Interrogation and defamation

Early in August, 1978, Albert D. Schroeder, a member of the Governing Body, held a meeting in Europe with representatives from European Watch Tower branch offices. At that meeting, he told the audience that there was a campaign going on both inside the movement and from outside to have the Society’s 607 B.C.E. – 1914 C.E. chronology overthrown.¹¹ The Society, however, had no intention of abandoning it, he stated.

Three weeks later, on September 2, I was summoned to a hearing before two representatives of the Watch Tower Society in Sweden, Rolf Svensson, one of the two district overseers in the country, and Hasse Hulth, a circuit overseer. I was told that they had been commissioned by the Society’s branch office to hold such a hearing because “the brothers” at the Brooklyn headquarters were deeply concerned about my treatise. Once again, I was cautioned not to spread the information I had gathered. Rolf Svensson also told me that the Society did not need or want individual Jehovah’s Witnesses to become involved in research of this kind.

Partly as a result of this meeting, I resigned from my position as an elder in the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and also from all my other tasks and assignments in the congregation and the circuit. I did this in the form of a lengthy letter, addressed to the local eldership and the circuit overseer, Hasse Hulth, in which I briefly explained the reasons for the position I had taken. Soon it became widely known among my Witness brothers in different parts of Sweden that I had rejected the chronology of the Society.

In the following months, I and others who had questioned the chronology began to be condemned privately as well as from the platforms of Kingdom Halls (congregational meeting places) and at Witness assemblies or conventions. We were publicly characterized in the most negative terms as “rebellious,” “presumptuous”, “false prophets,” “small prophets who have worked out their own little chronology,” and “heretics.” We were called “dangerous elements in the congregations,” “evil slaves,” “blasphemers,” as well as “immoral, lawless ones.” Privately, some of our Witness brothers, including a number of the Watch Tower Society’s traveling representatives, also intimated that we were “demon‒possessed,” that we had “flooded the Society with criticism” and that we “should have been disfellowshipped long ago” These are just a few examples of the widespread defamation, one that has gone on ever since, although no names, for obvious legal reasons, have ever been mentioned publicly.

That such obvious slander was not just a local phenomenon, but had the sanction of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was evident from the fact that similar statements were printed in The Watchtower magazine.¹²

This description of the situation that developed has not been given in order to criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses as individuals. These people are usually kind and sincere in their belief. The description has rather been given to illustrate how easily an individual may unwittingly fall prey to the irrational, psychological reactions described earlier in this introduction. In a letter to Albert Schroeder, dated December 6, 1978, I described the new turn of events, calling attention to the sad fact that although my treatise had been composed with the greatest thoughtfulness and sent to the Society in all sincerity, I had become the victim of backstabbing, vilification and character assassination:

How tragic, then, to observe how a situation develops, where the attention is drawn away from the question raised – the validity of the 607 B.C.E. date – and directed to the person who raised it, and he – not the question – is regarded as the problem! How is it possible that a situation of this kind develops in our movement?

The answer to this question, one to which the Society never officially responded, is to be found in the psychological defense mechanism described by Dr. H. Dale Baumbach:

Insecure individuals, when faced with a problem which highlights their insecurity, instinctively respond by attempting to destroy that which addresses their insecurity or to banish it to the recesses of the mind.¹³

Awareness of this defense mechanism, it is hoped, will help those readers who are associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses to examine the evidence presented in this work with due consideration and an open mind.

Eventually the Watch Tower Society did attempt to refute the evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date, but this was not done until a special representative of the Governing Body in Sweden had written to the Society asking them to provide an answer to the content of the treatise sent to them, telling them that the author was still waiting for a reply. This representative was the coordinator of the Society’s work in Sweden, Bengt Hanson.

Hanson had paid me a visit on December 11, 1979, to discuss the situation that had developed. During our discussion, he was brought to realize that it was the evidence I had presented to the Society against the 607 B.C.E. date – not me, my motives or attitude – that was the real issue. If the evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date was valid, this was a problem that should be of equal concern to every Witness in the organization. Under such circumstances, my personal attitude and motives were as irrelevant as those of other Witnesses.

