The Watchtower society teaches that it is wrong to quote an authority out of context.
This statement appeared in the publication Live With Jehovah’s Day in Mind:
“Who of us has not said or done something unkind and then later been confronted about it? We likely felt embarrassed or somewhat guilty. Such feelings can lead a person to deny an error or offer some “explanation” that twists the truth in order to excuse the wrong or make it appear correct. Or in an uncomfortable situation, we might be tempted to mention only selected details, editing them to color the facts. Hence, what we say might technically be true yet give a totally different impression. While this may not be flagrant lying, such as is common in the world today, is it really ‘speaking truth each one with his neighbor,’ or brother? (Ephesians 4:15, 25; 1 Timothy 4:1, 2) When a Christian phrases things in such a way that he inwardly knows is leading brothers to a wrong conclusion, to believe something that is really not true, not accurate, how do you think God feels?” (Live With Jehovah’s Day in Mind pg 115 par 9)
Another very explicit statement was made in an older publication used to train Witnesses in speaking and teaching:
“As reasons for statements you make you can often quote someone who is accepted as an authority. That simply means that if he said it, it must be true because he is recognized as one who knows. That makes it reason enough for believing it. The supreme Authority in this field is, of course, Jehovah God. Therefore, quoting a text from the Bible in support is evidence enough to prove a point. This is called “testimonial” evidence because it consists of “testimony” from an acceptable witness.
10 In producing testimonial evidence you must be certain that your witness will be acceptable to your audience. If you use human authorities, be sure of their background and how they will be viewed. Many persons will accept the Bible as divine Authority, but some view it as man’s work and therefore not absolute in authority. In such cases you might have to resort to other evidences or perhaps establish the authenticity of the Bible first.
11 A word of caution. All evidence must be used honestly. Do not take a quotation out of context. Make certain that what you say is exactly what the authority you are quoting had in mind to say.” (Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook pg 155 pars 9-11)
A similar statement appeared in the updated version of this publication entitled: Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education:
“In addition to checking the reliability of the sources, consider carefully how you plan to use the information. Make sure that your use of quotations and statistics harmonizes with the context from which they are taken.” (Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education pg 225 par 2)
David Splane in the November 2017 Broadcast made the following statement:
“When a writer submits an article for publication he is expected to supply references from reputable sources to back up the facts he has included in his article. And our research department will use those references to check the accuracy of everything.
Reliable, respected sources. What do we mean by a reliable source? Well, first of all, we go with encyclopedia’s, books, magazines, and then newspapers, basically in that order. We prefer encyclopedia’s over books, books over magazines, magazines over newspapers generally because newspaper editors have a hard time checking their facts, they have a very limited time in which to check their facts. So, even encyclopedia’s and books though get updated. So we have to go with the latest edition of those. We have to make sure that our sources are reliable. Now when our writer quotes an expert, our researchers will ask: “Who’s this expert?” What’s his reputation? Is he working for a particular organization? Does this organization have an agenda? Is it a special interest group? If we find that the goals of the organization are questionable we won’t use the quote. Even if it’s a really good quote. Now, suppose that a writer wants to quote something from a book. In the reference material he will supply a photocopy of the quote in the book but very often he will give us two or three pages before the quote and two or three pages after as well. And that way our researchers can examine the quote in context. To make sure that what we are saying in print is really what the author had in mind. For example, an evolutionist might make a statement that on the surface appears to support creation. Or an atheist might make a statement that seems that he believes in God. But when you examine the quote in context you’ll realize that that is not what the author had in mind at all. We would never deliberately distort a quotation. We try very hard to use all of our quotations in context. Now it’s important to keep up with the very latest research. Something that was stated years ago as a fact may have been disproved. The reason why is obvious. Someone may spend his entire life researching a very limited point in history, a very small point in history. And of course if you spend so much time researching he’s going to uncover things. And so, it’s not surprising that from time to time we have to adjust our view of some historical points. We have to check, check, check!”
In Jeremiah’s prophecy we read this statement:
“For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’ (Jeremiah 29:10)
In connection with this statement, the June 2012 Awake magazine quotes “a leading Israeli archaeologist, Ephraim Stern:
“Did the Israelites remain captive in Babylon for 70 years as the Bible foretold? Note the comments of a leading Israeli archaeologist, Ephraim Stern. “From 604 B.C.E. to 538 B.C.E.—there is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation. In all that time, not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled.” The so-called gap in which there was no occupation or resettling of conquered territory corresponds closely to Israel’s exile in Babylon from 607 to 537 B.C.E.—2 Chronicles 36:20, 21. (Awake June 2012 pg. 14)
The underlining and bolding shows the quote from Ephraim Stern.
Of course, the purpose of the quote is to support the society’s chronology: That Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 607 BCE, and that the land was completely empty for the next 70 years (from 607-537).
