A Letter from A.T. Robertson to E.J. Goodspeed about "Russellite Propaganda"

In my answer to the question, "Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?" ("Upon the Lampstand," December 17, 2009), on page 8 and on the related note on page 14 (for note 38 on page 8), I wrote  the following in part concerning a possible reason for why renowned Southern Baptist Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) failed to properly identify the Greek idiom used in John 8:58, namely, because in my view Robertson was "at times overly motivated by loyalty to Trinitarianism." 

Here is what I wrote from my pages 8 and 14 on this point in a larger context:

Though several Greek and New Testament scholars before K.L. McKay accurately wrote about the meaning of John 8:58, McKay has helped to further undo part of the damage done by Trinitarian scholars such as A.T. Robertson, whose theology appears to have overridden his grammatical skills when it comes to texts such as John 8:58. ... [A.T.] Robertson was at times overly motivated by loyalty to Trinitarianism in his treatment of certain grammatical issues, which can be seen in his handling of the use of eimi in John 8:58. Consider Robertson’s lamenting of “those who” believed various things during his time, including “those who accept the New Testament writings as adequate interpretations of Christ and Christianity, but who say that Trinitarianism is a misinterpretation of the New Testament” (A.T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, repr. 1977], page 61).

The Elihu Books Topical Index now contains a copy of a handwritten letter from A.T. Robertson to Bible translator E.J. Goodspeed (1871-1962) dated May 19, 1931, which I believe further reveals a theological bias which may explain why at times in his writings Robertson cites or even discusses certain theologically charged texts (like John 8:58), only to then abandon a full and fair  grammatical assessment in favor of the assumption of Trinitarianism.  

This does not mean Robertson's works are not full of much that is useful, enlightening, and historically interesting. But I do believe this letter from Robertson to Goodspeed further reveals the importance of keeping Robertson's knowledge, in particular his written expression of that knowledge, in its proper and full context, especially given the wide and longstanding circulation that Robertson's writings have been given, which writings should be accepted or rejected based on the good reasons provided or not provided or considered thoroughly or even at all by Robertson, as with anyone else's writings.

In this letter (a transcription of which I provide below) Robertson expresses his receipt and appreciation for Goodspeed's (then) newly released, "Strange New Gospels," in which Goodspeed reviews various documents and texts related to the New Testament, as understood during that early part of the twentieth century (in the mid to late 1920s). In writing to Goodspeed about this new work, Robertson brings up the English "Concordant N.T.," which Robertson calls "Russellite propaganda," referring to the founder and first president of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (later Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society), C.T. Russell (1852-1916).

Here is my transcription of the letter below the handwritten date:

My dear Dr. Goodspeed: I have
only this morning, after my re-
covery from the influenza,
read your useful and timely
"Strange Gospels."

I get frequent inquires about
some of that stuff and I am
glad to be able to tell of your
careful presentation of the facts.

Only this morning I have a
letter from California (sent
by way

from New Zealand) about the

[Page 2]
Concordant N.T.; a Russellite
propaganda which is de-
ceiving many innocent people.
I denounce it on occasion.
I wish you would take one chapter (or one N.T. book)
in it and expose its fal-
lacies and hallucinations.

It is doing much more
harm than the "Strange Gospels."
I have marked in the circular
the "New Short Grammar"
(Richard R. Smith, Inc.) which
you may stumble on.

Cordially yours,
A.T. Robertson

Clearly, despite being a learned and accomplished Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson was heavily influenced by his theology, so much so that he considered other groups' views (such as those of the "Russellites" and those expressed in the "Concordant N.T.") to be "propaganda which is deceiving many innocent people," and whose "hallucinations" Robertson 'denounced on occasion.'

