justice of Jehovah. Apocalyptic vision always discerns two faces of God, one turned with tender care to the faithful remnant, the other dark with wrath facing the rebellious. In the Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses both are present in Jesus Christ in his earthly and heavenly forms. The angry face of God is set most unrelentingly against one of the other angels who once also served Jehovah in the heavenly court, the one called Lucifer. Jehovah’s Jehovah’s Witnesses 73 Witnesses teach that he rebelled against God and became the opponent of Jehovah’s rule. As Satan, the “adversary” of divine government, the Devil deceived Eve and Adam into also defying God’s sovereignty. Jehovah created the first human couple perfect, but through their free act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden they and all their progeny became subject to sin, sickness, and death. While Jehovah’s Witnesses do not teach that humans are born with a sinful nature that binds their will to sin, as in classic doctrines of original sin, they do believe that humans are born under the curse of death and the disposition to sin. A recent publication describes the human condition by a metaphor drawn from baking. If a pan used for baking bread has a dent in it, then each “loaf has a dent, or an imperfection, in it. Similarly, each human has inherited a ‘dent’ of imperfection from Adam. That is why all humans grow old and die.”45 By joining Lucifer in rebellion against God, Adam and Eve lost the right to live in paradise on earth. Instead, they returned to the dust from which they were formed and ceased to exist in both body and soul. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the immortality of the soul in another radical departure from a conventional reading of the Bible. Genesis 2:7 in the New World Translation reads, “And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” Jehovah’s Witnesses note that “man was a soul, he did not have a soul as something immaterial, invisible, and intangible residing inside him.”46 The latter view is derived from Greek philosophical dualism and contradicts the biblical teaching that a human being is composed of earth and divine breath. Jehovah’s Witnesses conclude that when God’s breath, or spirit, is withdrawn a person becomes nothing but dust. Consequently, “the dead enter a state of complete unconsciousness.”47 To rescue humans from the oblivion of death Jehovah sent Christ to earth as the “second Adam.” By remaining sinless throughout his life Jesus qualified as the perfect sacrifice required to ransom humanity from the power of death and of Satan, thus vindicating the authority of Jehovah’s rule over the earth. The sacrifice of Christ was an economic one, an exchange of his sinless life to “buy back what Adam lost,” namely, forgiveness of sin and eternal life for those who believe. When Christ returned to heaven, 40 days after his resurrection, “as a spirit person once more, he appeared ‘before the person of God for us,’ carrying the value of his ransom sacrifice. (Hebrews 9:12, 24) At that time the ransom was paid to God in heaven. Deliverance was now available for humankind.”48 In classic ransom theories of atonement Christ’s life is “paid” to Satan to deliver humanity from the demonic power of death. The comic reversal is that Satan cannot hold Christ in the realm of death, and the resurrection frees both Christ and those he rescues. But Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the exchange in more governmental terms: Christ sacrificed his life in a demonstration of entire loyalty to God’s rule, a living reversal of Adam’s rebellion. Not even the fear of death, Satan’s most effective bondage (Hebrews 2:14–15), can tempt Christ to stray from the path of obedience. By fulfilling his divinely appointed and prophesied destiny, Christ repays to Jehovah the honor that Adam offended. The “ransom” in this view is paid to God, the one whose right to unconditional obedience from all his creatures was violated in Eden and vindicated on Calvary. According toWatchtower teaching, Jesus was executed on a single piece of timber, a “torture stake,” rather than a cross. This alternative interpretation is drawn from Galatians 3:3, “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.” Watchtower exegetes argue that the Greek term stauros here refers to a beam sunk in the ground. Whatever value that etymological claim has, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are on solid ground by noting that the cross was not a prominent symbol in early Christianity. (The sign of the fish appears most often.) For Jehovah’s Witnesses the significant change came in the fourth century when “pagan Emperor Constantine converted to apostate Christianity and promoted the cross as its symbol … The cross is, in fact, pagan in origin.”49 In a dramatic declaration of alternative Christian identity, Jehovah’s Witnesses denounce the central symbol of dominant Protestant and Catholic churches as a pagan icon, the veneration of which constitutes idolatry. The resurrection of Jesus is the completion of the ransom exchange in perfect justice. Christ voluntarily sacrificed his sinless life, but righteousness required that he not be condemned to annihilation.50 Jesus’s body became lifeless on the torture stake, but God raised him from the dead in a “spiritual body” and made him a “life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:44–45) with authority to rule over all other creatures as head of the messianic kingdom (Philippians 2:9–11). Since what Christ achieved was the possibility for anyone to freely seek forgiveness from God on the basis of the ransom, all who exercise faith in Christ Jesus will experience resurrection from “memorial tombs” to new life. Since the dead cease to exist, however, their restoration to embodied life depends entirely upon the preservation of their individual being in the memory of God. Citing a recurrent biblical metaphor, one Watchtower publication states, “God’s Word refers to the dead as being asleep.” They neither receive nor initiate contact with the living; their existence is remembered, in every detail, by Jehovah. Just as modern recording equipment can preserve images of those who have died, so “our almighty Creator can record the details of any individual and resurrect the same person, giving him or her a newly formed body.”51 Jehovah’s Witnesses thus solve the problem of personal identity in a condition of disembodiment, entailed in conventional views of immortality, by arguing that such views are not found in the Bible itself. Further, by accepting the fact that the soul dies with the body, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid the problem of explaining the “intermediate state” of the dead prior to the general resurrection; they do not find evidence in the Bible for either the Protestant belief that souls are with Jesus in heaven or the Catholic belief that the dead suffer purgative punishment on their way to heaven. On the contrary, they trace belief in an immortal soul back to ancient Babylon, the source of opposition to Jehovah, whose name reappears in the book of Revelation as the global center of evil in the last days.52 Once again, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ alternative reading of the Bible returns to an apocalyptic theme. A distinctive feature of the eschatology of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the belief that Christ will be assisted in his rule by an anointed class of 144,000 believers, chosen mainly from among the early Bible Students. These believers will not be resurrected, Jehovah’s Witnesses 75 but will dwell in heaven with Christ as “spirit beings” and assist him in ruling over those who enjoy the paradise on earth. They are the subjects of the “new covenant” who Jesus instructed to remember his death in the meal on Passover eve. In 1935 Rutherford declared that most of the growing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses belonged to that “great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples …” (Revelation 7:9), standing around the throne of the Messiah. The role of these “sheeplike people” is to assist the “anointed remnant” in bearing witness to Jehovah’s authority. (The increasing presence of “brethren with an earthly hope” in the higher echelons of the Watch Tower Society is sanctioned by this doctrine.) Jehovah’s Witnesses eventually developed a schema of four possible destinies at death: to be raised immediately to heaven in a spirit body to rule eternally with Christ (the anointed class); to be annihilated immediately upon death (the reprobate whose rebellion is incorrigible); to be resurrected, to pass millennial tests of faith and be rewarded by everlasting life on new earth (great crowd); to be resurrected, but fail the millennial tests and so be judged with annihilation. This elaboration of the apocalyptic dualism of heaven and hell is a strategy of accommodation to the delay of the kingdom. There must be the possibility of salvation for other than the small anointed class, or no one would have a motive for witnessing after they (except for a few replacements for those who fall into apostasy) were all “sealed” in 1935. Further, this scheme provides a second chance for people who “died without showing whether they would comply with God’s righteous standards.”53 It was that gracious possibility that originally attracted Russell to the Adventist teaching of Storrs and inspires the Watchtower interpretation of the biblical symbol of “Judgment Day” as extending over the entire 1000 years of Christ’s millennial reign over the earth. Thus, “when a person is resurrected he will be judged on the basis of what he does during Judgment Day, not on what he did before he died.”54 The righteous have considerable motivation, nevertheless, for living so now, since Christ’s government will be established on earth only after a catastrophic battle with cosmic forces of evil at the battle of Armageddon in the near future. Then Jesus will separate all people on earth into loyal “sheep” and rebellious “goats” (Matthew 25:31–34). The former will enter the millennial paradise, 1000 years of peace and harmony in a restored earth. The latter, along with all the unrighteous through the ages, will be annihilated in what the Bible describes as “the second death” (Revelation 20:14–15). Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that only those who persevere in faithfully proclaiming the coming kingdom will be saved in the end. Thus, they do not teach that one is “eternally secure” after an initial confession of faith, as do most evangelical Christians, but that one must continue to “exercise faith” through works of service to the kingdom.

PRACTICES

Study Jehovah’s Witnesses meet three times a week in simple buildings with spare furnishings called “Kingdom Halls.” The two Sunday services consist mainly of 76 Jewish and Christian Traditions studying materials produced by the Watchtower Society in settings that seem highly cognitive with little affective content; but as R. Laurence Moore notes, “What observers often miss is that witnesses regard what they do in meetings as serious intellectual exercise … Witnesses take enormous pleasure in their achievements. They master texts; they learn to be leaders; and they show infinite patience in teaching what they know to others.” 55 These didactic meetings are part of the attempt to bring the faithful mind into harmony with biblical revelation, as interpreted in The Watchtower regarded as “the principal instrument of ‘the faithful and discreet slave’ and its Governing Body for announcing Jehovah’s established Kingdom and dispensing spiritual food ‘at the proper time.’”56 Witnesses also sing hymns, written in distinctive doctrinal vocabulary, and lately accompanied by recorded music provided by the Watchtower Society.57 The midweek meeting is for practical instruction in bearing witness or publishing. Publishing The formal course of training to become a persuasive publisher is TheocraticMinistry School. This education is conducted in local Kingdom Halls and includes main points of doctrine, techniques of public speaking, and practice in presenting the message of the kingdom before the congregation. The curriculum is produced by the Watchtower Society, and students are instructed that any application of the Bible they make in their evangelistic efforts should be “in harmony with what has been published by ‘the faithful and discreet slave,’” that is, the Governing Body.58 Active members, known as “publishers,” are expected to devote eight to ten hours a week in door-to-door witnessing. In support of publishers who reported spending a total of 1.3 billion hours in the field in 2004, the Watchtower Society invests great energy and vast amounts of money in publication, employing the most advanced communications technology available, from offset presses to phototypesetting computer software. All printing operations moved in 2004 from the historic Brooklyn printery and are now consolidated in new facilities in Wallkill, New York. At the dawn of the twenty-first century Jehovah’s Witnesses report distributing “hundreds of millions” of copies of The Watchtower and Awake!, translated into 260 languages.59 With the installation of more sophisticated presses in developed countries, including Japan, the output of material increases annually. In 2005 Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide reported conducting over six million Bible studies. Through the sacrificial efforts of voluntary workers at Bethel centers around the world, where full-time ministers labor in exchange for room, board, and a small personal allowance, the teachings of the Watch Tower Society are effectively broadcast to the world.60 Jehovah’s Witnesses have been quick to adopt the latest means of mass communication—with the exception of television—including most recently a well-designed site on the World Wide Web (www.watchtower.org) with an accompanying site of news releases (www. jw-media.org). Jehovah’s Witnesses 77 Rituals Jehovah’s Witnesses observe the two sacraments recognized by other Protestants: water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They baptize by immersion only those candidates who complete lengthy preparatory study. Candidates usually receive baptism at large conventions as a public sign of dedication to the work of proclaiming the kingdom. In 2005 Jehovah’s Witnesses reported holding 227 conventions in 69 cities in the United States and baptizing 28,384 new members.61 Baptism “marks the beginning of lifelong service to God as an ordained minister and one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” While baptism does not by itself confer salvation, it is the occasion for recognizing that “Jehovah’s holy spirit, or active force” is “empowering His servants to do His righteous will in association with His spirit-directed organization.” 62 Thus, baptism fulfills an important role in confirming institutional cohesion by initiating one into the service of the theocratic organization whose Governing Body derives authority from its collective identity as “the faithful and discreet slave” charged with teaching the “great crowd.” This distinction between those with a heavenly hope and those who anticipate living in paradise on earth is also crucial for Jehovah’s Witnesses’ alternative understanding of the ritual of communion. Jehovah’s Witnesses observe the “Lord’s Evening Meal” once a year, on Passover eve (Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar), in which only members of the anointed class partake of the “emblems” of bread and wine. Jehovah’s Witnesses take the radical Protestant view that the bread and wine are only symbols of Christ’s perfect body offered as ransom for all and his blood shed to seal a covenant with those 144,000 called to reign with him in heaven. In 2004 only 8,570 of this aging cohort survived to partake in the “Memorial,” while nearly 17 million observed.63 When the Governing Body abandoned the claim that the generation of 1914 was a “living calendar” marking time until the coming of the kingdom, they adopted the more conventional Protestant position that the exact date of the return of Christ cannot be known. The change of interpretation also changed the primary function of the Memorial to a confirmation of the identity of those who attend as members of the “great crowd” called to serve the visible organization of Jehovah directed by the authority of the “little flock.” For observers the purpose of their presence is to “reflect upon the superlative love of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.”64 Ethics Jehovah’s Witnesses share with Christian fundamentalists a restrictive sexual morality, condemning as “fornication” any instance of premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, and abortion. They abstain from tobacco and drugs, but follow the Bible in allowing limited use of alcohol. Gambling is deplored as an expression of greed. Jehovah’s Witnesses also renounce magic and divination. The discipline of abstaining from contact with the world, except as required to publish the message of the kingdom is in literal obedience to the biblical command: “Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers … ‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate 78 Jewish and Christian Traditions yourselves, says Jehovah, and quit touching the unclean thing’” (2 Corinthians 6:14, 17). It is significant that the quotation is from Isaiah 52:11 and is taken from a context in which the prophet urged Israelites to resist assimilation to Babylonian culture, just as their ancestors had “come out” of Egypt.65 Paul uses the text to add prophetic authority to his own admonition of non-Jewish converts in Corinth, urging them to separate from the worship of Hellenistic deities. The Watchtower Society appropriates this text within a text for the broadest possible application by insisting that Jehovah’s Witnesses insulate themselves from dominant cultural, religious, and political influences wherever they find themselves in the world. By so doing they follow the saying of Jesus at his trial before Pilate: “My kingdom is no part of this world” (John 18:36).66 Because of their apocalyptic views Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a developed social ethic, other than to counsel their members to obey established governmental authority except when its demands contradict the Bible. WhileWatchtower publications consistently condemn injustice and exploitation of the poor, Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that human efforts can bring about significant or lasting improvement in the world.67

