The Use and Abuse of Scholarship by The Watchtower Society

         Of all the religious groups in America, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are probably the most zealous missionaries.  Chances are that one will knock on your door of approach you on the street to hand you a Watchtower or Awake magazine.  Most of these missionaries are pleasant and well-groomed individuals, and they would like nothing better than to discuss their literature with you. What these Witnesses don't often know is how poorly researched their literature is.

         The history[i] of the group known today as the Jehovah’s Witnesses begins in the 1870s,[ii] with the activities of Charles Taze Russell, a man often in court defending fantastic claims for items he peddled.[iii]  Today, under the banner of The Watch Tower and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim “7,395,672 Ministers who teach the Bible” (Watchtower statistics).
        Their main doctrines include the obligation to proclaim the true name of God (“Jehovah”) and the advent of the new world, which awaits those who live as faithful Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are probably better known for their abstention from blood transfusions, and for their often-failed predictions of apocalyptic events.[iv]
         Typically, Jehovah’s Witnesses devote a number of hours each week to spreading their message among their neighbors. Jehovah’s Witnesses regard themselves as very knowledgeable about the Bible, and they are usually ready to refer the listener to various biblical texts.  But just as often, they relish referring the listener and reader to a wide variety of respected scientific and scholarly authorities who appear to support what they are saying.[v]
         What is unfortunate is that these nice and sincere individuals are usually not aware that their own literature, all published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society headquartered in Brooklyn, New York, frequently transgresses all the rules of honesty that individual Jehovah’s Witnesses idealize. 
         Indeed, an examination of their publication reveals that the Watchtower has a habit of misquoting or misrepresenting scientific, linguistic, and historical sources to an extent seldom seen among well-established sectarian groups. The following are only a few of numerous examples of misrepresentations of scientific and scholarly sources.
         One of the main beliefs of the Watchtower Society is that Jehovah created the universe in the manner described in Genesis 1.  It denies the validity of all scientific calculations that yield a great age for hominids, and it vehemently opposes evolution.  In essence, Jehovah’s Witnesses are creationists.         
     One of the main textbooks published by the Watchtower Society regarding its creationist beliefs is  Life—How did it get here?  By evolution or by creation? (1985).[vi] The author is anonymous, which is very common in Watchtower publications. 

      Life is replete with consistently blatant misrepresentations of scientific viewpoints. In its discussion of fossils, for example, Life cites an article titled, “Adaptation,” in Scientific American (September, 1978) written by Harvard professor Richard Lewontin, a noted evolutionary theorist. [vii]  According to Life:
“Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms ‘appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.’ He views them as ‘the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.’”[viii]
         A simple check of Lewontin’s article in Scientific American reveals quite the opposite.  It is very clear that Lewontin is describing the general viewpoint of the nineteenth century concerning nature and not his own.  Furthermore, he considers the viewpoint highlighted in the quote above as one that is erroneous and that has been corrected by the work of Darwin and his successors in the twentieth century. 
     In fact, Lewontin’s article itself is devoted entirely to demonstrating how the adaptation of an organism to its environment can be explained by natural, not supernatural, mechanisms.  Indeed, the introductory abstract to the article is quite simple and clear: “The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution.”[ix]
         It is difficult to understand how one can read this abstract and article and attribute a creationist viewpoint to Lewontin.  Lewontin speaks about such a misrepresentation of his evolutionist position in Scientists Confront Creationism:
       "Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended.  For example, when, in article on adaptation, I described the outmoded nineteenth-century belief that the perfection of the creation was the best evidence of a creator, this description was taken into creationist literature as evidence for my own rejection of evolution."[x]
Lewontin adds:
         "Such deliberate misuses of the literature of evolutionary biology, and the transparent subterfuge of passing off the Old Testament myth of creation as if it were creation “science” rather than the belief of a particular religion, has convinced most evolutionists that creationism is nothing but an ill-willed attempt to suppress truth in the interest of propping up a failing institution."[xi]
         On page 96, Life refers to an article written by Robert Gannon in Popular Science as follows:
         “A scientific journal reported on studies showing that ‘dates determined by radioactive decay may be off — not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.’  It said: ‘Man, instead of having walked on the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.’”[xii]