Yet, it is A.T. Robertson whom we also find characterizing  another well-regarded Greek grammarians before him, G.B. Winer, as having "exerted a pernicious influence" over those scholars who differed with Robertson (including Winer) over texts such as Titus 2:13. But this very text is one Robertson himself interprets according to later (that is, post-biblical) theological constructs, specifically, those having to do with the Trinity and its concepts of "God" as positively referring not only to the Trinity (though only "one God" is claimed) but also applying positively to the "persons" of the Trinity, none of whom are individual beings themselves, but all of whom share equally in the one being of the Trinity. This equal sharing is what it is that allows Robertson to use "God" or "Deity" for Jesus in New Testament texts such as Titus 2:13.—See Robertson's, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ," The Expositor, 8th Series, volume 21 (1921), pages 182-188.

See page 275 of my Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, note 103, for the reference to Robertson's characterization of Winer (which is on page 187 of "The Greek Article" article by Robertson, cited above). See Chapter 2 of my Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended for a discussion of how Trinitarian writers and scholars have for centuries (for over 1,500 years, in fact) misinterpreted the use of "G-god" nearly everywhere if not, in fact, everywhere the original words for "G-god" appear in the Old and in the New Testaments, as well as in many if not in all Dead Sea Scroll and Jewish Pseudepigraphal literature available to date.—See Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Third Edition, Chapter 2.

Of course, Trinitarians' view and uses of "G-god" would not necessarily keep them from using the same terms for "G-god" of idols or for non-Judeo-Christian "gods," accurately. Yet, because the words informing Trinitarianism are either biblical words (for examples, "God," "Father," and "Son") or they seem like and may in some sense be biblical words, but the biblical meaning and what we read about the meaning of the same words in the writings of Trinitarians are nothing alike. This includes the word "person," which is used by Trinitarians in a theological, metaphysical sense for members of the Trinity, though "person" is never used in this same way in the Bible in relation to the Trinity, or for the Trinity itself, leaving Trinitarians such as Dr. James White to refer to the Trinity as a "what" as opposed to the three "persons" of the Trinity who are "who's."—See James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany, 1998), page 27, and my review and response to the same in my Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Third Edition, pages 134-154.

Still, unless people require the Trinitarian to explain the basis for his or her use of every single use of the words for "G-god," then it will be that much more difficult for you and for them to see the meanings given to the words for "G-god" and for related, descriptive words and phrases such as "Son" or "sons of God" in the biblical writings and in other, related literature written or available during the biblical periods.

Holidays, Birthdays, and Spiritual Gifts

Given the time of year, with several holidays fast approaching, is it a fact that many Christians and others are often confused about to what extent, if any, persons should participate in festivals or other celebrations. In particular, those persons who follow the directives of the Watchtower Society regularly publish information about such celebrations and festivals which is not accurate, and even misleading in several respects. 

For example, and as I presented in my book Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2002), Third Dissertation, pages 208-209:

More recently, a similar question was asked about why Witnesses celebrate wedding anniversaries but not birthdays, which are essentially anniversaries of a person’s date of birth. The Watchtower pointedly stated that there is no need to celebrate either, but that it would not be a problem for Christians to celebrate their wedding anniversary since weddings are placed in a favorable light in the Bible, being a ceremony to commemorate a divine institution, namely, marriage. In contrast, the Bible is said to link birthdays with “cruel acts” of pagans.[NOTE: “Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, October 15, 1998, pages 30-31.]

The two examples of “cruel acts” given by The Watchtower involve the birthday of Pharaoh during the time of Joseph (Genesis 40:20-23) and the birthday of Herod as recorded in Matthew 14:6-10. Regarding Pharaoh’s birthday, there is nothing explicit linking birthday celebrations in general to “cruel acts.” Naturally, occasions for celebration can provide an outlet for excessive or immoral acts. But in this case the “cruel acts” against the chief of the cupbearers and the chief of the bakers were in fulfillment of the dreams interpreted by Joseph. It is similar with Herod’s birthday celebration. The account in Matthew does not say that John was beheaded because of Herod’s birthday celebration. Rather, he was beheaded because of the request of Herodias and her daughter, and Herod’s oath to her. Indeed, there is nothing in Matthew’s account that explicitly states that John’s head was brought to the birthday celebration at all. It only says that his head was “given to the maiden, and she brought it to her mother” (Matthew 14:11). The presentation may have occurred at the celebration, but as with the account in Genesis 40 there is nothing tying such an act to birthdays in general.