LEGAL CONTROVERSIES

Jehovah’s Witnesses are well known for their refusal to pledge allegiance to national governments. This practice has led to their imprisonment in many nations, including the United States during both World Wars. In Nazi Germany Jehovah’s Witnesses were among the non-Jewish groups consigned to concentration camps. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not teach pacifism, since they would be willing to join the forces of Christ at the battle of Armageddon, but they maintain a neutral stance toward the state. Since all worldly governments are under the power of Satan, they refuse to participate in any. In 1943 the Supreme Court, in the case of Barnette v. West Virginia, upheld the civil right of Jehovah’s Witness children not to salute the American flag in schoolroom exercises.68 That legal victory is only one of hundreds in which Jehovah’s Witnesses won civil rights that benefited other religious groups,69 including refusal of military service70 and freedom from regulation of door-to-door preaching.71 Perhaps the most controversial ofWatchtower Society policies is the prohibition of intravenous blood transfusion, first promulgated in 1945. Since then, Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the apostolic command to “abstain … from blood” (Acts 15:20) as unconditional. Any means of taking blood into the body violates the principle that the “life (soul) is in the blood” (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11). In 1961 The Watchtower announced that any member who accepted a blood transfusion would face disfellowshipping. Not even transfusions of one’s own blood are allowed since storage would violate the biblical requirement that shed blood be poured out on the ground (Deuteronomy 12:16). Kidney dialysis is permitted as long as the blood constantly circulates through the filtering apparatus and returns to the patient’s body. Since 1978 hemophiliacs have been allowed treatment with blood fractions. Many hospitals acknowledge the right of competent Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse transfusions, Jehovah’s Witnesses 79 and the American Medical Association recently suggested that surgeons consider such operations as technical challenges. In response one surgical team developed a process of liver transplantation without infusion of blood products, a process they hope will benefit other patients as well.72 Some health care professionals object, however, to parents who refuse permission to transfuse their own children in lifethreatening situations, and some courts appointed guardians ad litem (for the particular lawsuit) to approve transfusions for children. Perhaps the most complicated cases are those in which a pregnant Jehovah’s Witness refuses transfusion for a fairly routine problem and thus places the life of her fetus in peril as well as her own. Some hospitals found it necessary to develop procedural policies that are medically responsible while respecting the woman’s religious liberty.73 In any case, theWatch Tower Society continues to urge Jehovah’s Witnesses to risk death rather than break the commandment of God. “Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? … if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life.”74 Richard Singelenberg argues that the blood taboo is connected to the command to remain separate from the world: both “rules of pollution and purity are instrumental in creating structural boundaries around group members.”75 For Jehovah’s Witnesses the prohibition of blood transfusions is another means of distinguishing themselves from the world of Satanic impurity.

FUTURE CHALLENGES

The question facing Jehovah’s Witnesses in the twenty-first century is which will prove stronger, the pressure to accommodate to the “contaminated” world as it moves into an ever-extending future or the passion to remain “without spot from the world” (James 1:27)? The Governing Body, speaking through the pages of The Watchtower, demands absolute conformity to its system of biblical interpretation, which enforces its “rules of pollution and purity” as conditions for entering the coming kingdom. Will those demands become less convincing as the next generation of Jehovah’s Witnesses finds it more difficult to maintain the dedication inspired by imminent apocalypse? The challenge facing contemporary Jehovah’s Witnesses is how to retain evangelistic fervor, moral discipline, and exclusionary group identity without the visible sign of the imminence of the end provided by the generation of 1914 and under the pressures on younger families to accommodate to prevailing cultural practices. The key to continuing success of any NRMor alternative religion is striking a balance between fidelity to the original insights of the founder and responsiveness to changing historical conditions. For Jehovah’s Witnesses the balance depends upon maintaining Russell’s insistence that the Bible is the ultimate authority in Christian doctrine and practice with the ongoing task of correlating biblical prophecy with contemporary events. As events of history change, so must the interpretation of their prediction. As cultural practices change, so must the application of biblical principles. But at any given time, what authority establishes the correct interpretation 80 Jewish and Christian Traditions and application of the Bible? For Jehovah’s Witnesses that authority resides in the Governing Body and is exercised through the teaching in official Watchtower publications. As we have seen, however, that interpretation has hardly been unchanging or even consistent. Critics delight in chronicling the history of changing interpretation, especially of failed prophecies. But such criticism fails to appreciate the fundamental problem facing all interpreters of the Bible: the authoritative text remains the same, but the circumstances in which it is read are always in flux. Thus, the relevant meaning of the Bible must necessarily undergo ceaseless reformulation. This problem is faced by every preacher who searches the scriptural text for a weekly sermon. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to receive new revelation to fit new conditions, rather they claim that progressive illumination allows their interpretations to change with clearer understanding. That method is not so different from most Protestants who adjust their reading of the Bible to historical circumstances. Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, defend their view on scriptural ground: “But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established” (Proverbs 4:18). For Jehovah’s Witnesses the problem of interpretation is compounded because their key texts are among the least straightforward in the Bible. Apocalyptic scripture is highly symbolic and its language densely coded: interpretation is unavoidable in the process of correlating the text with current and future events. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot relinquish the responsibility to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of prophetic scripture as the lens through which Christians may discern God’s plan for human history. One of the strongest correlations Jehovah’s Witnesses made over the years between prophetic scripture and contemporary events was the identification of the “beast” in Revelation with an institution of global power that serves Satan’s purpose to establish evil government and false religion over the entire world. Since 1914 the prime candidate in the field of politics was the League of Nations and its successor organization, the United Nations. While the rhetoric in official publications softened somewhat in recent years, the chief suspect in the field of religion for most of the past century was the Roman Catholic Church. In recent years, however, respect for the political authority of the United Nations and the Roman Catholic Church eroded. No longer does either seem well-situated to serve as the home base for a global system of evil. When evangelical Christians were forced by the collapse of the Soviet Union to find another “evil empire” to serve as the domain of anti-Christ, many chose Islam, reviving an old interpretive tradition in Christianity that identifiesMuhammad as an apostate inspired by Satan to deceive the world. Jehovah’s Witnesses chose instead to move to a more general identification of Babylon the Great: “she is Satan’s entire world empire of false religion,”76 and “this globe-encircling harlot” includes all other religions and the national governments with which they enter into unholy alliances. As always, interpretive imagination is required to keep the correlation of prophecy and history current. The advantage of broadening the identity of Babylon to include all religious and political organizations is that the Watchtower Society is not Jehovah’s Witnesses 81 obligated to demonstrate that any given institution bears all the predicted “marks of the beast.” Further, no matter what happens to the United Nations and the Roman Catholic Church, even if they should fade from international significance, the general condemnation of religious and political institutions will always be relevant. The interpretive move is parallel to the strategy followed when the reference to “generation” in Matthew 24:34 was changed from those alive in 1914 to the wicked opponents of God’s kingdom who are present in every generation. By turning what was an identification of a specific subject of prophecy into a general correlation with conditions that are always present, the Watch Tower Society declined to pursue the courageous, but risky, enterprise of investing the interpretation of prophecy with actual predictive power. While that strategy protects theWatchtower Society from institutional liability for failed prophecies, it also turns into sermonic platitudes what were once dramatic announcements of future events on which believers staked their lives and fortunes. Will the increasingly bland readings of apocalyptic scriptures sustain the sense of urgency required to impel another generation of Jehovah’s Witnesses to follow their parents’ footsteps, carrying the message of an impending kingdom door to door? The question is particularly urgent as Jehovah’s Witnesses increase their numbers outside North America, among the world’s dispossessed. In one of the first sociological studies of Jehovah’s Witnesses Herbert Hewitt Stroup concluded that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not only sectarian in their separation from established Christian denominations, but also in their opposition to national loyalty, cultural trends, and the power of unregulated capitalism. Stroup noted a correlation between the growth of Jehovah’s Witnesses and “the failure of the Christian churches to create a highly satisfactory medium of expression for the needs and aspirations of the underprivileged.”77 The impression that Jehovah’s Witnesses are motivated by resentments of the dispossessed continues to have some validity, particularly because of their success among the poor and oppressed across the globe.78 This favorable response may be due in part to the populist rhetoric that continues to fire the Watchtower vision of the coming kingdom. To those suffering the multiple displacements of the powerless in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, Jehovah’s Witnesses offer supportive community, traditional moral values, and the promise of a coming paradise in which poverty, crime, hunger, war, exile, and homelessness are forever eliminated. 79 Even though their theology excludes their using a strategy of enculturation, Jehovah’s Witnesses are increasing their numbers through conversions in the southern hemisphere. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses who are relatively well-off in countries that are secure and free from religious persecution joyfully anticipate the end of this world in which they are comfortably situated. Their radical critique of dominant social and political institutions in theWest strongly resonates in parts of the world where people experience the oppression of those institutions on a daily basis. In those contexts the apocalyptic language of Jehovah’s Witnesses in both its negative judgments of this world and its positive descriptions of the utopia to come carries persuasive appeal. By retaining the language of “outsiderhood” as their primary means of self-designation 82 Jewish and Christian Traditions Jehovah’s Witnesses remain deliberately sectarian.80 The question for the future, as the coming of the kingdom continues to be postponed, is whether the strategy of world denial can be sustained by successive generations of Jehovah’s Witnesses for whom the world and its ongoing history remain a stubborn reality.

NOTES

1. 2005 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 2005), 38–39.

2. See David L. Weddle, “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” The Encyclopedia of Protestantism, vol. 2 (New York: Routledge, 2004), 977–82.

3. What Does the Bible Really Teach? (Brooklyn:Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 2005), 18–25. Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize that some biblical passages are written in symbolic language, such as reference to the “four corners of the earth” (Revelation 7:1), and should be read accordingly.