As a result of this, early in 1980, Hanson wrote a letter to the Governing Body explaining the situation, telling them that I was still waiting for a reply to the evidence I had brought against their chronology. And so, at long last, nearly three years after my sending them the research material, in a letter dated February 28, 1980, an attempt was made to tackle the question instead of the questioner.

The argumentation presented, however, turned out to be largely a repetition of earlier arguments found in various places in the Watch Tower Society’s literature, arguments which had already been demonstrated in the treatise to be unsatisfactory. In a letter dated March 31, 1980, I answered their arguments and added two new lines of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date. Thus the Society not only failed to defend its position successfully, but the evidence against it also became considerably stronger.

No further attempt to deal with the whole matter was made by the Society until the summer of 1981, when a short discussion of it appeared as an “Appendix” to the book “Let Your Kingdom Come” (pages 186‒189). This latest discussion added nothing new to the earlier arguments, and to anyone who has carefully studied the subject of ancient chronology, it appears to be no more than a feeble attempt to save an untenable position by concealing facts. This is clearly demonstrated in the last chapter of this present work, titled “Attempts to overcome the evidence.” The contents of the Watch Tower Society’s “Appendix,” however, finally convinced me that the leaders of this organization were clearly not prepared to let facts interfere with traditional fundamental doctrines.

It may be noted that while the Society’s officers feel perfectly free to publish any argument in support of their chronology, they have gone to great lengths to try to keep Jehovah’s Witnesses at large in ignorance of the heavy burden of evidence against it. Thus they had not only repeatedly cautioned me not to share my evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date with others, but they have also supported the widespread defamation of any and all Jehovah’s Witnesses who have questioned the organization’s chronology. This mode of procedure is not only unfair towards those who have questioned it; it is also most unfair towards Jehovah’s Witnesses in general. They have a right to hear both sides of the issue and learn all the facts. That is why I decided to publish The Gentile Times Reconsidered.

Interestingly, various arguments have been advanced by representatives of the Watch Tower Society to justify the position that facts and evidence which go contrary to its teachings should not be made known among Jehovah’s Witnesses. One line of reasoning goes as follows: Jehovah reveals the truth gradually through his “faithful and ‘discreet slave” class, whom Christ has appointed “over all his belongings.” (Matthew 24:47 itself through those who oversee the publishing and writing of Watch Tower literature. We should, therefore, wait upon Jehovah – wait, in other words, until the organization publishes “new truths.” Anyone who “runs ahead” of the organization is therefore presumptuous, for he thinks he knows better than “the faithful and discreet slave.”

Such an argument, however, is invalid if the Society’s suppositions regarding Bible chronology are wrong. How so? Because the very concept that it is possible today to identify a “faithful and discreet slave class,” whom Christ, as the “master” in the parable at Matthew 24:45‒47 belongings,” rests unequivocally on the chronological calculation that the “master” arrived in 1914 and made such an appointment a few years later in 1919. If, as will be shown in this work, the Gentile times did not end in 1914, then the basis for claiming that Christ returned in that year disappears, and Watch Tower leaders cannot claim to have been appointed “over all his belongings” in 1919. If this is so, neither can they rightfully claim a divinely‒assigned monopoly on publishing “the truth.”

It should also be noted that it is the “master” of the parable who, on his arrival, decides who is “the faithful and discreet slave,” not the slaves themselves. So, for a group of individuals to claim – in the “master’s” absence – to be “the faithful and discreet slave,” elevating themselves over all the master’s “belongings,” is itself grossly presumptuous. On the other hand, an individual who claims for himself no lofty position can hardly be regarded as presumptuous if he publishes information that contradicts some of the teachings of the Watch Tower Society.

To “wait upon Jehovah,” of course, is the duty of every Christian. Unfortunately, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, like many other apocalyptic movements, has time and again “announced” that the time has come for the fulfillment of God’s prophecies, doing this in each case without regard to God’s own “times and seasons” for their fulfillment. This has been the case ever since the very beginning in the 1870s.

When the leaders of the Watch Tower movement for about 55 years (1876‒1931) persistently taught that Christ had arrived invisibly in 1874, were they setting an example of “waiting upon Jehovah”?