The Watchtower Society regularly publishes such information, along with other arguments which are not convincing or which do not support its position concerning birthdays. For example, though C.T. Russell and the early Bible Students who later became Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrated Christmas and people’s birthdays until up to at least the late 1920s, one fairly recent issue of The Watchtower had this to say about the celebration of Christmas by early Watchtower Society followers (with my underlining added):

Bible Students [Jehovah’s Witnesses] also commemorated December 25 as the anniversary of Jesus’ birth, or birthday. It was even customary to have Christmas dinner at the Brooklyn headquarters. Of course, since then God’s people have grown spiritually in many respects. In the 1920’s increased light of truth enabled them to see the following: Jesus was not born on December 25, a date linked to pagan religion. The Bible directs us to commemorate the date of Jesus’ death, not the anniversary of his or anyone else’s birth. Doing so accords with Ecclesiastes 7:1 and the fact that how a faithful person’s life turns out is more important than the day of his birth. The Bible has no record that any faithful servant celebrated his birthday. [“Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, October 15, 1998, pages 30-31.]

Yet, as I pointed out also in Three Dissertations (page 210): “There is no record of any faithful servant, in the Bible, celebrating a wedding anniversary, either. So this cannot be used as part of an argument against Christmas.” But it is used as just such an argument here by the Watchtower Society, an entity which for some unexplained reason does not speak about wedding anniversaries in the same way that it does about birthdays.

In the above quote fromThe Watchtower,we can see the Society claims increased understanding made the Bible Students in the late 1920s aware that Jesus was not born on December 25. In fact, however, Russell and the early Bible Students knew full and well that December 25^th was not the actual day of Jesus’ birth long before the 1920s. Consider Russell’s own published words as far back as 1893 (with my underlining added):

We have elsewhere presented the Scriptural evidences that the date usually celebrated as the anniversary of our Lord Jesus’ birth is incorrect and that, instead of being Dec. 15, B. C. 4, it really was about October 1, B. C. 2; nevertheless this need not mar our pleasure, nor our appreciation of the great fact so generally celebrated on the wrong date; for its lessons are as appropriate to one date as to another. [“The Birth of Jesus,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, December 15, 1893, reprint page 1603.]

The footnote to the above quotation from Russell refers to Millennial Dawn, vol. 2, pages 54-62. See also “Christmas Hopes and Joys,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, December 1, 1902, reprint pages 3114-3116; “Christmas Review,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, December 15, 1903, reprint pages 3289-3290. It is clear, however, that the October 15, 1998, Watchtower was in error about its assessment of the reasons for why the Society decided to no longer celebrate Christmas. It was not because “increased light of truth enabled them to see the following: Jesus was not born on December 25.” The Society/Russell knew and published this as early as 1893, along with an explanation for why this difference in date should not really matter to those who take pleasure in the celebration of the birth of the Messiah. See my Q&A on this subject (link below) for some of the good reasons from the Bible which make clear why Christians are free to decide whether to celebrate Christmas or any other birthday, so long as it is “in honor of the Lord.”—Romans 14:6.

There is also a lingering question in the minds and hearts of many Christian Witnesses of Jah about use of spiritual "gifts," such as speaking in tongues or as it may involve some other manifestation of God’s holy spirit among us. Therefore, to help further the constructive discussion of these issues among Christian Witnesses of Jah and others, I have put together two brief Q&As on the subjects of holidays/celebrations and on the use of spiritual gifts or powers today. They are:

As a Christian Witness of Jah, what are your good reasons for celebrating or for not celebrating one holiday over another (such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, or Halloween), or for celebrating or for not celebrating birthdays or various other festivals?(September 10, 2009)

Since speaking in different “tongues” and “prophesying” are spoken of in the Bible as being practiced by Christians (1 Corinthians 14:22), how will a Christian determine how or if such gifts are to be practiced today?(October 12, 2009)

I hope they are helpful to all who are considering these issues.