4. “The subtle influence of Greek philosophy was a key factor in the apostasy that followed the death of the apostles” [Mankind’s Search for God (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990), 266].

5. Seventh-day Adventists Believe … (Washington: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1988), 320. For the interpretation of the prophecies in Daniel, see Clifford Goldstein, 1844 Made Simple (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1988).

6. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1971). The work was originally published in 1888.

7. C.I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), 5: “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture.”

8. Quoted in Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1993), 43. This work is the comprehensive official account of the history, beliefs, and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It contains valuable citations from primary materials and is written in a nondefensive style.

9. Paul K. Conklin, American Originals: Homemade Varieties of Christianity (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 146.

10. Quoted in Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 49.

11. Ibid., 58–60. One popular production, “Photo-Drama of Creation,” used motion pictures and slides synchronized with sound to present Russell’s teachings to over nine million viewers in North America, Europe, and Australia by the end of 1914.

12. In the middle of the second century BCE some Jewish groups began to hope for a worldconquering Messiah and created the distinctive form of religious writing called apocalyptic. One group, known as the Essenes, withdrew from Judea to take up residence in the caves of the Dead Sea, preparing to assist the Messiah and his angelic hosts in the final battle against the Romans. They preserved prophetic texts of the Bible, which they interpreted as referring directly to their own experiences. At about the same time the stories of a young Jewish hero were joined with phantasmagoric dream visions of the end of Roman rule to form the biblical book of Daniel. Jehovah’s Witnesses are part of a long tradition of believers, both Jewish and Christian, who find the promise of paradise in the symbols of prophecy. For the influence of this approach to the Bible in the United States, see Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Jehovah’s Witnesses Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 21–45.

13. The date is calculated in You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1982), 136–41; and What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 215–18.

14. Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Visions of Glory: A History and a Memory of Jehovah’s Witnesses (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 73.

15. Russell’s complete works are available online at www.heraldmag.org. Russell incorporated The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania in 1884, but when he established The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York in 1909 as the center of all publishing activities, he used the one-word spelling of Watchtower. In 1939 the name of the magazine called The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence changed to The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom. In this essay I use the two-word name to refer to the theocratic organization, The Watch Tower Society, and the one-word term for the official teaching published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

16. Conklin, American Originals, 153.

17. Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of the Coming Kingdom, 82.

18. Jehovah’s Witnesses explain that translators of the Bible replaced the personal name of God, represented by the sacred tetragrammaton in Hebrew, by the titles God and Lord out of a mistaken concern for Jewish aversion to pronouncing the divine name (What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 195–97). Greg Stafford draws on evidence from the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls that the “original NT documents did contain the divine name” in Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 2000), 1–54. Stafford is an able apologist for the doctrinal teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and maintains a Web site of his articles at http://www.elihubooks.com.

19. Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 724.

20. Pauline Coˆte´ and James T. Richardson, “Disciplined Litigation, Vigilant Litigation, and Deformation: Dramatic Organization Change in Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40, no. 1 (March, 2001): 14.

21. Conklin, American Originals, 154–55.

22. Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1966), 29–30.

23. Heather and Gary Botting estimate that from 1965 to 1980 the movement suffered “total attrition in excess of a million” [The Orwellian World of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), xxxiv].

24. Raymond V. Franz published his account of the affair in Crisis of Conscience: The Struggle between Loyalty to God and Loyalty to One’s Religion (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983).

25. M. James Penton provides an instructive context for Raymond Franz’s story in Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985). Penton is a third-generation Witness whose earlier research on the importance of legal decisions won by Jehovah’s Witnesses led him to a more general study of the movement. He found evidence of systematic suppression of dissent and unyielding authoritarianism in the Governing Body and was disfellowshipped in 1981 for his criticisms.

26. The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom (November 1, 1995), 17. For an analysis of this change in interpretation and its implications for the ritual of the Memorial meal, see David L.Weddle, “A New ‘Generation’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses: Revised Interpretation, Ritual, and Identity,” Nova Religio 3, no. 2 (April 2000): 350–67. 84 Jewish and Christian Traditions

27. The notes from the Annual Meeting of the Society (October 7, 2000) are posted at http://www.watchtowernews.org/reorganization.htm (accessed January 20, 2006).

28. “Whither the Watchtower? An Unfolding Crisis for Jehovah’s Witnesses,” published on the Web site of the Christian Research Institute, http://www.equip.org/free/DJ550.htm (accessed December 1, 2005).

29. Worship the Only True God (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 2002), 132.

30. Pictures and brief biographies of current members of the Governing Body, http:// www.freeminds.org/bethel/gov_body.htm.

31. While Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that “the full number of 144,000” of the anointed class is “nearly completed … any individuals proving unfaithful would need to be replaced” [The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom (February 1, 1982)]. Thus, a few younger persons may be given the inner assurance of anointing, as described in Romans 8:16 [Ibid. (February 15, 1985)].

32. A decade ago Ronald Lawson found that “Jehovah’s Witnesses have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to principle and to their radical apocalyptic” and, therefore, concluded that they remain an “established sect” in contrast to Seventh-day Adventists who made accommodations to prevailing culture [“Sect-State Relations: Accounting for the Differing Trajectories of Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Sociology of Religion 56, no. 4 (1995): 375]. The rapidly shrinking pool of “spirit-anointed” candidates for the Governing Body makes it uncertain how much longer Jehovah’s Witnesses can maintain their “principle” of spiritual leadership.

33. The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1984), 11.

34. The Bible: God’s Word or Man’s? (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), 108.

35. You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 35–36.

36. Penton, Apocalypse Delayed, 196–97.

37. The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1968), 127–28. See also Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2 (Brooklyn:Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988), 5–20.

38. The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, 29.

39. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 203.

40. Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, 56.

41. The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1991). Pages are not numbered; the cited passage occurs in the introduction.

42. Ibid., chap. 12.

43. You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 60–61.

44. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 218–19. See also Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, 392– 94.

45. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 29. Since the “dent” of imperfection is the result of human procreation and carries with it the curse of death, it seems functionally equivalent to inherited original sin. In an earlier book the imperfection is compared to the effects of venereal disease: because our first parents became “unclean” so we are born into sickness, and death (The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, 32). The crucial difference from Augustine’s view is that for Jehovah’s Witnesses humans possess the freedom to resist the Adamic disposition to rebel and rather choose to obey God. In terms of American evangelical thought, they belong to the Wesleyan strand.

46. Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, 1005–1006.

47. You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 77.

48. Ibid., 62–63.

49. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 205. Royston Pike found that Witnesses in his day regarded the cross as a pagan “phallic symbol, derived from the ancient Egyptian cruxansata that represented the male and female genital organs combined” [Jehovah’s Witnesses: Who They Are, What They Teach, What They Do (New York: Philosophical Library, 1954), 37].

50. For those who might ask why there was no decomposing body found in Jesus’s tomb Russell replied that God removed it lest it become an obstacle to faith (presumably by inviting veneration) and may have preserved it for display in the future kingdom [C.T. Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, Series II: The Time is at Hand (Brooklyn: International Bible Students Association, 1911), 130].

51. Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1995), 83, 85. See also You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 174. 52. What Happens When We Die? (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1998), 6, 24.

53. Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life, 87–89.

54. You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 175.

55. Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 139.

56. As quoted from The Watchtower (1994:21) by Carolyn R. Wah, “An Introduction to Research and Analysis of Jehovah’s Witnesses: A View from the Watchtower,” Review of Religious Research 43, no. 2 (2001): 165. Wah provides detailed descriptions of weekly meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

57. The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom (February 1, 1997), 28.

58. Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 2001), 153.

59. Translations of current literature are available in some of these languages at the Watchtower Society Web site, http://www.watchtower.org/languages/languages.htm.

60. Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 295.

61. 2005 Jehovah’s Witnesses Worldwide Status Report, www.watchtower.org/statistics (accessed January 20, 2006). The total is down from 30,576 baptisms reported in the United States in 2004.

62. Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life, 178, 176.

63. 2005 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 30.

64. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 208.

65. See comment on this passage in Ibid., 152.

66. “No matter what country they live in, Jesus’ true followers are subjects of his heavenly Kingdom and thus maintain strict neutrality in the world’s political affairs. They take no part in its conflicts” (Ibid., 149).

67. “CanWe Create a BetterWorld?” The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom (October 15, 2001), 3–7.

68. David R. Manwaring, Render Unto Caesar: The Flag-Salute Controversy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

69. William Kaplan, State and Salvation: The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Their Fight for Civil Rights (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989). 86 Jewish and Christian Traditions

70. Claud H. Richards Jr., “Religion and the Draft: Jehovah’s Witnesses Revisited,” in Law and Justice: Essays in Honor of Robert S. Rankin, ed. Carl Beck (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1970), 47–75.

71. That right was recently upheld in the case of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 15, 2001.

72. Olivier Detry et al., “Liver Transplantation in Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Transplant International 18 (2005): 929–36.

73. For a model of such a policy, see Ruth Macklin, “The InnerWorkings of an Ethics Committee: Latest Battle over Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Hastings Center Report (February/March, 1988): 15–20.

74. What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 130–31. The human cost of this policy is detailed by David A. Reed, Blood on the Altar: Confessions of a Jehovah’s Witness Minister (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1996).

75. “The Blood Transfusion Taboo of Jehovah’s Witnesses: Origin, Development and Function of a Controversial Doctrine,” Social Science and Medicine 31, no. 4 (1990): 520.

76. Mankind’s Search for God, 369. The “enlarged application” of “Babylon the Great” was first announced in 1963 (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 147).

77. The Jehovah’s Witnesses (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945), v. Stroup concluded that “the greater number of Witnesses whom I have studied fall into … ‘relief cases, poverty,’ and ‘working-men …’” (Jehovah’s Witnesses, 77). Conklin reports that it is still the case: “In most of the world, as in the United States, its membership ranges from the middle to lower social and economic classes” (Conklin, American Originals, 157).

78. Conklin, American Originals, 159: Jehovah’s Witnesses “have been unusually open not only to the poor and rejected but to blacks and Hispanics, although only recently have blacks achieved higher leadership roles. Some estimates place black membership in America at 30 percent, and the local congregations have achieved a degree of racial balance and interaction unique among Christians.” Like many religious communities in the United States, however, the Jehovah’s Witnesses achieved consistent racial integration only in the past 50 years. Royston Pike wrote in 1954, “In the USA separate assemblies have been held for White and Negro Witnesses” (Jehovah’s Witnesses, 96).

79. For example, in the kingdom “there will be no dishonest politicians and greedy business leaders to oppress the people … Never again will anyone be without good food and comfortable housing because he cannot afford them. Unemployment, inflation and high prices will be no more.…” (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 159).

80. Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans, 136–39. Conklin notes that since 1916 Jehovah’s Witnesses have “become more sectarian, more separatist, and culturally more isolated. This pattern reverses that of Seventh-day Adventists” (Conklin, American Originals, 145).

= Κίρκεγκωρ =
 * Τερέζα Πεντζοπούλου-Βαλαλά, Ο Σωκράτης όπως τον είδε ο Κίρκεγκωρ

=Authors list= Article's Authors list

=Maps= World maps

=Wikipedia Category Overview= CategoryOverview_EL_Complete

=Wikipedia article traffic statistics= Ελληνικό τοπ

=Σχέση ΚΔ και ελληνιστικής σκέψης= [http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/gr_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?contents=ecclesia_history/contents.asp&main=texts&file=3.htm "Ο Ελληνισμός στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννου", Ιωάννου Ζηζιούλα, Μητροπολίτου Περγάμου, Ἑλληνισμός και Χριστιανισμός, Ἡ συνάντηση τῶν δύο κόσμων, εκδ. Αποστολική Διακονία, Αθήνα, 2003, σελ.97-107.]

