For a separate project

I need a good translation of this.

Watch Tower and related letters.

I need as many letters to and from the Watch Tower Society sent between 1890 and 1920 as can be found. Please scan any you have and forward them to me.

Have the World War One era Chief Censor's files in the Canadian archives been microfilmed, photocopied, or scanned? I need copies.

Finished Mystery

When Finished Mystery was published several others produce their own commentary on Revelation. I need a list of titles and pdf scans if they're available. 

Expectations

Periodically we’ve had to restate “the rules,” or state our expectations, or a combination of both things. It is time for another, similar post.

First the “usual stuff”: This is a history blog, not a place for theological debate. It is not a place for wild speculation, obnoxious comments, or any similar thing. The first rule here is: Respect your fellow posters and respect the blog editors. If you fail to abide by this first rule, you will disappear from the blog. Do not criticize another’s religion. This is not the place for it. Do not presume things about others who comment here. Do not include your presumptions in blog posts. Some things simply are none of our business, either here or off the blog.

This blog’s older posts remain as a resource. Many who do not leave comments use it as such. Be aware that research improves over time, or it should. Before you use anything from this blog, verify it. Do your due diligence. It pains me to see your essay, book, or article refer to this blog and see that you relied on some obscure, probably dated bit that appeared decades ago.

More seriously, I may have sent you part of our work, pages from volume two, or even volume three of Separate Identity. An institutional writing committee has seen in rough draft the majority of volume two. Rough drafts are not reliable, or may not be. I tell that to a few of those to whom I send work. Some have a long standing habit of misusing or not using footnotes. Some of those visit this blog on a regular basis. If you intend to use my work, I expect you to footnote to it, and I expect you to do it in proper academic format, not in the haphazard formats you usually use. It is easy to format in one of the accepted styles. If in doubt, consult the Chicago Manual of Style. [I’m addressing a specific set of writers who should see themselves in this paragraph.]

If I tell you that a photo that will appear in volume two is used by permission of the family that owns it, that means YOU do not have similar permission unless you contact the family yourself. Photos that appear on this blog are not always in the public domain. Using one without permission is unethical. And as stated before, the contents of this blog are copyrighted.

If you feel free to ask me questions, (I’m assuming you’re one of those with whom I regularly exchange emails) I expect you to show the same consideration I show you. If I answer your email promptly, I expect you to answer mine with the same alacrity.

I expect that your blog comments will be on topic. An example of a post being off topic is a fairly recent one where Rachael’s work was rejected because of what someone else wrote. The comment was personal, and out of order. (This has also happened to me, though not recently.) Do not blame us for someone else’s opinion. If you object to a statement, frame your objection in such a way that it addresses the person who wrote it, not the person who quoted it.

I do not expect you to agree with everything I write. If you disagree, state your reason and give me some proof. Without a clear reason backed by proof, all you have is an opinion. We’re big boys and girls here, or we’re supposed to be. If you think something here insults your religion, ask yourself if it is factual. Your opinion based on your limited personal experience is not a persuasive fact.

Asking questions in the comment trail is acceptable, though I expect you to do your own research first. Early in my career I found myself being used as an encyclopedia. I’m not one. I learned to ask my students: “Where have you looked? What did you find? Where will you look next?” After we progressed through these questions, I might suggest a source. Apply this guidance to yourself before you ask a question here. If you make no progress, then ask your question.

I expect you to use direct, simple sentences when commenting. If you pad comments with the evasive writing style that characterizes some nationalities and many academics, you will set my teeth on edge. Take responsibility for your opinions and statements. Failure to do so is exactly the same as blaming your sister for raiding the cookie jar when you put her up to it.

Do not email me or call my phone. A limited number of blog visitors have my permission to email. You’re probably not one of them. [If you’re already exchanging emails with me, you obviously have my permission to do so.] I’m not going to share personal information via email. I post some nonsense comments about family on my twitter account. I mostly follow a few interested in this blog and some who write on other topics. If you wish, you may follow me, but I expect you to behave well there too. My ID is @SchulzBw.

