Introductory Essay 2 – By R.
M. de Vienne
It’s
taken longer to write this volume of Separate Identity than we
anticipated, but as with the two previous books, few of our expectations have stood
up under the light of better research. We believed that a second volume would
complete our research. It has not done so. There will be, assuming we live long
enough to complete it, a third and final volume.
This
volume differs in format from its predecessor. The first volume follows a loose
chronological order. Because of its narrow focus primarily on the years 1879 to
1882, this volume is a series of essays each focusing on an aspect of Watch
Tower transition into a separate, identifiable belief system. There is a looser
chronological order here; and the chapters occasionally overlap each other in
subject matter. You will find some repetition of points. We’ve tried to limit
this, but that it occurs is unavoidable. As before, we elected to present this
history in as much detail as we can, hoping thereby to take our readers into
the spirit of the times. Omission seems to us to be misdirection.
Remainder of this post has been deleted
4 comments:
Thanks for posting this. I still have not been able to read the whole article, and I cannot tell where most of the differences are. But it reads as smooth, interesting and informative as ever. This blog is a treat.
I am constantly amazed at the comprehensiveness of this research. The incredible effort required just to produce the preface is difficult to comprehend, much less an entire series of books. A continuing thank-you from many in my congregation who love your blog, but for reasons that may be difficult to understand are reluctant to post. On behalf of all of us, thank you for shedding light on events and connections that might have seemed to be lost.
Andrew Grzadzielewski
Having already made comments on a previous version of the text, I would like to concentrate on some observations resulting from a careful comparison of this last version of the Introduction with the preceding one.
Firstly, an attentive reading of the part of the text which has likely led to the violent attacks against you, Rachael, that motivated the outraged reaction of Pr. Schulz, shows that you have systematically and exhaustively modified all assertions that could have been considered a tad polemical, or all claims needlessly (?) hurtful ; I noted this in no less than 12 passages of your text, where you added or suppressed either entire sentences or, where appropriate, if only a single word, all of them very judiciously chosen. This willingness for appeasement on your part, as well as your renunciation of throwing barbs (perhaps funny but counterproductive), should be highly praised ; I have to pay tribute with the greatest admiration to your sense of proportion, your sensitivity and your sound judgement so manifest in this instance.
*
Not only did you defuse bombs, but you also added invaluable complements to your Introduction, that takes increasingly the form of a set of fully fledged monographs.
In the first part devoted to a synthetic presentation of the autonomy, the originality and the differences of Charles Russell’s conceptions as compared with the characteristic doctrines of the Adventist movement, we find one important addition about the origins of the speculations on prophetic times and of the day-for-a-year theory.
In the exhaustive study of the Millennialism, a new paragraph on the Restoration of the Jewish nation as it was viewed by both Russell and the Literalists (who abandoned the supersessionism, also called replacement or fulfillment theology), opens up some interesting avenues on the origin and the developments of their conceptions.
*
I seize this opportunity to express my deep gratitude as well as my awe for your prodigious research work, yours and Pr. Schulz’s, and to applaud the efficiency of your cooperation combining an outside and an inside look, both of an unvarying honesty.
(PS. If you agree to pardon me :
- It could be a good idea to restore the first A in Pr. Laurence Iannaccone’s name.
- Did not Snobelen (by the way he got a supernumerary L in footnote 49) connect the Jewish restoration to Literalism rather than Liberalism ? )
Stéphane
I should say that Rachael did NOT alter her work [or her opinions] because of adverse comments here or in emails. She revised her work to make it accurate and to the point. We will bend to accuracy, never to pressure.
Post a Comment