=Συγχωροχάρτια (ψυχοχάρτια) & Πάπας= [http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/gr_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?contents=ecclesia_history/contents.asp&main=texts&file=15.htm Κωνσταντίνου Σάθα, Τουρκοκρατούμενη Ελλάς (1453-1821), εκδ. Καμαρινόπουλου, σελ. 4-11]

=ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS= ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS by William W. Combs

=Ιωάννειο κόμμα (revision 30/7/2008, συμψηφιστική)=

Ιωάννειο κόμμα ή Κόμμα Ιωάννου (Λατ. comma Johanneum) ονομάζεται η νόθη προσθήκη
 * «Εις το χωρίον Α’ Ιω 5, 7-8 το γνήσιον κείμενον είνε∙ «Ότι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρούντες, το Πνεύμα και το ύδωρ και το αίμα, και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν». Έτσι παραδίδουν το χωρίον απαξάπαντα τα χειρόγραφα του πρωτοτύπου πασών των παραδόσεων, καθώς και οι ανατολικοί εκκλησιαστικοί συγγραφείς ανεξαιρέτως, και αι αρχαίαι μεταφράσεις πλην των λατινικών. Εις το χωρίον αυτό παρενεβλήθη μία προσθήκη ώστε να λάβη την εξής μορφήν. «Ότι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρούντες εν τω ουρανώ, ο Πατήρ, ο Λόγος, και το άγιον Πνεύμα, και ούτοι οι τρεις εν εισι∙ και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρούντες εν τη γη, το Πνεύμα και το ύδωρ και το αίμα, και οι τρεις εις το έν εισιν». Πρώτος αναφέρει την προσθήκην ο Ισπανός αιρεσιάρχης Πρισκιλλιανός (+381) εις γλώσσαν λατινικήν. Μετά τούτον το έχουν ελάχιστοι Λατίνοι εκκλησιαστικοί συγγραφείς και ολίγοι κώδικες των λατινικών μεταφράσεων. Εις την ελληνικήν γλώσσαν το έχει ένας ελληνολατινικός κώδιξ ο 629 ή Vaticanus ottobonianus 298 του ΙΔ’ αιώνος, παρασκευασθείς εν Ιταλία υπό δυτικών∙ το ελληνικόν του κείμενον συμμορφώνεται παντού με το λατινικόν. Επίσης το έχει ελληνιστί κατά τον ΙΕ’ αιώνα ο βυζαντινής καταγωγής δομινικανός μοναχός τής Δύσεως Μανουήλ Καλέκας, οπαδός του Θωμά Ακυνάτου. Μετά ταύτα το εισήγαγεν εις την πρώτην έντυπον έκδοσιν του ελληνικού πρωτοτύπου ο καρδινάλιος και υπουργός εν Ισπανία Ximenes de Cisneros τω 1514 και έπειτα οι άλλοι εκδόται. Μετά τας πρώτας εντύπους εκδόσεις το έχουν τρία ελληνικά χειρόγραφα του ΙϚ’ και ΙΖ’ αιώνος εκ των οποίων το ένα απεδείχθη ότι είνε αντίγραφον της εντύπου εκδόσεως του Ximenes. Όταν ο ημέτερος Β. Αντωνιάδης εξέδωκε την Κ. Διαθήκην εκ πολλών χειρογράφων, εις ουδέν εύρε το χωρίον, και δεν το περιείχεν εις το κείμενον∙ τον υπεχρέωσαν όμως να το περιλάβη η επιτροπεία της Ιεράς Συνόδου του οικουμενικού πατριαρχείου. Αλλά το ετύπωσε με λεπτότερα στοιχεία, και έτσι ανατυπώνεται μέχρι σήμερον εις τας εκκλησιαστικάς εκδόσεις. Η προσθήκη είνε αναμφιβόλως νόθος». (Στέργιου Ν. Σάκκου (Δόκτορος Θεολογίας, Καθηγητού του Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης), Εισαγωγή εις την Καινήν Διαθήκην, Β’ Έκδοσις, Θεσσαλονίκη, 1984, σ. 186, 187)
 * «Η προσθήκη αυτή δεν υπάρχει σε κανένα ελληνικό χειρόγραφο και δεν μνημονεύεται από τους έλληνες πατέρες, παρά τις τριαδολογικές έριδες που θα καθιστούσαν αναγκαία την αναφορά σ'ενα τόσο σημαντικό χωρίο, αν αυτό υπήρχε πράγματι στο κείμενο». (Καραβιδόπουλος Δ. Ιωάννης, Εισαγωγή Στην Καινή Διαθήκη, 3η έκδ., Εκδόσεις Π. Πουρναρά, Θεσσαλονίκη 2007, σ. 351)
 * «Για τους λόγους αυτούς στην έκδοσι της ιεράς συνόδου ο Β. Αντωνιάδης τη φράσι αυτή τη χαρακτηρίζει σα νόθο και την τυπώνει με μικρότερα στοιχεία». (Δρ Κωνσταντίνος Σιαμάκης, Η Παράδοσι του Κειμένου της Αγίας Γραφής, Έκδ. Ιεράς Μητρόπολεως Εδέσσης, Πέλλης και Αλμωπίας, 1995, σελ. 20)
 * «Το ότι αυτές η λέξεις είναι νόθες και δεν έχουν κανένα δικαίωμα να βρίσκονται στην Καινή Διαθήκη είναι βέβαιο». (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek Testament, 2nd ed., United Bible Societies, 2002, σ. 647)
 * «Το Κόμμα, το οποίο διακόπτει τη σκέψη του κειμένου, είναι παρεμβολή που ανάγεται στον 3ο ή 4ο αιώνα ως τριαδιστική ερμηνεία του 1 Ιωάννη 5:7-8. [...] Από τον Λάχμαν το 1831 και έκτοτε το Κόμμα έχει απορριφθεί από τις κριτικές εκδόσεις του ελληνικού κειμένου ως δογματική επέκταση του κειμένου στη λατινική παράδοση». (David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), τόμος 3, σ. 883, λήμμα "Johannine Comma")
 * «Ανάμεσα στις χιλιάδες των ελληνικών χειρογράφων της Καινής Διαθήκης που εξετάστηκαν από την εποχή του Εράσμου, μόνο τρία ακόμη είναι γνωστό ότι περιέχουν αυτό το νόθο κείμενο». (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed., Oxford University Press, 1992, σ. 101)
 * «Οι Πατέρες της Ανατολής δεν παραθέτουν ούτε αναφέρονται στο Ιωάννειο Κόμμα στις Χριστολογικές διαμάχες τους. Το ότι παραλήφθηκε υποδηλώνει ότι το Κόμμα δεν ήταν μέρος του βιβλικού κειμένου της εποχής τους, διότι θα το είχαν σίγουρα χρησιμοποιήσει αν υπήρχε στο κείμενο. [...] Η ανάπτυξη του Κόμματος μπορεί να ανιχνευθεί στους εκκλησιαστικούς συγγραφείς του 4ου και 5ου αιώνα, ειδικά στην Ισπανία και την Αφρική. Προφανώς, αναπτύχθηκε ως αποτέλεσμα της Τριαδιστικής ερμηνείας της τριάδας πνεύμα-νερό-αίμα που βρίσκεται στο 1 Ιωάννη 5.8β». (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., The Catholic University of America, 2003, σ. 891, λήμμα "Johannine comma")
 * «Όσοι είναι εξοικειωμένοι με την Εξουσιοδοτημένη/Μετάφραση Βασιλέως Ιακώβου μάταια θα αναζητήσουν στις σύγχρονες μεταφράσεις τις λέξεις με τα πλάγια γράμματα σε αυτή την απόδοση του 1 Ιωάννη 5.7-8: "Διότι είναι τρεις που φέρουν υπόμνημα στον ουρανό, ο Πατέρας, ο Λόγος και το Άγιο Πνεύμα και αυτοί οι τρεις είναι ένα. Και είναι τρεις που φέρουν μαρτυρία στη γη, το Πνεύμα, το νερό και το αίμα και αυτοί οι τρεις συμφωνούν στο ένα". Δεν βρίσκονται καν εκεί, καθώς έχουν αναγνωριστεί ως μεταγενέστερη προσθήκη στο κείμενο, τόσο μεταγενέστερη ώστε δεν υπάρχει κανένα σοβαρό χειρόγραφο που να την υποστηρίζει. Το πλήρες κείμενο υπάρχει στην Εξουσιοδοτημένη/Μετάφραση Βασιλέως Ιακώβου, αλλά καμία από τις σύγχρονες μεταφράσεις δεν το περιέχει». (Encyclopedia of Christianity, Oxford University Press, 2005, σ. 147, λήμμα "Biblical criticism")


 * Albert Barnes, New Testament Notes, Baker Book House, 1832, σ. 4455.
 * Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, Harper & Brothers, 1883, σ. 429.
 * Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Τόμ. 1ος, σ. 8. που παρεμβάλλεται σε κάποιες εκδόσεις της Καινής Διαθήκης μεταξύ των εδαφίων 7 και 8 του πέμπτου κεφαλαίου της Πρώτης Επιστολής του αποστόλου Ιωάννη.

Το τμήμα αυτό, μια σαφής Τριαδιστική ερμηνεία, έγινε πολύ γνωστό στην ιστορία της κριτικής του κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης καθώς αμφισβητήθηκε η γνησιότητά του ήδη από τον 16ο αιώνα και έκτοτε. Ως αποτέλεσμα, καθώς οι αμφισβητούμενες λέξεις δεν υπήρχαν επί αιώνες στα παλαιότερα χαιρόγραφα της Καινής Διαθήκης, έγινε ευρέως αποδεκτό ότι αποτελούν μεταγενέστερη προσθήκη στο κείμενο της Επιστολής του Ιωάννη. Ερμηνευτικά, από τους πρώτους που το παραθέτει είναι ο Ευθύμιος Ζιγαβηνός στα τέλη του 11ου με αρχές του 12ου αιώνα. .
 * «Το Κόμμα, το οποίο διακόπτει τη σκέψη του κειμένου, είναι παρεμβολή που ανάγεται στον 3ο ή 4ο αιώνα ως τριαδιστική ερμηνεία του 1 Ιωάννη 5:7-8». (David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), τόμος 3, σ. 883, λήμμα "Johannine Comma")
 * «Η ανάπτυξη του Κόμματος μπορεί να ανιχνευθεί στους εκκλησιαστικούς συγγραφείς του 4ου και 5ου αιώνα, ειδικά στην Ισπανία και την Αφρική. Προφανώς, αναπτύχθηκε ως αποτέλεσμα της Τριαδιστικής ερμηνείας της τριάδας πνεύμα-νερό-αίμα που βρίσκεται στο 1 Ιωάννη 5.8β». (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., The Catholic University of America, 2003, σ. 891, λήμμα "Johannine comma")
 * «Αυτά τα λόγια δεν περιλήφθηκαν από τις πιο πρόσφατες μεταφράσεις διότι, όπως σημειώνει ο Ντοντ [C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, Fortress, 973, σ. 127 σημ. 1], δεν «βρίσκονται σε κανένα ελληνικό χειρόγραφο πριν από τον δέκατο τέταρτο αιώνα, σε κανέναν αρχαίο Έλληνα συγγραφέα, σε καμία αρχαία μετάφραση εκτός από την λατινική και σε κανένα από τα αρχαία χειρόγραφα της Παλιάς Λατινικής μετάφρασης ή της Βουλγάτας του Ιερώνυμου». Φαίνεται πιο πιθανό ότι η μορφή της Μετάφρασης Βασιλέως Ιακώβου [ενν. Ιωάννειο κόμμα] προστέθηκε σε μια αρχαία λατινική μετάφραση της 1ης Ιωάννη ως περιθωριακή σημείωση, πιθανώς λόγω της ανησυχίας για το ότι δεν υπάρχει ούτε ένα εδάφιο της Καινής Διαθήκης που να υποστηρίζει άμεσα το δόγμα της Τριάδας. Η δήλωση σταδιακά ενσωματώθηκε στο κείμενο, κατόπιν μεταφράστηκε από την Λατινική στην Ελληνική και εισήχθη σε αρκετά ελληνικά χειρόγραφα στις αρχές του δέκατου έκτου αιώνα (παράβαλε Μάρσαλ [Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1978], σ. 236, σημ. 19). Μολονότι η εκτεταμένη έκδοση του εδαφίου εδαφίου 7 εμφανίζεται σε κάποια αρχαία λατινικά χειρόγραφα, ο Μπράουν [Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible, Doubleday, 1982, σ. 781] σημειώνει ότι «όλη η πρόσφατη Ρωμαιοκαθολική λόγια έρευνα έχει αναγνωρίσει ότι το Κόμμα δεν είναι ούτε γνήσιο ούτε αυθεντικό». Υπό το φως των σαρωτικών αποδείξεων ότι ο Ιωάννης δεν συνέταξε αυτή την πρόταση, η Νέα Διεθνής Μετάφραση είναι ορθή καθώς το υποβίβασε σε υποσημείωση». (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews-Revelation, Revised Edition, Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2006, σ. 494, 495)