    Again, when one examines the source, one finds that the Watchtower publication has misrepresented the magazine article. Robert Gannon, the author of the article in Popular Science, is describing the point of view of ONE scientist, namely Robert Gentry. 
     Gentry believes that “halos” caused by the radioactive decay of Uranium 238 in coalified wood and mica indicate that the age of the Earth, and of man, is much less than what most scientists calculate.[xiii] 
      But Robert Gannon does not put much credence in this view.  In fact, in the very next paragraph, Gannon says, “Most scientists simply dismiss the idea.  As one physicist told me, ‘You can believe it or not; I don’t.’”[xiv]
        Further indication of the “scientific journal’s” view is the introductory abstract that says: “Now time trackers can use minute samples to date eons-old objects with amazing accuracy.”[xv]
         It is, of course, quite common to cite and describe opposing views in an article.  But it is dishonest to attribute those opposing views to the author or to a publication that simply describes them in order to dismiss them. 
         In fact, the literature of the Watchtower often quotes authors who oppose their views on evolution and other doctrines.  Could one say that the Watchtower believes in evolution merely because a Watchtower publication describes evolution?
         On page 15, Life cites an article, “The Tortoise or the Hare?” by James Gorman in Discover, as follows:
         “The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: ‘Evolution. . . is only under attack by the fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.  Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.’”
         But the article in Discover is not saying that it is evolution that is in question, but rather its precise mechanism and pace. The quoted passage, without the Watchtower’s ellipses, reads as follows:
         “Charles Darwin’s brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious though and forever changed man’s perception of himself.  Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalists Christians, but it is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is a growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”[xvi]
In the following paragraph, the article frames the question more precisely:
         “Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion year old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marketed by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change?  Is Evolution a Tortoise a Hare?  Darwin’s widely accepted view—that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl—favors the tortoise.  But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare.”[xvii]

         Thus, it is quite clear that the article centers on the debate about the pace of the different mechanisms that play a role in evolutionary change.  For Darwin, the dominant mechanism was natural selection, which yields slow and gradual changes in organisms. 
         But for a paleontologist, such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, a mechanism he dubs “punctuated equilibrium” is much better in explaining the rapid changes that appear to occur in the biological history of organisms after a long period with little or no change. 
         The Watchtower’s quote confuses this issue by equating “Darwin’s theory” with evolution itself.  But, of course, nowhere is it suggested that it is evolution that is in question, and the Watchtower simply uses the ellipses in their quotation to hide its misrepresentation.
         The Watchtower Society surely knows that there is no theory more widely accepted in science than evolution.  In fact, an article in the Boston Globe published not long after the Watchtower’s claim, noted that, out of the more than 1.5 million scientists in America, only 700 with academic credentials believe in creationism.[xviii]   In other words, more than 99 percent of all scientists in America affirmed the validity of evolution about the time that the Watchtower made its claim.[xix] 
         Similarly, the Discovery Institute, a main think-tank for the neo-creationist view known as Intelligent Design, could only muster about 700 self-described dissenters in 2007.  As is noted by Ronald Numbers, the prominent historian of creationism, those dissenters would  “represent less than 0.023 of the world’s scientists”[xx] (See Denis R. Alexander and Ronald Numbers, eds., Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins [2010] p. 328).
         Historically, the claim that evolutionary theory is dying is one of the most resilient tropes in creationist literature. After all, in 1963, Henry M. Morris, one of the most prominent creationists in the last century, wrote a book titled, The Twilight of Evolution, in which he declared: “In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism” (pp. 84-85).
         But the fact is that evolutionary has only become more accepted with time, even among evangelical Christians, such as Francis Collins and Peter Enns, the evangelical biblical scholar, who doubts the existence of Adam and Eve. See Evangelicals and Evolution.
         Such a massive scientific support for evolution also accounts for major defeats that creationism has suffered in the federal courts (e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard [1987] and Kitzmiller v. Dover [2005]). Yet, the Watchtower Society continually portrays evolution as a troubled theory that is being abandoned by numerous reputable scientists.