Facebook

Rachael and I have posted this before. Despite our requests this continues.

Do Not Link to this Blog Through FACEBOOK. Not now, not ever.

Transcribed Russell Letter

April 5, 1906.

To the dear Pilgrim Brethren, co-laboring in the Master’s service under the auspices of
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

            Without casting the slightest reflection upon any of you, and merely having in view the fact that no one in “the evil day” mentioned by the Apostle, and that we may be certain that our Adversary will be more than ever alert to injure the cause of truth and its servants, we are proposing to each and all of the brethren here by addressed that each shall bind himself by a vow to the Lord, which we believe will prove helpful, strengthening, and be in some measure a fortification or safe-guarding of the interests we have pledged our lived to serve. We are not requiring that this vow be made to each other, but to the Lord; nevertheless, we will be pleased to hear from each one who receives this letter if he does take the vow in the name and in the strength of the Lord. Furthermore, he fact that we have taken such a vow may prove helpful to others not only in the Pilgrim service, but out of it – yea, amongst all of the Lord’s people with whom we are in contact – not by public profession, but whosoever it would seem wise and proper by a private one.

            By way of starting the matter, by was of encouraging others to see that the vow proposal is in full harmony with our original surrender of ourselves, and all of our earthly rights to the Lord, and the service of his cause, and by way of suggesting that this is another means by which we may “bind the sacrifice to the horns of the altar” the writer hereby informs you all that he himself has made this vow to the Lord.

            The vow is: “Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. May thy rule come into my heart more and more, and thy will be done in my mortal body. Relying on the assistances of thy promised grace to help in every time of need, through Jesus Christi our Lord, I register this vow. Daily will I remember at the throne of heavenly race the general interests of the harvest work, and particularly the share which I myself am privileged to enjoy in that work, and the dear co-laborers at the Bible House, Allegheny. I vow to still more carefully, if possible, scrutinize my thought and words and doings, to the intent that I may be the better enabled to serve thee, and thy dear flock. I vow to thee that I will be on the alert to resist everything akin to Spiritism and Occultism, and that remembering that there are but the two masters I shall resist these in all reasonable ways, as being of the Adversary. I further vow that, with the exception of my wife, I will at all times and in all places conduct myself toward those of the opposite sex in private exactly as I would do with them in public – in the presence of a congregation of the Lord’s people, and as far as possible I will avoid being in the same room with any female alone, unless the door to the room stand wide open.”

            With warmest greetings to you all, and prayers for the Lord’s continued blessing
upon you all, I subscribe myself,

Your brother and servant in the Lord,

C. T. Russell.

Afterword

Start, partial. For comment. So please do so.

Afterword

Doctrinal Evolution and Prophetic Failure  

            Through 1880 and 1881 Russell grew in confidence as a writer, or at least as an outliner of articles he left for his wife to put in final form. It was a period of doctrinal restatement, and occasionally one of refinement. In one of his dialogue-format articles he wrote:

God’s word is “new every morning and fresh every evening.” In this respect it differs from all other books and, undoubtedly it is a fountain of living waters (truths) from the fact that it contains special dispensational truths, as well as general truth. Thus it is a great storehouse from which the Lord’s servants are to bring forth “things new and old,” that the household of faith may have meat in due season.” I seem to see in a clearer light than ever before, the present condition of the nominal church and its future.[1]

            Russell defined himself – and Watch Tower adherents – as dispensationalists. [We demonstrated in one of the introductory essays, Dispensationalism did not originate with Darby but significantly predates him.] For Russell, this meant that scriptural understanding appropriate to the Last Times was due. However, none of Russell’s ‘clearer’ understanding was new or original to him in any way, but it was long established doctrine among millennialists. He did not attribute his “clearer light” to anyone because he saw it as Biblical truth, derived from that source alone. This is not exceptional. Few English language commentators did anything else. It was the German and Dutch expositors who referred to the work of others, and we cannot prove that Russell read any of them, even in English translation. It would lighten a historian’s load of he had.