Χειρόγραφα, αρχαίες μεταφράσεις και εκκλησιαστικοί Πατέρες



 * Βλέπε τους σχετικούς πίνακες στο τμήμα Χειρόγραφα της ΚΔ που περιλαμβάνουν το Ιωάννειο κόμμα

Αυτό το απόσπασμα κειμένου ή «κόμμα» δεν περιέχεται σε κανένα από τα αρχαιότερα γνωστά ελληνικό χειρόγραφο της Καινής Διαθήκης, παρά μόνο σε οχτώ πολύ μεταγενέστερα. Σε αυτά μάλιστα είναι προφανές ότι πρόκειται για μετάφραση στα Ελληνικά η οποία βασίζεται σε μια μεταγενέστερη αναθεώρηση της Λατινικής Βουλγάτας. Σε τέσσερα από τα οχτώ χειρόγραφα προστέθηκε αργότερα αυτό το κείμενο ως εναλλακτική ανάγνωση στο περιθώριο. Όλα τα ελληνικά χειρόγραφα (ή τις προσθήκες στο περιθώριο) που περιλαμβάνουν το Ιωάννειο κόμμα εμφανίζονται μετά τον 14ο αιώνα, ενώ χειρόγραφα που χρονολογούνται από τον 16ο αιώνα και έπειτα το περιλαμβάνουν στη μορφή με την οποία εμφανίζεται σήμερα.

Το κείμενο παραλείπεται επίσης, με εξαίρεση τη Λατινική, από τα χειρόγραφα όλων των αρχαίων μεταφράσεων της Καινής Διαθήκης —στη Συριακή, την Κοπτική, την Αρμενική, την Αιθιοπική, την Αραβική και την Σλαβονική. Ακόμη και στην Λατινική, δεν εμφανίζεται ούτε στην πρωτογενή Αρχαία Λατινική μετάφραση (που χρησιμοποιούν ο Τερτυλλιανός, ο Κυπριανός και ο Αυγουστίνος) ούτε και στη Βουλγάτα, όπως εκδόθηκε αρχικά από τον Ιερώνυμο (Κώδικας Fuldensis, αντίγραφο του 541-546, και Κώδικας Amiatinus, αντίγραφο πριν το 716). Επιπρόσθετα, δεν υφίσταται ούτε στο αναθεωρημένο λατινικό κείμενο του Αλκουίνου (πρώτος γραφέας του Κώδικα Vallicellianus του 9ου αιώνα).

Πέραν αυτών, δεν γίνεται καμία αναφορά στο κείμενο αυτό από τους Έλληνες εκκλησιαστικούς Πατέρες, οι οποίοι αν το είχαν στη διάθεση τους θα το είχαν χρησιμοποιήσει στις μακραίωνες τριαδολογικές διαμάχες, με σημαντικότερες τον Σαβελλιανισμό και τον Αρειανισμό.

Όσον αφορά τη δομή του κειμένου στο ιωάννειο κείμενο, έχει παρατηρηθεί ότι το παρένθετο κείμενο διασπά αδόκιμα τη συνοχή του νοήματος του συγκειμένου τόσο των προηγούμενων όσο και των επόμενων εδαφίων.

4ος-6ος αιώνας: Η εμφάνιση της φράσης στα Λατινικά
Κατά μία άποψη πιστεύεται ότι η παλαιότερη αναφορά που μοιάζει με το περιεχόμενο του Ιωάννειου κόμματος εμφανίζεται στα μέσα του 3ου αιώνα σε κείμενο του Λατίνου εκκλησιαστικού Πατέρα Κυπριανού, ο οποίος ανέφερε το εδάφιο Ιωάννης 10:30 στους αιρετικούς που δεν δέχονταν την Αγία Τριάδα, προσθέτοντας: «Και πάλι είναι γραμμένο για τον Πατέρα και τον Γιο και το Άγιο Πνεύμα—Και αυτοί οι τρεις είναι ένα». . Ωστόσο, είναι αρκετά πιθανό να ήταν απλώς θεολογική απόδοση του ίδιου του Κυπριανού για την Αγία Τριάδα.

Η αρχαιότερη παράθεση του Ιωάννειου κόμματος ως μέρους του αυθεντικού κειμένου της Επιστολής του Ιωάννη είναι μια λατινική πραγματεία με τίτλο Liber Apologeticus (1.4) του 4ου αιώνα που αποδίδεται στον Ισπανό επίσκοπο Πρισκιλλιανό ή πιθανώς στον ακόλουθό του Επίσκοπο Ινστάντιο. Προφανώς η επεξηγηματική αυτή ιδέα επί των εδαφίων της Επιστολής του Ιωάννη προέκυψε όταν άρχισε να δίνεται η ερμηνεία ότι η αναφορά στο νερό, το αίμα και το Πνεύμα συμβόλιζε την Τριάδα, ερμηνεία η οποία πιθανώς γράφτηκε ως σημείωση στο περιθώριο του κειμένου αρχικά και στη συνέχεια, με την πάροδο του χρόνου, ενσωματώθηκε μέσα στο κυρίως κείμενο.

Κατά τον 5ο αιώνα αυτό το ερμηνευτικό απόσπασμα άρχισε να παρατίθεται από Λατίνους Πατέρες στη Βόρεια Αφρική και την Ιταλία ως μέρος του κειμένου της Επιστολής, ενώ από τον 6ο αιώνα και έπειτα εμφανίζεται όλο και πιο συχνά στα χειρόγραφα της Αρχαίας Λατινικής μετάφρασης και της Βουλγάτας. Αυτές οι διαφορετικές μαρτυρίες περί του Ιωάννειου κόμματος διαφοροποιούνται επίσης όσον αφορά τη σειρά και την παράληψη ορισμένων λέξεών του. Στους αιώνες που ακολούθησαν οι εκδόσεις της Βουλγάτας, της επίσημης Βίβλου της Ρωμαιοκαθολικής Εκκλησίας, περιλάμβαναν μέχρι πρόσφατα αυτό το αμφισβητούμενο κείμενο.

13ος-14ος αιώνας: Η εμφάνιση της φράσης στα Ελληνικά
Στην πραγματικότητα, αναφορά σε αυτό το κείμενο εμφανίζεται για πρώτη φορά στα Ελληνικά σε μια ελληνική έκδοση των Πρακτικών της Δ΄ Λατερανής Συνόδου το 1215. Στο ελληνικό κείμενο της Καινής Διαθήκης, αυτή η εμβόλιμη φράση εμφανίζεται για πρώτη φορά σε ένα δίγλωσσο ελληνολατινικό χειρόγραφο του 14ου αιώνα γραμμένο στην Ιταλία, το Οττοβονιανό χειρόγραφο 298 (Codex Ottobonianus, Αρ. 629), το οποίο παρουσιάζει διαφορές στη διατύπωση σε σχέση με τη μεταγενέστερη μορφή που επικράτησε ως τη σύγχρονη εποχή. Η επόμενη αναφορά που συναντάται γίνεται από έναν ελληνόγλωσσο συγγραφέα, τον Δομινικανό μοναχό Μανουήλ Καλέκα κατά τον 15ο αιώνα.

Στις έντυπες εκδόσεις του ελληνικού κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης το 1514 εμφανίστηκε για πρώτη φορά αυτή η εμβόλιμη προσθήκη από τον πρώτο εκδότη της ελληνικής Βίβλου, τον Καρδινάλιο Χιμένεθ (Francisco Jimenez/Ximenes de Cisneros), Αρχιεπίσκοπο του Τολέδου, σε μετάφραση από τα Λατινικά.

15ος-16ος αιώνας: Η διάδοση
Σταδιακή ήταν και η εξέλιξη στην περίπτωση του Βυζαντινού Κειμένου (Byzantine/Majority Text), δηλαδή ενός μεγάλου συνόλου ελληνικών χειρογράφων που παράχθηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια της Βυζαντινής Αυτοκρατορίας, από τον 6ο έως και τον 15ο αιώνα που εκπροσωπούν ποσοστό περίπου 40% σε σχέση προς το σύνολο των ελληνικών χειρογράφων. Αυτή η μορφή κειμένου με το πέρασμα του χρόνου ενσωμάτωσε συσσωρευτικά όλο και περισσότερες προσθήκες στο Βιβλικό κείμενο σε σύγκριση με τα αρχαιότερα χειρόγραφα. Στο Βυζαντινό Κείμενο, το οποίο βρίσκεται σε συμφωνία κατά 98% και πλέον με το κείμενο του Textus Receptus, περιλήφθηκε τελικά η παρεμβολή του Ιωάννειου κόμματος. Πρώτα κατέληξε να γίνει «καθολικώς αποδεκτόν από ολόκληρον τον λατινόφωνον χριστιανικόν κόσμον ως γνήσιον Γραφικόν χωρίον» και αργότερα «μετά τον ΙΑ' αι. μετεφράσθη εις την ελληνικήν ώς έχει νυν εις το παραδεδεγμένον κείμενον και εισήχθη εις το κείμενον ελαχίστων χειρογράφων του ΙΕ' αι».



Στο Κείμενο της Καινής Διαθήκης που επιμελήθηκε ο Έρασμος το 1516 και 1519 δεν περιλαμβανόταν αρχικά το Ιωάννειο κόμμα καθώς ακολούθησε το κείμενο των διαθέσιμων αρχαιότερων ελληνικών κειμένων. Εντούτοις, στην τρίτη έκδοση του Κειμένου του το 1522 αναγκάστηκε να το συμπεριλάβει τηρώντας λόγο του. Καθώς αυτή ήταν η μετάφραση που χρησιμοποιούσαν οι περισσότεροι από τους επόμενους εκδότες, το Ιωάννειο κόμμα, το οποίο δεν είχε στην πραγματικότητα καμία ελληνική υποστήριξη, διείσδυσε στο εκτυπωμένο ελληνικό κείμενο. Στην έκδοση της Καινής Διαθήκης του Εράσμου στηρίχτηκε ο Ρομπέρ Εστιέν (Στέφανος) και περιέλαβε το νόθο κείμενο στην 3η έκδοση του 1550 και στο Κείμενο του Ελζεβίρ του 1633, το οποίο έγινε ευρύτερα γνωστό ως Textus Receptus. Υπήρξε ακόμη μεγαλύτερη διάδοση όταν το ενσωμάτωσαν τόσο η Κλημεντίνεια έκδοση της Βουλγάτας του 1592, η οποία υπήρξε η επίσημη Βίβλος της Ρωμαιοκαθολικής Εκκλησίας, όσο και η μετάφραση Ρέιμς (Rheims).

Ο Λούθηρος θεώρησε το Ιωάννειο κόμμα ως εκτός κανόνα και ποτέ δεν το συμπεριέλαβε στη μετάφραση της Βίβλου του. Το 1550 ο Γιοχάνες Μπούγκενχαγκεν (Johannes Bugenhagen) το απέρριψε «για χάρη της αλήθειας». Αν και ο Τίντεϊλ το έβαλε μέσα σε αγκύλες ως αμφισβητούμενο, περιλήφθηκε στο κυρίως σώμα της Μετάφρασης του Βασιλέως Ιακώβου. Το Ιωάννειο κόμμα διαδόθηκε ευρύτερα καθώς παρεισέφρυσε σύντομα από τα χειρόγραφα στις έντυπες τυπογραφικές εκδόσεις που έκαναν την εμφάνισή τους κατά τη διάρκεια του 16ου και 17ου αιώνα.