When they taught that the “remnant” of Christ’s church would be changed (1 Thessalonians 4:17 1918, and then again m 1925, did they “wait upon Jehovah”?¹⁴

When they taught that the end of the present system of things would come in 1914, then in 1918‒20, then in 1925, then about 1941‒42, and then again about 1975, were they “waiting upon Jehovah”?¹⁵

If 1914 is not the terminal point of the “Gentile times” as the Watch Tower Society continues to hold, then the numerous current “prophetic” applications stemming from it are additional proofs that the Society still is not prepared to “wait upon Jehovah.” In that light and under such circumstances it seems a bit misplaced to advise others to “wait upon Jehovah.” The one who genuinely wants to wait upon Jehovah cannot simply wait until the leaders of the Watch Tower Society are prepared to do that. If, upon careful consideration of the evidence he comes to the conclusion that the Watch Tower Society has produced, within the framework of its chronology, a clearly arbitrary “fulfillment” of Bible prophecy in our time, then he needs to dissociate himself from the persistent attempts made to impose that arbitrary position on others as required belief. Then he could rightly be said to be prepared to start “waiting upon Jehovah.”

For over a century the Watch Tower publications have been filled with a massive and continuous criticism of the errors and evils of other Christian denominations. Even if this criticism often has been sweeping and superficial, it has not infrequently also hit the target. The Watch Tower literature often has denounced the intolerance shown in the past by various churches against dissident members. “Christendom has had it fanatics – from people who set themselves on fire in political protest to individuals acting intolerantly toward those holding different religious views,” noted The Watchtower of July 15, 1987, page 28. This kind of intolerance found a frightening expression in the Inquisition, which was established by the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century and lasted for over six centuries. The word “Inquisition” is derived from the Latin word inquisition, meaning “examination.” It is briefly described as “a court established by the Roman Catholic Church in order to discover and punish heretics and apostates.”¹⁶ the people under this intolerant clergy rule? The Watchtower of September 1, 1989, explains on page 3:

No one was free to worship as he pleased or to express opinions conflicting with those of the clergy. This clerical intolerance created a climate of fear throughout Europe. The church established the Inquisition to root out individuals who dared to hold different views.

Such statements might give the impression that the Watch Tower Society, in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, acts with tolerance toward members who “hold different religious views” and defends their right to express opinions conflicting with the teachings of the organization. The truth is, however, that this organization takes exactly the same attitude to members holding different religious opinions as did the medieval Catholic Church. “Beware of those who try to put forward their own contrary opinions,” cautioned The Watchtower of March 15, 1986, page 17. In answer to the question why Jehovah’s Witnesses have “disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ,” the Watch Tower Society said:

Those who voice such an objection point out that many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views. . .. However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. . .. Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity.¹⁷

The Watch Tower Society has even established examination courts similar to those organized by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, the only essential difference being that the Society’s “judicial committees” have no legal authority to torture their victims physically. I knew that the conclusions I had reached would eventually cause me to be tried and expelled by such a “court of inquisition,” provided that I did not leave the organization of my own accord before that. But I knew, too, that the consequences in both cases would be the same.

After twenty‒six years as an active Jehovah’s Witness I was now, in 1982, prepared to leave the Watch Tower organization. It was quite clear to me that this would mean a complete break with the whole social world I had been a part of during all those years. The rules of the Watch Tower Society require Jehovah’s Witnesses to cut off all contacts with those who break with the organization, whether this break occurs by excommunication or by a voluntary resignation. I knew that I would not only lose virtually all my friends, but also all my relatives within the organization (of which there were over seventy, including a brother and two sisters with their families, cousins and their families, and so on). I would be regarded and treated as “dead,” even if my physical “execution” would have to be postponed until the imminent “battle of Armageddon,” a battle in which the Witnesses expect Jehovah God to annihilate forever all who are not associated with their organization.¹⁸

For some time I had been trying to prepare myself emotionally for this break. My plan was to publish my treatise as a public farewell to the movement. However, I did not manage to get the material ready for publication before a letter arrived from the Watch Tower Society’s branch office in Sweden, dated May 4, 1982. The letter was a summons to an examination before a “judicial committee” consisting of four representatives of the Society, who had been appointed, the letter said, to “find out about your attitude toward our belief and the organization.”¹⁹

I realized that my days within the organization now were numbered, and that I might not be able to get my treatise ready in time for publication. In a letter to the branch office I tried to have the meeting with the judicial committee postponed. I pointed out that, as they very well knew, the grounds for my “attitude toward our belief and the organization” consisted of the evidence I had presented against the Society’s chronology, and if they genuinely wanted to change my attitude, they had to start with the burden of evidence that was the basis for it. I requested, therefore, that the members of the committee be allowed to make a thorough examination of my treatise. After that we might reasonably have a meaningful meeting.