         One may argue that the Watchtower Society is simply assimilating some bad habits of fundamental creationists.  But the Society has a long record of misrepresenting the views of experts in issues other than creationism.  One particular field is in linguistics.
         The Watchtower publishes a translation of the Bible, formally known as New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, that can be best described as “sectarian.”
         Indeed, most denominations publish translations of the Bible that reflect their beliefs to some degree, and I have catalogued some of these biases in The End of Biblical Studies. Nonetheless, by modern scholarly conventions, the Watchtower Society goes to extremes to alter Hebrew and Greek grammar to support their claims.[xxi]
         For example, it is the Watchtower Society’s belief that Jehovah, God’s true name in its doctrine, must have occurred more often in the New Testament than it does in the attested Greek manuscripts.  Though this might be a legitimate contention, the Watchtower Society seeks to restore the name, even when it does not appear in many of the Greek texts that it purports to be translating faithfully.
         Jehovah’s Witnesses also oppose the traditional Christian belief that Jesus is God, and they vehemently oppose any suggestion that the New Testament might have referred to Jesus as God.  The extent to which Jesus was regarded as God in the New Testament is a legitimate debate.  I, for one, don’t think that New Testament authors believed in a Trinity.
         Nonetheless, the Watchtower Society consistently misrepresents well-known grammarians to bolster its argument.  For example, the Watchtower publication, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (citing 1969 edition), tries to prove that the last clause of John 1:1 should read “and the Word was god,” and not “and the Word was God,” as do most modern translations. [xxii]  The latter, of course, would be an outright equation of Jesus (“The Word”) with God himself. You can find the 1969 edition of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation here: 1969 Kingdom Interlinear.
         The Watchtower’s main argument for that rendition seems to be that when the Greek word theos appears without the definite article (ho in Greek in this case = the in English), it should be translated “a god.” Again, this might be a legitimate contention.  But to support this translation, it cites the colossal compendium of New Testament Greek written by A. T. Robertson,[xxiii] one of the most distinguished grammarians of New Testament Greek, as follows:
         “On page 761 Robertson’s Grammar says: ‘Among the ancient writers ὁ Θεός [ho theo-os'] was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods’ So, too, John 1:1, 2 uses ὁ θεὸς to distinguish Jehovah God from the Word [Logos] as god, 'the only begotten god' as John 1:18 calls him.”[xxiv]
         The quotation appears to suggest that Robertson agrees with the Watchtower’s rendition of John 1:1.  The unsuspecting reader’s assumption would naturally be that the New Testament authors are among those “ancient writers” who observe the rule on the use of the definite article described by Robertson.
          But the Watchtower has omitted an important qualification made by Robertson in the following sentences.The pertinent portion reads as follows:
         "Among the ancient writers, ὁ Θεός was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods. Gildersleeve (Syntax, pp. 232-236) gives a full discussion of the subject.  In the N.T., however, while we have πρὸς τὸν θεόν (John 1:1,2), it is far more common to find simply Θεός, especially in the Epistles."[xxv]
         Thus, Robertson is clearly saying that the New Testament DOES NOT follow the custom of other “ancient writers” in omitting the definite article to indicate a lesser or mythological god.  Indeed, the New Testament often uses the Greek theos without the definite article to refer to the Supreme God (Jehovah to Jehovah’s Witnesses).
         Ironically, the Watchtower Society’s own translation is not consistent in following its rule.  In Luke 20:38, for example, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation renders the Greek θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν (theos de ouk estin nekrôn) as “He is a God not of the dead.” 
         Note that even though the Greek word (θεὸς) for God does not have a definite article, the Kingdom Interlinear has capitalized it, something Jehovah’s Witnesses reserve for the Supreme God alone.  In fact, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, commonly known as the Septuagint, also can use theos without definite article when referring to the “Supreme God” (e.g., Ruth 1:16, καὶ ὁ θεός σου θεός μου). So are these Septuagint translators also  "among the ancient writers"?
         In the same Appendix on John 1:1, The Kingdom Interlinear appeals to other versions that agree with its rendition. What is often omitted from such appeals is the poor nature of the translations. Thus, the Watchtower appeals to The New Testament, in an improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation; with a Corrected Text printed in London, 1808.  To the inexperienced layman, it is not at all apparent that that version is simply one based on another English translation.  Secondhand translations are a very poor appeal in scholarship.[xxvi]
          Other times, the Watchtower chooses sources that are obscure, and difficult for their members to check. Consider the reference in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation (p. 1155) to Justus Lipsius’ book, De Cruce: Liber Primus (1629). Supposedly, an illustration taken from Lipsius’ book shows how Jesus was executed—on a stake and not on a cross with a pole and crossbeam, as most modern scholars believe.