16ος-18ος αιώνας: Η σύγκρουση
Ο Έρασμος, ακολουθώντας τα αρχαιότερα ελληνικά χειρόγραφα, δεν περιέλαβε με τόλμη το Ιωάννειο κόμμα στις δύο πρώτες εκδόσεις της Καινής Διαθήκης που επιμελήθηκε το 1516 και 1519. Αυτό προκάλεσε έντονες αντιδράσεις από μέρους της Ρωμαιοκαθολικής Εκκλησίας καθώς η διαδεδομένη λειτουργική μετάφραση της Εκκλησίας ήταν αποκλειστικά και μόνο η Βουλγάτα.

Ο Έρασμος, καθώς έκανε πρόσθετη έρευνα χειρογράφων και κατέληξε στα ίδια αποτελέσματα, αποκρίθηκε ότι θα το περιλάμβανε εφόσον θα του εμφάνιζαν έστω και ένα χειρόγραφο που θα περιείχε το απόσπασμα αυτό. Δεν θα μπορούσε να φανταστεί ότι τελικά θα έκανε την εμφάνιση του ένα τέτοιο ελληνικό χειρόγραφο —προφανώς κατασκευασμένο κατά παραγγελία από πλαστογράφο— για το οποίο διατήρησε επιφυλάξεις. Τελικά, ο Έρασμος —παρά τις υποψίες που διατηρούσε αλλά και τις δυσχέρειες που του προκαλούσαν αντίπαλοι που ήταν πρόθυμοι να καταφύγουν ακόμη και στην πλαστογραφία— κράτησε το λόγο του και κατ' αυτόν τον τρόπο εξαναγκάστηκε στην τρίτη έκδοση του Κειμένου του το 1522 να συμπεριλάβει και το αμφισβητούμενο κείμενο.



Σχεδόν δύο αιώνες αργότερα, ο Ισαάκ Νεύτων, συστηματικός μελετητής της Βίβλου, ασχολήθηκε σε βάθος με το δόγμα της Τριάδας. Στο πρωτοποριακό για τη Βιβλική έρευνα έργο Ιστορική Έκθεση για Δύο Αξιοσημείωτες Παραφθορές της Γραφής (An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture), το οποίο εκδόθηκε για πρώτη φορά το 1754 —27 χρόνια μετά τον θάνατό του —, ο Νεύτων εξέτασε εκτενώς όλα τα κειμενικά στοιχεία που ήταν διαθέσιμα από τις αρχαίες πηγές όσον αφορά το εδάφιο 1 Ιωάννη 5:7. Με αναφορές στους πρώτους εκκλησιαστικούς συγγραφείς, τα ελληνικά και λατινικά χειρόγραφα και τη μαρτυρία των πρώτων Βιβλικών μεταφράσεων, ο Νεύτων απέδειξε ότι οι επίμαχες λέξεις οι οποίες παρείχαν υποστήριξη στο δόγμα της Τριάδας δεν περιέχονταν στα πρωτότυπα θεόπνευστα κείμενα των Ελληνικών Γραφών. Στη συνέχεια, ανίχνευσε την οδό μέσω της οποίας το νόθο κείμενο παρεισέφρησε στις λατινικές εκδόσεις, αρχικά ως περιθωριακή σημείωση και αργότερα μέσα στο κύριο κείμενο. Έδειξε ότι για πρώτη φορά περιλήφθηκε σε ελληνικό κείμενο το 1515 από τον Ισπανό Καρδινάλιο Χιμένεθ, στο Κομπλούτειο Πολύγλωττο (Complutensian Polyglot) με την υποστήριξη ενός μεταγενέστερου ελληνικού χειρογράφου το οποίο είχε διορθωθεί με βάση το λατινικό. Ολοκληρώνοντας, ανέφερε σχετικά με την έννοια και τα συμφραζόμενα του εδαφίου: «Έτσι [δηλ. χωρίς την προσθήκη] το νόημα είναι απλό και φυσικό και το επιχείρημα πλήρες και ισχυρό· αν όμως εισάγεις τη μαρτυρία των "Τριών στον Ουρανό" το διακόπτεις και το καταστρέφεις».

Στις αρχές του 18ου αιώνα, ο φημισμένος κληρικός και Βιβλικός ερμηνευτής Μάθιου Χένρι (Matthew Henry) αναφέρθηκε στην ήδη υπάρχουσα τότε αμφισβήτιση της γνησιότητας του αποσπάσματος των «τριών ουράνιων μαρτύρων». Αν και ο ίδιος "δεν επιθυμούσε να συμμετάσχει στη διαμάχη", στο Σχολιολόγιό του ακολούθησε το κείμενο του Textus Receptus και ασχολήθηκε ερμηνευτικά με την περικοπή. Ανέφερε ότι "υπήρχαν κάποιες λογικές εικασίες που φαίνεται να υποστηρίζουν το παρόν κείμενο και την παρούσα διατύπωση". Εντούτοις, πέρα από τις θεολογικές προεκτάσεις, οι επισημάνσεις του σχετικά με την προέλευση του Ιωάννειου κόμματος έλαβαν σαφείς απαντήσεις κατά τους επόμενους αιώνες από την κριτική του Βιβλικού κειμένου.

19ος & 20ός αιώνας
Καθώς η κριτική του κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης έκανε σημαντική πρόοδο κατά τους πρόσφατους αιώνες, κατέστη δυνατό να μελετηθεί και να προσδιοριστεί η ιστορία αυτής της παρεμβολής στο Βιβλικό κείμενο. Αρχίζοντας με τον Καρλ Λάχμαν (Karl Lachmann) το 1831, το Ιωάννειο κόμμα απορρίφτηκε από τις κριτικές εκδόσεις του ελληνικού κειμένου καθώς θεωρήθηκε ως δογματική επέκταση του κειμένου στη λατινική παράδοση. Νεότερες κριτικές εκδόσεις του κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης, όπως των Νέστλε-Άλαντ (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece) και των Γουέστκοτ-Χορτ (Westcott-Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek) προώθησαν την αποκατάσταση του Βιβλικού κειμένου.

Έτσι, έγινε ευρέως αποδεκτό ότι οι αμφισβητούμενες λέξεις δεν γράφτηκαν από τον απόστολο Ιωάννη αλλά αποτελούν μεταγενέστερη προσθήκη στο κείμενο των χριστιανικών ελληνικών Γραφών. Ήδη από το 1790, ο Καθηγητής της Ελληνικής στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Κέμπριτζ Ρίτσαρντ Πόρσον (Richard Porson), «έδειξε πέραν κάθε αμφιβολίας» ότι το εδάφιο σχετικά με τους "τρεις ουράνιους μάρτυρες" «δεν υπάρχει πιθανότητα να αποτελούσε μέρος του πρωτότυπου κειμένου της Επιστολής». Παρόμοια, ο κριτικός κειμένου Φ. Χ. Α. Σκρίβενερ (F. H. A. Scrivener) έγραψε: «Δεν πρέπει να διστάζουμε να διακηρύξουμε την πεποίθησή μας ότι οι αμφισβητούμενες λέξεις δεν γράφτηκαν από τον Άγιο Ιωάννη: ότι εισάχθηκαν αρχικά στα λατινικά αντίτυπα στην Αφρική από το περιθώριο, όπου είχαν τεθεί σαν μια ευσεβής και ορθόδοξη ερμηνεία για το εδάφιο 8: ότι από τα λατινικά γλίστρησαν μέσα σε δυο ή τρεις πρόσφατους ελληνικούς κώδικες, και στη συνέχεια στο τυπωμένο ελληνικό κείμενο, στο χώρο αυτό στον οποίο δεν είχαν κανένα δικαίωμα».

Εξέχοντες θεολόγοι και Βιβλικοί λόγιοι όπως ο Άλμπερτ Μπαρνς (Albert Barnes) και ο Φίλιπ Σαφ (Philip Schaff) απέρριψαν με σαφή επιχειρήματα την αυθεντικότητα του Κόμματος. Ο Καθηγητής της Βιβλικής Κριτικής και Ερμηνευτικής Φ. Φ. Μπρους (F. F. Bruce) αναφέρει ότι αυτή η φράση «δεν αποτελεί μέρος του πρωτότυπου κειμένου της επιστολής». Σύγχρονοι Ρωμαιοκαθολικοί, Ορθόδοξοι και Προτεστάντες θεολόγοι αναγνωρίζουν παρόμοια ότι «οι λέξεις αυτές δεν ανήκουν στην Καινή Διαθήκη». Ορισμένοι μάλιστα το περιγράφουν ως το πιο χαρακτηριστικό παράδειγμα εσκεμμένης αλλοίωσης του Βιβλικού κειμένου η οποία είχε θεολογικά-δογματικά κίνητρα σε όλη την χειρογραφική παράδοση της Καινής Διαθήκης. Στον ελλαδικό χώρο, αν και τονίσθηκε η θεολογική σημασία του αποσπάσματος, η γενικότερα αποδεκτή άποψη απορρίπτει σαφώς την αυθεντικότητα του Ιωάννειου κόμματος και υποστηρίζει ότι «παρενεβλήθη μεταγενεστέρως εν τω θεοπνεύστω κειμένω».

Σύγχρονες Βιβλικές εκδόσεις και μεταφράσεις
Ως συνέπεια των συμπερασμάτων της κριτικής του κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης, η πλειονότητα των Βιβλικών μεταφράσεων διεθνώς έχει αφαιρέσει εντελώς το αμφισβητούμενο κείμενο Μεταφράσεις που αφαίρεσαν εντελώς το Ιωάννειο κόμμα είναι στα Ελληνικά
 * η Νεοελληνική Δημοτική Μετάφραση, συλλογικό έργο των Καθηγητών της Ερμηνείας της Καινής Διαθήκης Σ. Αγουρίδη, Π. Βασιλειάδη, Ι. Γαλάνη, Γ. Γαλίτη, Ι. Καραβιδόπουλου και Β. Στογιάννου (Εκδ. Βιβλικής Εταιρίας, 1985),
 * η Καινή Διαθήκη, Μεταγλώττιση (Εκδ. Βίβλος, 1991) και
 * η Μετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου (Εκδ. Β.&Φ.Ε. Σκοπιά, 1997, στα Αγγλικά εδώ).

Στα Αγγλικά το παραλείπουν, για παράδειγμα,
 * η Ρωμαιοκαθολική Βίβλος της Ιερουσαλήμ (The Jerusalem Bible),
 * η Νέα Αμερικανική Βίβλος (New American Bible),
 * η Ζωντανή Βίβλος (Living Bible),
 * η Αγία Γραφή, Λόγος Θεού (God's Word Translation)
 * η Αμερικανική Στερεότυπη Μετάφραση (American Standard Version of the Holy Bible)
 * η Προτεσταντική Σημερινή Αγγλική Μετάφραση (Today's English Version),
 * η Νέα Διεθνής Μετάφραση (New International Version),
 * η Αγγλική Αναθεωρημένη Μετάφραση (English Revised Version),
 * η Παγκόσμια Αγγλική Μετάφραση (World English Bible),
 * η Αγία Γραφή υπό Γουέιμαουθ (Holy Bible: Weymouth New Testament)
 * η Νέα Επισχολιασμένη Βίβλος της Οξφόρδης (The New Oxford Annotated Bible),
 * η Αμερικανική Μετάφραση (The Complete Bible: An American Translation),
 * η Μετάφραση Φίλιπς (Philips Modern English),
 * η Αναθεωρημένη Στερεότυπη Μετάφραση (Revised Standard Version),
 * η Νέα Αγγλική Βίβλος (New English Bible),
 * η Νέα Μετάφραση από τις Πρωτότυπες Γλώσσες υπό Τζ. Ν. Ντάρμπι (The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby),
 * η Νέα Αμερικανική Στερεότυπη (New American Standard, σε έκδοση Σπύρου Ζωδιάτη)

και πλήθος άλλων. Αξίζει να σημειωθεί ότι την ίδια πρακτική ακολούθησε και η νεότερη έκδοση του επίσημου Ρωμαιοκαθολικού κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης, της Νέας Βουλγάτας, η οποία αναφέρει: «7 Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur: 8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres in unum sunt». (Διαθέσιμη η παράθεση στο ίντερνετ εδώ. ενώ άλλες το περιλαμβάνουν στο κύριο σώμα του κειμένου αλλά επεξηγούν το ζήτημα σε υποσημείωση. Όχι μόνο το σύνολο των Ρωμαιοκαθολικών μελετητών, αλλά ουσιαστικά όλοι οι σύγχρονοι μελετητές έχουν αναγνωρίσει ομόφωνα ότι το Ιωάννειο κόμμα «δεν είναι ούτε γνήσιο ούτε αυθεντικό» και ότι «αποτελεί προσθήκη στα Βιβλικά χειρόγραφα». Όπως αναφέρει η Θρησκευτική και Ηθική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, «συμφώνως προς τα πορίσματα ταύτα της κριτικής, όλαι αι νεώτεραι κριτικαί εκδόσεις του ελληνικού κειμένου και αι ξέναι μεταφράσεις απήλειψαν το χωρίον από το κείμενον ως μη δυνάμενον να αξιώση ιωάννειον καταγωγήν».