But neither the branch office nor the four members of the judicial committee showed any interest in the kind of discussion I had proposed, and they did not even comment on the conditions I had stated for having a meaningful meeting with them. In a brief letter they just repeated the summons to the committee examination. It seemed obvious that I was already judged in advance, and that the trial I had been summoned to would only be a meaningless and macabre farce. I therefore chose to stay away from the examination and was consequently judged and disfellowshipped in my absence on June 9, 1982.

Attempting to gain time I appealed the decision. A so‒called “appeal committee” of four new members was appointed, and once again I repeated in a letter the conditions I found reasonable for having a meaningful conversation with them. The letter was not even answered. On July 7, 1982, therefore, the new committee met for another sham trial in my absence, and as expected it just confirmed the decision of the first committee. In both instances the sole “judicial” issue considered obviously was, Did I or did I not agree totally with Watch Tower teaching? The question of whether the reasons for my position were valid was simply treated as irrelevant.

As pointed out earlier, the conclusions arrived at in this work upset the central claims and apocalyptic interpretations of the Watch Tower Society. Such conclusions, therefore, could cause some unrest among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the leaders of the Society clearly feared that their dissemination would disrupt the unity of their flock. I was well aware that my efforts would be interpreted by Watch Tower officials as an attempt to destroy faith and to disrupt the unity of the “true Christian congregation.” But faith should rightly be in harmony with truth, with fact, and this includes historical facts. Thus I felt confident that publishing the facts on the subject at hand would not disturb peace and unity among those who are truly Christians. True unity is founded upon love among them, for love is the “perfect bond of union.” – Colossians 3:14

On the other hand, there is also a false unity, founded, not upon love, but upon fear. Such “unity” is characteristic of authoritarian organizations, political as well as religious. It is a mechanistic unity enforced by the leaders of such organizations who want to maintain their authority and keep control over individuals – a unity that does not depend on truth. In such organizations, individuals relinquish to central authorities their right and responsibility to think, speak, and act freely. Since the evidence and the conclusions that are presented in this work overthrow the authoritarian claims of the Watch Tower Society, the publication of this work may be a threat to the enforced unity within this organization. But the true unity founded upon love among Christian individuals, whose “fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ,” will surely not be affected by this. – John.17:21‒23

Thus, even if the prophetic claims and interpretations of the Watch Tower Society are found to be groundless, nothing of real value will be lost when these things dissolve and disappear. A Christian still has God’s Word, the real source of truth and hope. Christ is still his Lord, his only hope for future life. And he will still enjoy Christian peace and unity, with his Father, with Jesus Christ, and with those individuals on earth who turn out to be his true brothers and sisters. Even if he were to be expelled from an authoritarian religious system because he accepts what he clearly sees to be true, Christ will not forsake him, for he said: “Where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them.” (John 9:30 Matthew 18:20 shall we go without the organization?” is still the same as at the time of the apostles, when Peter said: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life.” (John 6:68 life.”²⁰

During the years that have passed since this research started, I have come to know, personally or by letter, a growing number of Jehovah’s Witnesses at different levels of the Watch Tower organization who have examined thoroughly the question of chronology and independently arrived at the same conclusions that are presented in this volume. Some of these men tried very hard to defend the Society’s chronology before they were forced by the biblical and historical evidence to abandon it. Among such were members of the Watch Tower research committee appointed to produce the Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding. The section on chronology in this work on pages 322 through 348 is still the most able and thorough discussion of Watch Tower chronology ever published by that organization.²¹ wrote the article in question ultimately came to realize that the Society’s 607 B.C.E. date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians could not be defended, and later he abandoned it altogether, with all the calculations and teachings founded upon it. In a letter to me, he stated:

In developing the subject ‘Chronology’ for Aid to Bible Understanding, the Neo‒Babylonian period, extending from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar to the reign of Nabonidus and the fall of Babylon, presented a particular problem. As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we were obviously interested in finding and presenting some evidence, however small, in support of the year 607 B.C.E. as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year. I was well aware of the fact that historians consistently point to a time some twenty years later and that they place the start of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in 605 B.C.E. (his accession year) rather than 625 B.C.E., the date used in Watch Tower publications. I knew that the 607 B.C.E. date was crucial to the Society’s interpretation of the ‘seven times’ of Daniel chapter four as pointing to the year 1914 C.E.