            Never the less, Russell tells us that his theology was not set in stone with his separation from Barbour. He did not remain a Barbourite at heart. And he read widely. The “clearer light” he saw was adopted from standard prophetic expositions. In the article quoted above he identified the great red dragon as the Roman Catholic Church. This wasn’t ‘new’ to anyone, but was doctrine among many Protestants for centuries.

            In volume one of Separate Identity we pointed to the prevalence of prophetic interest in Pittsburgh, naming Russell’s pastor as one who promoted this. Within Russell’s religious circle was William James Reid, pastor of pastor of the United Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh. We do not know that Russell read Reid’s lectures on The Revelation, but he certainly read something similar. Reid said that none of his thought was original, naming his sources. His view of the Great Red Dragon of the Apocalypse was echoed in Russell’s writing as was his view of the composite beast with the Leopard’s body. There are differences, but all differences with Reid find correspondences with other expositors.

            Watch Tower adherents were often familiar with commentaries on the prophecies. The Allegheny Study Group spent considerable time reading them, especially when they considered Restitution [Restored Paradise] doctrine. Russell selected from existing commentaries those thoughts which he believed most closely represented the Bible’s meaning. When he met Barbour he was introduced to a prophetic framework based on the Bible’s prophetic numbers. Almost none of this was new to Russell; probably the only ‘new’ thing was Barbour’s “Israel’s Double” argument that asserted that there was a time parallel between events in ancient times and modern times.

            We should state too that an online encyclopedia of doubtful worth, at least when it comments on prophecy-based movements, is wrong when it suggests that [continue]

            Now to return to our original discussion, the 1880s were a period of investigation into prophetic subjects, and in various ways Russell suggested that his understanding of them was incomplete. Reporting on his 1881 visit to Lynn, Massachusetts, he wrote:

I spoke on the subject of this same chapter to the name-less little company of “this way,” in Lynn, Mass., and concluded my remarks by telling them that I had never seen a satisfactory explanation of the 666. And, though I thought I had given a correct analysis of the symbols of the chapter, yet I could not claim it to be wisdom, since I could not interpret the number. I suggested, however, that if ours be the correct understanding of the time in which we are living – the “harvest” of the age – and if our general application of these symbols be correct, the number should soon be understood. I urged examination on the subject by all, for the Lord is sometimes pleased to give wisdom through the weakest of his children. “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained praise.”[2]

            If we can accept a statement found in the August 1, 1917, Watch Tower, he remained dissatisfied with his research up to near his death: “Brother Russell often spoke about writing the Seventh Volume [of Studies in the Scriptures], and one of his last utterances about it was to the effect: ‘Whenever I find the key, I will write the Seventh Volume; and if the Lord gives the key to someone else, he can write it’ – or words to that effect.”[3] The problem here – at least for a historian – is that this testimony lacks other support. Still, I do not doubt its accuracy. No-one questioned it, though many were vocal in opposition to the seventh volume. It was entitled The Finished Mystery. The title was derived from Revelation 10:7: “But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” (AV)

            Doctrinal developments in the 1880s were diverse, but always connected to their understanding of prophecy. Three major doctrinal changes, and a few minor ones, come from this period. Two of the major changes came before 1881 and the other after. Each change caused controversy.