Στο κείμενο της Καινής Διαθήκης του Πατριαρχείου της Κωνσταντινούπολης του 1904, που αποτελεί το επίσημο κείμενο της Κ.Δ. που χρησιμοποιεί η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία, το Κόμμα Ιωάννου είναι τυπωμένο με πλάγια και μικρότερου μεγέθους γράμματα, ενώ στον πρόλογό της ο εισηγητής της επιτροπείας που την επιμελήθηκε και καθηγητής της Θεολογικής Σχολής της Χάλκης Βασίλειος Αντωνιάδης το χαρακτηρίζει νόθο και παρατηρεί: «Το χωρίον τούτο ού μόνον κατά τας βάσεις της παρούσης εκδόσεως, αλλ' ουδέ κατ' εξαίρεσιν εφαίνετο εγχωρούν, ως όλως αμάρτυρον από των εκκλησιαστικών κειμένων, από των πατέρων και διδασκάλων της Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας, από των αρχαίων μεταφράσεων, από των αρχαιοτέρων απογράφων της Σλαυικής μεταφράσεως, και αυτής έτι της Λατινική, και από πάντων των γνωστών ελληνικών χειρογράφων, των γεγραμμένων ανεξαρτήτως της κατά μικρόν εισαχθείσης εις την Βουλγάταν προσθήκης. Διατηρείται κατά γνώμην της Ιεράς Συνόδου». Η ίδια πηγή αναφέρει ότι ακόμη και μεταξύ των νεότερων χειρογράφων που σώζονται, τα οποία θεωρούνται «δόκιμα» και χρησιμοποιήθηκαν στη σύνταξη του Πατριαρχικού κειμένου, όπως το χειρόγραφο 9 της Θεολογικής Σχολής της Χάλκης, "σώζουν τινάς ιδιότητας των αρχαιοτέρων" περιλαμβάνοντας «και την παράλειψιν του Α' Ιωάννου ε' 7-8 περί των τριών μαρτύρων εν τω ουρανώ». Στην πλειονότητά τους, οι εκδόσεις που βασίζονται ουσιαστικά στο λεγόμενο Πατριαρχικό κείμενο, έχουν ενσωματώσει —είτε μέσα σε αγκύλες, είτε χρησιμοποιώντας διαφορετικό τύπο γραμμάτων— και επεξεργαστεί ερμηνευτικά το Ιωάννειο κόμμα.

Ανατολική Ορθόδοξη θεολογία
Η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία, είναι κατεξοχήν εκκλησία της παραδόσεως. Και αυτό που ονομάζεται Παράδοση στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία "δεν είναι παρά η βίωση της Αγίας Γραφής από την Εκκλησία μέσα στη μακραίωνη ιστορία της". Από την παράδοση αυτή αποβάλλονται μόνο όσα στοιχεία "έχουν χάσει την οργανική τους σχέση με το ζωντανό σώμα του Χριστού" και έτσι, η περικοπή αυτή "εχρησιμοποιήθη...διότι μαρτυρεί την πίστιν της Εκκλησίας, ήτις έκαμε δεκτόν εις το κείμενον της το εν λόγω τμήμα και αφού το εδέχθη η Εκκλησία πρέπει να το δεχώμεθα και ημείς".

Το "Κόμμα Ιωάννου" χρησιμοποίησαν αυτούσιο άγιοι της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας σε κατηχητικά-δογματικά και ερμηνευτικά τους έργα, όπως ο Άγιος Νεκτάριος Αιγίνης, σημαντικοί ερμηνευτές της όπως ο Ευθύµιος Ζιγαβηνός (11ος αιώνας) και επιφανείς θεολόγοι όπως ο Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Γεννάδιος Σχολάριος (15ος αιώνας) , χρησιμοποιήθηκε σε Δογματικά και Συμβολικά κείμενα της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας όπως είναι η Ομολογία πίστεως Μητροφάνους Κριτοπούλου (1625) , η οποία "διακριβοί και διαπτύσσει συστηματικώς τα ορθόδοξα δόγματα" και η Ορθόδοξος Ομολογία Πέτρου Μογίλα (1638/42) στην οποία "εξετίθεντο θετικώς και σαφώς τα δόγματα της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας". Επίσης, έχει χρησιμοποιηθεί σε παλαιότερα έργα Ορθόδοξης Δογματικής, όπως του πρύτανη της εκκλησ. ακαδημίας του Κιέβου, αρχιμανδρίτη Αντωνίου (Δογματική θεολογία της Ορθοδόξου Καθολικής και Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας, εν Αθήναις 1858, σελ. 116), "αξιόλογον έργον...όπερ εσημείωσε πλείστας εκδόσεις", ενώ καί σήμερα, καθηγητές όπως ο Ιωάννης Παναγόπουλος και Χρήστος Βούλγαρης , στις "Εισαγωγές" τους, χρησιμοποιούν κανονικά το "κόμμα" στις αναλύσεις του περιεχομένου της Α' Ιωάννου. Τα παραπάνω, αποτελούν γεγονός, που μαρτυρεί ότι, αν και "το Α' Ιωάν. 5,7-8...φαίνεται δεν προέρχεται, στην παρούσα του μορφή, από τον κάλαμο του ιερού συγγραφέα", εντούτοις "η ίδια η Εκκλησία...κατακύρωσε στη Γραφή της, τα μοναδικά με τόση σαφήνεια τριαδολογικά χωρία, εφόσον αυτά εξέφραζαν την πίστη της.".

Κατά συνέπεια, μία εκκλησία με ιστορία αιώνων και τέτοια αντίληψη για την αξία των κειμένων, δεν θα μπορούσε να εναλλάσσει το κείμενό της σύμφωνα με τις εκάστοτε ερμηνείες των επιστημόνων που πολλές φορές μεταβάλλονται σε διάστημα λίγων χρόνων. Δεν χρησιμοποιεί η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία κριτικά κείμενα αλλά λειτουργικά κείμενα. Για τους Ορθοδόξους αυτό έχει ιδιαίτερη σημασία καθώς το λεγόμενο κριτικό κείμενo της Καινής Διαθήκης είναι προϊόν επιστημονικής σύνθεσης, που δεν έχει χρησιμοποιηθεί ποτέ στη Λατρεία από καμία Ομολογία. Εκτός όμως αυτού, το πρόβλημα έχει και άλλες παραμέτρους: "η 26 έκδοση των Nestle-Aland διαφέρει από την 25η σε 700 περίπου χωρία. Με αυτό τον τρόπο, παρά την τεράστια προσπάθεια μεγάλου πλήθους ειδικών ερευνητών, δεν έχει επιτευχθεί από τότε ομοφωνία μεταξύ τους, για καλύτερο και εγκυρότερο κείμενο". Αυτές οι εκατοντάδες διαφορές είναι κάτι "που καταδεικνύει την ύπαρξη υποκειμενισμού".

Επιπλέον, όπως έγραφε ο καθηγητής της θεολογικής σχολής Θεσ/νίκης Παναγιώτης Δημητρόπουλος, η ανυπαρξία αρχαίων χειρογράφων της Καινής Διαθήκης, τουλάχιστον από τον 2ο αιώνα μ.Χ. και η απώλεια πληθώρας πατερικών συγγραμμάτων, για πολλά από τα οποία είναι γνωστά μόνο οι τίτλοι τους, δεν επιτρέπει την ύπαρξη αναντίρρητης βεβαιότητας για την ιστορία του αποσπάσματος και την ύπαρξή του ή όχι στα πρωτότυπα κείμενα. Τα στοιχεία αυτά αλλά και ο χαρακτήρας της κριτικής του κειμένου είναι τέτοιος που επιτρέπει στον καθηγητή Ιερεμία Φούντα (που δέχεται τη μή αυθεντικότητα του κόμματος) να γράψει ότι "το θέμα της αυθεντικότητος ή μή της περικοπής...είναι εισέτι υπό έρευναν" και "δεν επιτρέπεται, νομίζομεν, οι ερμηνευταί, είτε οι μεν είτε οι δε, να είναι αυθεντικοί εις τας θέσεις των, ως να θεωρούν αυτάς ως πράγματι αληθείς και αναντίρρητους, αλλά να τας διατυπώνουν ελευθέρως μεν και με δυνατήν κατάστρωσιν των επιχειρημάτων των, πλην μετ' επιφυλακτικότητος".

Αλλά κι αν τα μέχρι τώρα στοιχεία της επιστήμης δείχνουν ότι το Ιωάννειο Κόμμα δεν ήταν μέρος του πρωτοτύπου, αν και για κάποιους μελετητές, υπαινιγμοί του κόμματος υπάρχουν στη Δύση από τον 2ο και 3ο αιώνα μ.Χ., στον Τερτυλιανό (PL 2, 211C) και στον Κυπριανό (De unitate Ecclesiae VI, P.L. 4, 519B) αντίστοιχα, εντούτοις, αυτό περιέχει "θεολογία" που είναι "αληθής" (για όσους βεβαίως πιστεύουν στην Αγία Τριάδα): ακόμη κι αν δεν μαρτυρείται από κανένα αρχαίο χειρόγραφο, το χωρίο αυτό "μαρτυρεί σαφέστατα την πίστιν της Εκκλησίας εις το τριαδικόν άμα και ενιαίον του θεού", ιδέα μάλιστα που σύμφωνα με την Ορθόδοξη ερμηνεία ενυπάρχει σε πάρα πολλά σημεία της Καινής Διαθήκης.

Έτσι, στη χρήση κατά την εκκλησιατική λατρεία, προηγείται το κείμενο της Κ.Δ. που αναγιγνώσκεται επί αιώνες στη θεία Ευχαριστία. Κατά συνέπεια, "το κριτικό κείμενο Nestle-Aland χρησιμοποιείται στην πανεπιστημιακή διδασκαλία (Θεολογικές σχολές) και στις επιστημονικές εργασίες, ενώ το Εκκλησιαστικό (που λέγεται επίσης και Βυζαντινό) κείμενο είναι το λειτουργικό κείμενο που αναγινώσκεται στην Εκκλησία και διαδίδεται στο λαό από τις χριστιανικές κινήσεις της χώρας και από το ποιμαντικό έργο των ενοριακών ναών".