A large amount of research went into the effort. At that time (1968), Charles Ploeger, a member of the Watch Tower headquarters staff, was assigned as an assistant to me. He spent many weeks searching through the libraries of New York City for any sources of information that might give some validity to the date of 607 B.C.E. as the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. We also went to Brown University to interview Dr. A. J. Sachs, a specialist in astronomical texts relating to the Neo‒Babylonian and adjoining periods. None of these efforts produced any evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date.

In view of this, in writing the article on ‘Chronology’ I devoted a considerable portion of the material to efforts at showing the uncertainties existent in ancient historical sources, including not only Babylonian sources but also Egyptian, Assyrian and Medo‒Persian. Though I still believe that a number of the points presented as to such uncertainties are valid, I know that the argumentation was born of a desire to uphold a date for which there was simply no historical evidence. If the historical evidence did, in fact, contradict some clear statement in Scripture I would not hesitate to hold to the Scriptural account as the more reliable. But I realize that the issue is not some contradiction of clear Scriptural statement but contradiction of an interpretation placed upon portions of Scripture, giving to them a meaning that is not stated in the Bible itself. The uncertainties that are to be found in such human interpretations are certainly equal to the uncertainties to be found in chronological accounts of ancient history.²²

Before this introduction is concluded, I would like to thank the many knowledgeable persons all over the world, some of whom were still active Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time the treatise was written, who, by their encouragement, suggestions, criticism and questions have greatly contributed to this treatise. First among these I should mention Rud Persson in Ljungbyhed, Sweden, who participated in the work from an early stage and who more than anyone else assisted in these respects. Other friends of the same background, especially James Penton and Raymond Franz, have been of great help in preparing the book for publication by polishing my English and grammar.

With respect to the ideo‒historical section (chapter one), my contacts with Swedish scholar Dr. Ingemar Linden stimulated my interest and initiated my research in this area. Alan Feuerbacher, Beaverton, Oregon (now in Fort Collins, Colorado) provided important documents for this section. For the chapters on Neo‒Babylonian chronology (chapters three and four) the contacts with authorities on the Babylonian cuneiform texts have been of invaluable help. This applies particularly to Professor D. J. Wiseman in England, who is a leading expert on the Neo‒Babylonian period; Mr. C. B. F. Walker, Deputy Keeper in the Department of the Ancient Near East in the British Museum, London; Professor Abraham J. Sachs in the U.S.A; Professor Hermann Hunger in Austria, who since the death of Abraham Sachs in 1983 is the leading expert on Babylonian astronomical observational texts; Dr. John M. Steele in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Beatrice Andre at the Louvre Museum in Paris. On the exegetical sections (chapters 5‒7), finally, a number of capable linguists and Hebraists willingly shared their expertise, especially Dr. Seth Erlandsson in Vasteras, Sweden; Dr. Tor Magnus Amble and Dr. Hans M. Barstad, both in Oslo, Norway, and Professor Ernst Jenni in Basel, Switzerland.

First of all, however, my thanks go to the God of the Bible, who in the Old Testament from the time of Moses onwards carries the personal name Yahweh or Jehovah, but whom we in the New Testament meet and can approach as our heavenly Father, as this research has been done under constant prayer for his help and understanding. All honor goes to Him, since it is his Word of truth that has been the basis of this study. Although certain religious theories and interpretations were found to be untenable and had to be rejected, his prophetic Word was confirmed, over and over again, during the biblical and historical research connected with the subject under discussion. This faith‒strengthening experience has been a real and lasting blessing to me. My hope is that the reader will be blessed in a similar way.

Carl Olof Jonsson

Goteborg, Sweden, 1982

Revised in 1998 and 2004