         As has been pointed out numerous times, Lipsius actually believed that Jesus was crucified on a cross with four pieces of wood, and not on a stake (Lipsius, Liber Secundus, p. 65: "fuerunt in cruce dominica ligna quattuor").[xxvii]  Lipsius had a separate illustration when discussing the crucifixion of Jesus. The 1985 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear has retreated on its statements about Lipsius, but still retains Lipsius’ illustration as an example of how Jesus was executed.
         In any case, the Watchtower apparently overlooked how the illustration that they chose from Lipsius contradicts The New World Translation.
         The illustration from Lipsius shows a man on a stake, with a SINGLE NAIL piercing both hands placed above his head.  However, in John 20:25, Thomas, the skeptical disciple, says (New World Translation):
“Unless I see in his hands the print of the NAILS and stick my finger into the print of the NAILS and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe” [capitals mine].
         Clearly, the reference to the genitive plural, “of the nails” (τῶν ἥλων), is more consistent with a crucifixion on a pole with a crossbar than with execution on a stake as Lipsius illustrates it. How did Watchtower researchers miss that glaring inconsistency?
         The examples cited above demonstrate that the Watchtower Society misrepresents a variety of sources, including scientists, biblical scholars, and grammarians.  It is difficult to believe that it is accidental.  If the Watchtower Society author(s) read the sources, they could not have failed to quote and represent those sources correctly.  If it is accidental, however, it can only reflect a very poor scholarship on the part of the Society.
      Numerous efforts to inform the Watchtower of these misrepresentations have never received a reply, though successive editions of some of their works show that they have retreated on some issues, something one can see by comparing the 1969 and 1985 editions of the Kingdom Interlinear.[xxviii]
      Otherwise, what could explain such misrepresentations? Raymond Franz, who was a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, wrote some of the articles in Aid to Bible Understanding (1971), the first major Bible dictionary published by the Watchtower Society. His description of the research methods used by the writers are a devastating indictment of how historical findings were often subverted to conform to Watchtower doctrine.
         For example, Franz says that he was the principal writer of the article on “Chronology” in Aid to Bible Understanding, which gives 607 BCE the date for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The overwhelming majority of scholarship places that date at 587/86 BCE. Franz said that he tried to look for scholarly support, but “[w]e found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E.” According to Franz, the date was chosen to support a Watchtower prophecy regarding the end of “Gentile times” in 1914 (Franz, Crisis of Conscience, pp. 28-29).  
         Franz also comments on how individuals with no scholarly training were assigned to write articles in Aid to Bible Understanding. Franz comments: “Those assignments, however, were generally made on the basis of the person’s organizational position...Few of the men had writing experience and fewer still had either the experience, the time, or the library facilities for doing research.”[xxix]
         On this very blog, we have seen how Howard Mazzaferro, a Watchtower sympathizer, often just cuts-and-pastes Watchtower materials or related sources, rather than checking the primary sources to verify the quotes and context.
         Jehovah’s Witnesses are often discouraged from reading opposing views. Sometimes Jehovah’s Witnesses who have visited me refuse to even look at the original sources that were being quoted when I told them that such sources disagreed with their literature. 
         In general, all non-Watchtower literature is automatically suspect because it is considered to be under the control of ungodly forces.  Thus, Witnesses still form an informationally-restricted society, and they seldom have the opportunity to learn of legitimate critiques of their literature and beliefs.
         Most Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t have the scholarly ability, resources, or time to check all the sources being presented to them in Watchtower literature, and the Watchtower researchers seem to be banking on that.
         That situation, of course, is changing rapidly with the establishment of the blogosphere. So, it should not be long before ALL of the misrepresentations, of which I have listed only a few, will be exposed for what they are.

*This is an updated version of my article, “The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society," Free Inquiry 12 (Spring, 1992):28-31.