Here is the context of Mr. Stern’s quote taken from Biblical Archaeology Review November-December 2000:
“The Babylonian Gap
The Assyrians and Babylonians both ravaged large parts of ancient Israel, yet the archaeological evidence from the aftermath of their respective conquests tells two very different stories. Why? In 721 B.C.E., the Assyrians brought an end to the northern kingdom of Israel. A little more than a century later, the Assyrians themselves suffered defeat at the hands of the Babylonians, who became the world’s new superpower. The Babylonians were no less bent on mayhem and destruction than the Assyrians had been: In 586 B.C.E., they burnt Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, bringing an end to the southern kingdom of Judah and 400 years of Davidic rule. As destroyers, the Assyrians and Babylonians had much in common. But the periods that followed their conquests could not be less alike. While the Assyrians left a clear imprint of their presence in Palestine, there is a strange gap after the Babylonian destruction. Call it an archaeological gap, if you wish. The savage Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem is well documented both in the Bible (in the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations) and in the archaeological record. When Nebuchadnezzar first placed the city under siege in 597 B.C.E., the city quickly capitulated, thereby avoiding a general destruction. But in response to a revolt by Judah’s King Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar dispatched an army that, after an 18-month siege, captured and destroyed the city in 586 B.C.E. The evidence of this destruction is widely confirmed in Jerusalem excavations. On his first swing through Judah, Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed much of Philistia—Ekron, Tel Batash, Tell Jemmeh, Ruqeish and Tel Sera‘. Particularly devastated was Ashkelon, which the Babylonians sacked in 604 B.C.E. Similar evidence of Babylonian destruction can be found throughout the Beersheba Valley, in the Aravah (the valley south of the Dead Sea) and in the Jordan River valley. From south to north, we can trace the effects of Babylonian might—at Tell el-Kheleifeh on the coast of the Red Sea, at Ein Gedi on the shore of the Dead Sea, and further north at Dan, the source of the Jordan River. The same is true in excavations at major northern sites—Hazor; Megiddo, overlooking the Jezreel Valley; and Dor, on the Mediterranean coast—and in central Judah, where, in addition to Jerusalem, we may look at Ramat Rahel and Lachish, among other sites. But the strange thing is that above the remains left by these destructions, we find no evidence of occupation until the Persian period, which began in about 538 B.C.E. For roughly half a century—from 604 B.C.E. to 538 B.C.E.—there is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation. In all that time, not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled. This is true even of the old Assyrian fortresses along the Way of the Sea (the Via Maris); they were reoccupied only in the Persian period, as shown by the recently excavated fort at Rishon le-Zion.”
A few things can be pointed out here. First, you will notice that Stern does not hold to a 607 BCE date for the destruction of Jerusalem. According to him this did not take place until 586 BCE. Also notice, that in 604 BCE Stern reports that the destruction brought by Babylon was not limited solely to Israelite cities but those of the Philistines and Assyria as well. The point he is making is the 604 BCE to 538 BCE span of time is the entire period of Babylonian dominance over all the nations from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s capture and destruction of Ashkelon until the fall of Babylon to the Persians. During that time, the Babylonians did not resettle any of these cities but left them waste. Since he states that Nebuchadnezzar does not begin to come against Jerusalem until 597 BCE (seven years later) it is clear from his dates that Stern is saying this gap in archaeological evidence included the time while kings were still ruling in Jerusalem. The society confuses this with the period of time they believe the Jews were exiled in Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem.
As quoted by the Society, Stern said: “not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled.” This gives the impression that these cities were not resettled by Israelites. But the complete gap in evidence is for that suggesting Babylonian not Israelite occupation in the conquered territories. He did not mean to say that the entire area was left empty. Rather, as regards the conquered peoples, wherever the Babylonians wrought destruction, those places usually stayed that way till the reign of the Persians. In support of that, here is Ephraim Stern writing in the May/June 2002 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review:
“I have never claimed that the land was entirely emptied, and it is very likely that, here and there, rural settlements remained, as attested in surveys and excavations. But what political or other significance can a defeated population have when it has no significant urban centers, when its religious center has been burned down, when its primary trade routes no longer exist, and when it no longer has its own government?
Although I have not claimed that the land was entirely abandoned, distinctions must be made between fundamentally different population densities. When my family arrived in the Land of Israel in 1800, for example, there were 300,000 inhabitants on both sides of the Jordan. Today there are some 13-14 million people living there. Still, it cannot be said that the land was empty in 1800 — only that it was sparsely populated”.
Does this mean the Bible is wrong? No. What the society does not reveal is that another possible translation of Jeremiah’s statement is as follows:
“For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years for Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’ (Jeremiah 29:10)
This rendering shifts the focus of the 70 years from being the period of time of Jerusalem’s bondage to being the period of time of Babylon’s dominance over all the nations. This perfectly harmonizes with the archaeological information provided by Stern. However, if the society were to accept this translation it would mean they would have to admit that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607. This would upset the entire chronological structure leading to 1914 when Jesus is said to have been enthroned as king.
According to Splane:
“Now it’s important to keep up with the very latest research. Something that was stated years ago as a fact may have been disproved. The reason why is obvious. Someone may spend his entire life researching a very limited point in history, a very small point in history. And of course if you spend so much time researching he’s going to uncover things. And so, it’s not surprising that from time to time we have to adjust our view of some historical points. We have to check, check, check!”
In an article entitled: When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? – Part Two, the Watchtower admits:
At present, the majority of secular historians believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E. (The Watchtower November 1, 2011 pg. 27)
Will the society adjust their view of this period of history? Only time will tell.