Parousia (παρουσία)

            That Christ would return invisibly was believed by many before Russell and Barbour adopted the idea. We’ve detailed that elsewhere in this series. Russell came to the idea through Seiss’ Last Times. Barbour was already familiar with the idea, but didn’t adopt it until Benjamin Keith promoted it. All of this we’ve documented before. As did many, they believed in a two-stage Second Advent. Christ would come invisibly, requiring a ‘sign’ to detect it. In time he would become visible for ‘judgments.’ Russell’s explanation as found in Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return was: “We believe the scriptures to teach, that, at His coming and for a time after He has come, He will remain invisible; afterward manifesting or showing Himself in judgments and various forms, so that ‘every eye shall see him.’” The ‘every eye’ quotation comes from Revelation 1:7. Russell footnoted that text, explaining that the verse “does not necessarily teach that that every eye will see Him at the same moment.”[4]

            They expected Christ to become visible at least to some in or near 1881, but constant and considerable discussion among Watch Tower adherents modified that belief. Barbourites were tending to discount their shared παρουσία doctrine, drifting back to expecting a visible presence only. A change in Watch Tower belief led to arguments, and Barbour called the new doctrine “spiritualism.”

           

Image

First Printing of Object and Manner

            The discussion became public through an article by Lizzie Allen appearing in the May 1880 issue. Written in response to Barbour’s claims to have uncovered a “clean” theology, his term for his ventures into esoteric belief systems, Allen focused on the sign of Christ’s presence, and the difference in viewpoint between Watch Tower adherents and Barbourites.  She referenced Matthew 24:3, presenting a bastarized quotation based on the Emphatic Diaglott, a Greek-English interlinear: “What shall be the sign of Thy parousia, and of the end of the world?” Jesus answer showed, she wrote, “the need of a sign.”   Jesus warned (Verses 4-5) that many would claim to be the messiah, deceiving man. Allen’s claim was that “a sign will enable those who obey this injunction to discern between the false and the true.”

            This was a basic point, preliminary to other more important thoughts. A “sign” was needed because “of the obscurity which marks the period of his return.” Christ’s presence was not to generate,

physical demonstrations as shall make all aware of it. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the presence of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were  before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall also the presence of the Son of man be, (Vers. 37-39.) All things will indeed continue as from the beginning. How then will the church be aware of His presence, except by a sign?

            The sign was given only to those who obeyed Christ’s commands, “and these cannot show it to the unfaithful.”

            Allen paraphrased Matthew 24:23-28, which reads according to the Authorized Version:

At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.  For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. ”So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

            In her view the ‘lightning” was not, and could not be, natural light, “else His presence would not be likened to the days that were before the flood.” She saw it as spiritual light, “divine truth.”  A “great and wonderful unfolding of truth is all that the bible gives us a right to expect during the presence of the Son of man, and before translation,” she wrote.[5] This was meant as a refutation of the assertion of some Barbourites that Jesus would appear to his servants before heavenly resurrection. It was not a rejection of a two-stage parousia, but it planted the seeds for that. If one accepted her arguments, then one understood that Christ’s presence was totally invisible.

            She rejected Barbourite belief based on 1 John 3:2: “It  doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” If ‘the saints’ do not know Jesus appearance until they are resurrected, then Christ would not appear to humans in advance. She appealed to Colossians 3:4, writing:

Again, when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory. (Col. 3:4). Hence, we urge on those who are “looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” the Savior's command, “Take heed let no man deceive you.” The light of truth made plain by the Spirit, is the only promised guide, while here we wait. And this to us, is far more convincing than any physical manifestation could be.

            The fuller implications of this article are apparent. It set off discussions that did not immediately make it to The Watch Tower. Two of the movement’s principals and some of its new clergy adherents had some familiarity with Koiné Greek [1^st Century commonly spoken Greek]. The dust started to settle after a behind scenes discussion of the Greek text of Revelation 1:7 which says of Christ’s return that “Every eye shall see him,” Russell summarized their conclusions in the September 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower. Entitled “Optomai,” a common transliteration of the verb to see, the article summarized usages:

The Greek word Optomai rendered, shall see, in Rev. 1:7. – “Every eye shall see him,” and rendered, shall appear, in Heb. 9:28 “To them that look for Him shall he appear a second time,” does not always mean to see with the eye. It rather signifies attend and recognize. Illustrations of its meaning attend: The priests and elders answered Judas; “See (Optomai--attend) thou to that.” Matt. 27:4. Again, Pilate said, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see (optomai – attend) ye to it.” Vs. 24. Also the word look in Acts 18:15. The general signification of the word however, is recognize ...

