I am open to articles on any facet of Russell era Watch Tower history. Articles must be footnoted to original sources using the following formats:
Books: Author, Title, publisher, place, date, page.
Magazine articles: Author if known, article title, name of magazine, date, page.
Newspaper articles: Author if known, article title, name of newspaper as The Austin, Texas, Times, date.
NO Exceptions. I will not publish something that does not follow the formats above. I'm too sick to reformat your work.
Articles MUST be in Times New Roman, 12 point, fully justified.
Controversial is okay as long as you support your argument with proof. Speculation is not wanted.
3 comments:
I've got a question, and I thought that it might be a suggestion for an article. From a strictly historical and neutral point of view, is it correct to say that Jehovah's Witnesses were known as Bible Students in times of Russell? Is it correct to claim that 75% of Bible Students left the group under Rutherford and that Jehovah's Witnesses are just an offshoot of Bible students?
This is a tricky question to answer since likely one’s perspective preempts one’s conclusion. But I shall have a go at sharing my thoughts as a Jehovah’s Witness attempting to be fair and with a leaning toward history, in the hope that eventually someone obliges with a scholarly article that fits Semer’s suggestion.
From a strictly historical and neutral point of view, it is correct to say that Jehovah's Witnesses were known as International Bible Students in the time of Russell. But it should be noted that not all International Bible Students remained such between 1917-1931, and so it would be incorrect to imply that all Bible Students became Jehovah’s Witnesses.
One reason for taking on the name ‘Jehovah’s witnesses’ was to distinguish the IBSA from others who retained the name of Bible Students but had branched off to become members of the Pastoral Bible Institute, the Layman’s Home Missionary Movement, the Stand Fasters, the Elijah Voice Movement or the Dawn Bible Students. Each claimed to follow the authentic teachings of Russell, and retained his core teachings. Yet even during his lifetime, Russell’s thoughts on a number of subjects developed, so it is probably unsurprising that upon his death each of the various Bible Students differed in their understanding on how Russell would have reacted had he still been present. The understandings of the IBSA developed also after his death, as indeed they had too since, of course, not all Russell’s expectations were realised.
As regards numbers and proportions, these are easy to claim but hard to substantiate. The IBSA did not keep a roll call of dedicated members, so indications of decline or growth were initially dependant on Memorial attendance figures. Those I have seen suggest an initial period of decline/stagnation. How can this be reconciled with the fact that Rutherford himself acknowledged that significant numbers left the IBSA over the years? Several of the dissenting Bible Student groups felt the harvest had been largely completed by Russell, and hence their early momentum wasn’t maintained. Retaining the structure of Russell’s self-governing ecclesias these lacked the desire and inclination to become centrally organized. In contrast, post-WWI the IBSA increasingly looked toward Brooklyn for direction and became a movement in which every member acquired an active ministry, with combined participation providing a new way of measuring organizational advancement and progress. Consequently, it gained an influx of new members that matched and eventually exceeded those leaving.
As regards the suggestion that Jehovah's Witnesses are just an “offshoot of Bible students”, I would reason that if we accept that Russell initiated and used the IBSA, then regardless of their changes during and post-war, those that later left the IBSA are the offshoots.
I would agree with Gerry's comment - although like Gerry, I am a Witness, I hope my argument is relatively objective, not partisan.
I believe that a crucial factor was which organization continued to edit and publish The Watch Tower. The Society was named after the magazine, a sign of the magazine's importance. A common thread from the new covenant articles in 1907, through Birth of the Nation in 1925, the series on the resurrection in 1964-5, through to some due to be studied in future weeks - Jehovah's Witnesses can say that major items of their faith have been addressed in the same magazine since 1879. (Let me stress that out of respect for Bruce and his blog rules, I make no argument here as to the content of any of these articles, I simply state a fact.)
It is probably beyond my skill to write a scholarly article on that topic. I have been working on some shorter biographical articles, which once I flesh out and format I may submit.
Post a Comment