Στο κείμενο της Καινής Διαθήκης του Πατριαρχείου της Κωνσταντινούπολης του 1904, που αποτελεί το επίσημο κείμενο της Κ.Δ. που χρησιμοποιεί η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία, όπου το Κόμμα Ιωάννου είναι τυπωμένο, αν και με πλάγια και μικρότερου μεγέθους γράμματα. Και ενώ στον πρόλογό της ο εισηγητής της επιτροπείας που την επιμελήθηκε και καθηγητής της Θεολογικής Σχολής της Χάλκης Βασίλειος Αντωνιάδης το χαρακτηρίζει νόθο το "κόμμα", όπως ήταν φυσικό, η Ιερά Σύνοδος επέβαλλε την παράθεσή του καθώς την θεωρούσε αναγκαία. Επίσης, κάποιες εκδόσεις που βασίζονται ουσιαστικά στο λεγόμενο Πατριαρχικό κείμενο, έχουν ενσωματώσει —είτε μέσα σε αγκύλες, είτε χρησιμοποιώντας διαφορετικό τύπο γραμμάτων— και επεξεργαστεί ερμηνευτικά το Ιωάννειο κόμμα. .

Για τον ίδιο λόγο, έγκριτοι επιστήμονες όπως οι καθηγητές ερμηνείας της Κ.Δ., των πανεπιστημίων Αθήνας και Θεσσαλονίκης, Πέτρος Βασιλειάδης, Ιωάννης Γαλάνης, Γεώργιος Γαλίτης και Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος, διατήρησαν το Ιωάννειο Κόμμα μέσα στη μετάφρασή τους της Καινής Διαθήκης στη Νεοελληνική Γλώσσα. Αξιοσημείωτο είναι ότι στο έργο δεν διατυπώνεται καμμία βεβαιότητα περί παρεμβολής ή νοθείας, αλλά αναφέρεται σε υποσημείωση (σελ. 387) ότι το τμήμα αυτό του κειμένου δεν βρέθηκε στα αρχαιότερα χειρόγραφα. Το ίδιο έπραξε και ο καθηγητής Αθανάσιος Δεληκωστόπουλος στη μετάφρασή του όπου διατήρησε το Ιωάννειο Κόμμα χωρίς σχόλια (σελ. 625-626).

Πηγές

 * Δρ Κωνσταντίνος Σιαμάκης, Η Παράδοσι του Κειμένου της Αγίας Γραφής, Έκδοση Ιεράς Μητρόπολεως Εδέσσης, Πέλλης και Αλμωπίας, 1995.
 * Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical students, Cambridge, 1861/1883.
 * Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed., Oxford University Press, 1992.
 * Bruce M. Metzger, Α Τextual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2nd ed., United Bible Societies, 1994/2002.
 * Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Eerdmans Publishing, 1979.
 * C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, Moffatt New Testament Commentary, Harper, 1946.
 * Howard I. Marshall, The Epistles of John. New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1978.
 * Thomas D. Lea & David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message 2nd Revised ed., B&H Publishing Group, 2003.
 * The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Εκδ. Doubleday, 1992, Τόμ. 3ος, λήμμα «Johannine Comma».
 * Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (Anchor Bible), Doubleday, 1982, «Appendix IV: The Johannine Comma».
 * The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Hebrews-Revelation Revised ed., Zondervan, 2006, Τόμ 13ος.
 * John Rogerson, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible, Oxford University Press, 2001.
 * L. D. Reynolds & N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature 3d ed., Oxford University Press, 1991.
 * Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia), Fortress Press, 1996.

Κατηγορία:Αγία Γραφή Κατηγορία:Καινή Διαθήκη

Comma Johanneum Comma Johanneum Comma Johanneum コンマ・ヨハンネウム Comma Johanneum Comma Johanneum Comma Johanneum Comma Johanneum

=Chiliasm/Millennialism=

Justo L. González, Essential Theological Terms, Westminster John Knox Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0664228101

 * "Chiliasm" (p. 34): Sometimes the term "millennialism" is reserved for modern eschatological speculation, often trying to determine the time of the millennium, or the order of the final events. In that case, "chiliasm" is used for the common view in early Christian theology of a reign of God on earth, with emphasis on its joy and its abundance rather than on its time or its duration. These views soon fell into disrepute as theologians more influenced by Platonism declared them to be too materialistic, and not sufficiently spiritual.


 * "Millennialism" (p. 109, 110): The expectation of a reign of Christ on earth, either before or after his 'parousia'. The millennium has been the subject of much debate, particularly among fundamentalist Christians in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, who do not agree on the interpretation of Revelation 20:2-7—Revelation being the only book in the New Testament where a reign of a thousand years is explicitly mentioned. In the second century, Christian theologians such as Papias and Irenaeus did believe in a reign of God on earth—a reign of peace, justice, and physical abundance—and they sometimes spoke of it as lasting a thousand years (see Chiliasm). Others, such as Augustine (354-430), felt that such expectations were too materialistic, and preferred to understand the millennium as well as any scriptural reference to an eschatological abundance as allegorical language referring to a purely spiritual reign or kingdom of God (Amillennialism). During the Middle Ages, due to the influence of Augustine and other theologians of Neoplalonic tendencies, the millennium was generally understood as a figurative way of speaking of heaven, or if not, as the present life of the church, in which evil is supposed to be bound. Many combined the saying in 2 Peter, that a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of God, with notions of a history of the world that would last seven thousand years, and thus developed schemes in which there would be a thousand years between the first and the second advents of Christ. It was in the seventeenth century that eschatological speculation and literalistic interpretations of Revelation 20 led to a renewed interest in the millennium, and particularly to the development of a series of schemes or programs for the events surrounding its coming.

Reginald Stackhouse, The End of the World?: A New Look at an Old Belief, 1997, Paulist Press, ISBN 0809137275, p. 35-37.

 * Common to all millennialists is a confidence that the promises of Jesus Christ will be historically fulfilled regardless of how long delayed that reality may be. That nothing has happened to justify that assurance may bother others, but not them. In their eyes the issue remains what it has always been: the readiness of people to accept the Bible as written.


 * It is a mistake to think that millennialism is a doctrine for the ignorant, a message for "hillbilly" preachers or their television equivalents. It has appealed, at different times in history, to the erudite as well, as we can see by examining one of the most perennially quoted theologians of early Christianity.


 * When the second century came and Christ did not, some Christians were attracted by a spiritual alternative called Gnosticism. Its name, from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis, stood for the secret knowledge offered to converts upon initiation into one of its cults. That knowledge, the secret of salvation, clued them in to the truly spiritual redemption they could have when they were liberated from the physical body and the material world. What did Gnosticism make of an incarnate Christ, a physical resurrection, and a historical second coming? It handled the question by insisting that Christ did not really take on a body during his years on earth but just seemed to do so. Basically, this logic provided the key to understanding how the Gnostics handled everything else, including the return of Christ and the end of the world. At that time, as now, there was a passion for spirituality, and the Gnostic gospel was eager to speak to it. That it did not manage to overturn the church's faith or supersede it was due in great part to a succession of teachers, often called Church Fathers, some of whom would now also be labeled millennialists.


 * As a spokesperson for those who take the eschatol-ogy of the New Testament literally, regardless of apparent unfulfillment, we can find no better champion than an African with the incredibly Roman name of Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus (170-230).


 * Tertullian provides a good model for us because he took his stand immovably on a literal interpretation of New Testament eschatology. By his time, it was over a century and a half since St. Paul and St. Mark had composed the first eschatological passages. By all reasonable standards, Jesus' second coming, as it had by now come to be called, should have happened. The new order of God's kingdom should have been in place. As challenging as its absence might be to many, some of them finding Gnosticism attractive as a result, it was not a problem for Tertullian. It did not dilute an aggressive combative style that has had no better exponent to this day, and belief in a coming millennium needed nothing less.


 * By Tertullian's time religious sects were proliferating in the Roman Empire. Some were on the edge of Christianity. One of these, called Montanism after its founder, Montanus, taught that people should expect the world's end; and two of its female prophets, Priscilla and Maximila, told people the end would come in their lifetime. When Maximila died in 179 without this prophecy being confirmed, the effect on Montanism could have been devastating had the sect not attracted such a leader as Tertullian.


 * Tertullian's response to all doubt was simple and straightforward. Jesus' second coming had not occurred but it was going to, and just as the New Testament said it would. Montanism proclaimed the belief that history had moved into a new age, the age of the Paraclete or Holy Spirit. The Montanists held that in this new age, each believer was given prophetic insight by which he or she could see what others were denied. For anyone with this Spirit, Tertullian insisted, the fact that Jesus had not returned was not a problem. Believers understood he could not come back until all biblical prophecies had been fulfilled, just as his first coming—in the nativity—had had to wait on prophetic events happening. The prophecies were as much part of eschatology as the return of Christ himself, and believers therefore were ready to wait without losing faith. Everything about Jesus' earthly days—his birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension—had happened...

=Πολύκαρπος Σμύρνης= «Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ὁ μακάριος Πολύκαρπος μηνὸς Ξανθικοῦ δευτέρᾳ ἱσταμένου κατὰ δὲ Ρωμαίους πρὸ ἑπτὰ καλανδῶν Μαρτίων σαββάτῳ μεγάλῳ ὥρᾳ ὀγδόῃ. Συνελήφθη δὲ ὑπὸ Ἡρώδου ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Φιλίππου Τραλλιανοῦ, ἀνθυπατεύοντος Στατίου Κοδράτου, βασι λεύοντος δὲ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ». (Μαρτύριον Πολυκάρπου 21.1.1-5)

=Ιεχωβά= Ιωάννης Πασσάς, Τα Ορφικά σ. 260:

«Τούς Ιουδαίους όμως παρό τός ζωηρός έπιθυμίας των ό Ζεύς, ώς παλαιότερος θεός, όπως όποδεικνύεται, όπό τόν Ιεχωβά τών. Ιουδαίων, όσφαλώς δέν τούς έγνώριζεν, διό νό εχη τόν καιρόν νό έκτιμήση τήν όξίαν των, νό τούς έκλέξη, νό τούς όναγνωρίση καί νό τούς προβόλλη «ώς περιούσιον Λαόν.., διότι όπλούστατα τήν έποχήν τών. Ορφικών οί 'Ιουδαίοι δέν ύπηρχον ώς Λαός, καί άς ίοχυρίζονται ότι πρώτοι αύτοί καθιέρωσαν τήν ΜονοθεΙαν!!... όγνοούντες καί περιφρονούντες φυσικό τήν όρθήν ο.ποψιν τού. Επικτήτου, ότι ή προτίμησις τού Θεού, περιορίζεται είς όρισμένα μόνον άτομα, πού είναι προικισμένα πρόγματι, μέ έξαιρετικός ίδιότητας άπό τόν θεόν, όπό τήν φύσιν καί ύπερέχουν έμφανώς τών ο.λλων, τών κοινών άνθρώπων!»

σ. 360:

«Αλλά τά άπoσnασμάτια αύτά είναι μεγΙστης άξΙας καΙ σημασΙας, διότι περιέχουν γνώσεις, άπόψεις καΙ πληροφορΙας, βάσει τών όποΙων έπιτυγχάνεται ή διαμόρφωσις μιδς γενικωτέρας βεβαίως άλλά χρησιμωτάτης έντυπώσεως καΙ γνώσεως τών θεΟΥονικών άπόψεων τών . Ορφικών, καί κυρΙως της άπόψεώς των περί της ύπάρξεως ένός καί ΜΟΝΟΝ θεού δημιουργού καί κυριόρχου τού Σύμπαντος πρός μεγίστη ν βεβαίως θλίψιν τών 'Ιουδαίων, οί όποίοι έπίστευον καΙ διεκήρυσσον δτι ό Ιεχωβά, ό Θεός των, ήτο ό πρώτος καί ΜΟΝΟΣ Θεός πού έγνώρισεν ό άνθρωπος'»

'Brevard S. Childs, Book of Exodus'', 2004, Westminster John Knox Press, σ. 84:'''

"Who was this "angel" who appeared in the fire in the lowly bush, who spoke for God in executing the redemption from Egypt? For most of the early Fathers the identity with the Son was completely obvious (Eusebius, Praep. Ev. XI, 9ff,; Justin, Trypho 59-60; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.6; IV.10; Ambrose, De fide I.13)."

Στα μέσα του 2ου αιώνα, «υπό την επίδρασιν του Πλάτωνος» ο απολογητής Ιουστίνος «χαρακτηρίζει τον Θεόν ως "ἄρρητον" και "ἀνονόμαστον"».