[i] Much of the history of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has been narrated by conservative Christians with clear theological and polemical interests.  One of the main examples is Walter Martin and Norman Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1974).  Collections of historical documents by and about Jehovah’s Witnesses are provided by Duane Magnani, The Watchtower Files (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985), and by William Cetnar, Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses (Kunkletown, Pa.: Cetnar, 1983). Cetnar and Magnani are former Jehovah’s Witnesses who integrate a conservative Christian polemic in their historical commentary. For a critique of the Watchtower Society written by a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, see Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience: The Struggle between Loyalty and Loyalty to One’s Religion (3rd revised and updated edition; Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1999). A standard academic history may be found in M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of the Jehovah’s Witnesses  (2nd edition; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).
[ii] A specific date for the founding of the group known today as the Jehovah’s Witnesses is difficult to pinpoint.  Martin (p. 13) begins narrating the history from Russell’s organization of a Bible study group in 1870 in Pittsburgh.  Magnani begins with the founding of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1881, while Penton (Apocalypse Delayed, p. 19) dates the incorporation of The Watch Tower and Tract Society to 1884.  The Handbook of Christian Denominations (by Frank S. Mead, and revised by Samuel S. Hill, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985, p. 125) places the founding of Russell’s first Bible Study group in 1872. Most agree that the designation “Jehovah’s Witnesess” dates from 1931.  My essay sometimes uses the simpler “Watchtower” to refer to this organization.
[iii] Contemporary accounts of Russell's legal troubles are provided by The Brooklyn Daily Eagle in articles published on various dates (e.g., February 19, 1912; January 11, 1913; and November 1, 1916).  Reproductions of contemporary materials about Russell may also be found in Cetnar and in Magnani.
[iv] The world was supposed to “end” in 1914, 1925, and 1975, among other dates.  For reproductions of Watchtower literature with unfulfilled predictions see Cetnar and Magnani.
[v] See Reasoning from the Scriptures (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985) for an inside view of the Watchtower’s field tactics
[vi] Life – How did it get here?  By evolution or creation? (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985).
[vii] Richard Lewontin, “Adaptation,” Scientific American (September, 1978), p. 213.
[viii] Life, p. 143.
[ix] Lewontin, Ibid.
[x] Richard Lewontin, “Introduction” in Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, (New York: W. W. Norton &Co., 1983), p. xxiv.
[xi] Lewontin, Ibid.
[xii] Robert Gannon, “How Old Is It?” Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.
[xiii] Robert Gentry’s theories have been critiqued by Stephen Brush, “Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century: Creationists Arguments for a Young Earth,“ in Scientists Confront Creationism, pp. 49-84.  A more specialized critique may be found in S.R. Hashemi-Nezhad, et al., “Polonium halos in Mica,” Nature 278 (1979):333-335. See, more recently, Polonium halos.
[xiv] Gannon, “How Old Is It?,” p. 81.
[xv] Gannon, “How Old Is It?,”p. 76.
[xvi] James Gorman, “The Tortoise and the Hare?”  Discover (October, 1980), p. 88.
[xvii] Gorman, Ibid.
[xviii] Ethan Bronner, “Justices Says States Can’t Order Teaching of Creationism,” Boston Globe (Saturday, June 20, 1987), pp. 1 and 16.
[xix]For some recent popular demonstrations of the validity of evolutionary theory, see Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009); Neil Shubin, Your Inner Fish: The Journey into the 3.5 Billion—Year History of the Human Body (New York: Vintage Books, 2009).
[xx] Denis R. Alexander and Ronald Numbers, eds., Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2010), p. 328.
[xxi] The renowned textual critic of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger, was one of the earliest critics.  See Bruce Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” Theology Today 10 (April, 1953), pp. 65-85. See also, R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982); Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), p. 266ff. Despite the theological bias of some of these critics, many of the specific and general criticisms are legitimate. Other comments, some positive, may be found in F. F. Bruce, The English Bible; A History of Translations (Oxford, 1970), pp. 184-85. For a consistently sympathetic view, see Anthony Byatt and Hal Flemings, ‘Thy Word is Truth’: Essays in Celebration of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1950, 1953) (Malvern: Golden Age Books, 2004), as well as the defenses by Howard Mazzaferro’s on pp. 240-43 of his My Letters at Mazzaferro Letters.
[xxii] The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1969), p. 1159.
[xxiii] A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Lights of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 761.
[xxiv] The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p. 1159
[xxv] Robertson, A Grammar, p. 761.
[xxvi] It is not at all certain that Archbishop Newcome would have assented to the use of his translations to provide the sectarian version printed in 1808.  See Luther A. Weigle, “English Versions since 1611,” in the Cambridge History of the Bible, S. L. Greenslade, ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), vol. 3: p. 366.
[xxvii] My quotation is from Lipsius, Liber Secundus, p. 65, which may be found here: Lipsius quote. I have photocopies of the relevant pages of another edition of Lipsius, where the quote appears in Liber Secundus, p. 46. Lipsius is actually quoting Pope Innocent III, but is clearly adopting that Pope's position. A good discussion, even if tainted by doctrinal tendencies, can be found here with illustrations: Lipsius
[xxviii] The 1985 edition can be downloaded here: 1985 Kingdom Interlinear.
[xxix] Franz, Crisis of Conscience, p. 21.