Again, Jesus said to Mary concerning Lazarus' resurrection, “Said I not that thou shouldst see (optomai) the glory of God? John 11:40. Mary's eyes saw no glory but she did see Lazarus raised, and in the power thus displayed she recognized the glory of God.

Again “All flesh shall see (optomai – recognize) the salvation of God.” Luke 3:6. In the light of these illustrations of the use of the word we can realize that there may be but little seeing of The Christ on the part of the world with the eye. See how similar is the last illustration with the first text quoted – “every eye” and “all flesh” shall recognize Him as the salvation of God.[6]

            This was not a novel interpretation. Others asserted this. And it is all within the word’s definition. Walter Roy Goff [1877-1953], a post-millennialist Lutheran clergyman, used the same points to support his views, writing:

[T]he four main passages which are supposed by many people to mean that we shall see with corporeal eyes the Lord's return have about them abundant reason for any careful interpreter to say they do not contain such literal meaning. And if this is so, then the disciples did not expect a visible return of their Lord after the statement of the men in white apparel (Acts 1:11), as some assert ... . And those today, who build up their argument for a visible return on these four passages and others like them, must be wrong, especially since there are definite passages denying a visible coming, (Luke 17:22), “Ye shall desire, _{* * * *} but ye shall not see,” (John 16:10), “I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more,”[7]

            This discussion became settled doctrine with the publication of Food for Thinking Christians. If there was indefiniteness in Allen’s article, something much for pointed in Russell’s article, and a definite doctrinal statement in Food. Quoting or paraphrasing Hebrews 12:14; 1 John 3:2; and Ephesians 1:17 but without citing them, Russell wrote:

How will He come again? Briefly stated, we believe the Scriptures to teach that our Lord will never again appear as a man; that at his second coming he will be invisible to mankind; that none will ever see him except the Church: “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord;” that the Church will not see him until changed from natural to spiritual bodies; that then “we shall see him as he is” [not as he was], for “we shall be like him” [not he like us, as at the first advent]. But while none are to see him with their natural eyes, all are to recognize his presence and his power (“the eyes of their understanding being opened”). Hence we read: “Every eye shall see (optomai – recognize) him”[8]

            This doctrinal transition brought controversial comments from Barbour, but that conflict is subject matter for volume three of Separate Identity. As clergy outrage intensified after 1895, the Watch Tower invisible presence doctrine was interminably criticized and often misrepresented. This continued through the 20^th Century and into the present century. Consider Walter Martin’s comment:

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim scholarship for this blanket translation of parousia, yet not one great scholar in the history of Greek exegesis and translation has ever held this view. Since 1871, when “Pastor” Russell produced this concept, it has been denounced by every competent scholar upon examination.

The reason this Russellite rendering is so dangerous is that it attempts to prove that parousia in regard to Christ’s second advent really means that His return or “presence” was to be invisible, and unknown to all but “the faithful.”[9]

            This is a polemicist’s poor research and misrepresentation. His misstatements vary from minor to significant. The 1871 date is wildly wrong, something he could easily have known when he wrote. Russell did not originate the concept, but as we’ve shown elsewhere, it has a long history. He suggests that no “great” Greek-language scholar ever accepted a uniform translation of παρουσία as presence. One supposes that any scholar that disagreed with Martin would not have been ‘great’ in his eyes, including Joseph Rotherham, who noted in the appendix to his translation: “In this edition the word parousia is uniformly rendered ‘presence’ (‘coming,’ as a representative of this word, being set aside). The original term occurs twenty four times in the N. T. [He lists all the verses which we omit from this quotation] ... The sense of ‘presence’ is so plainly shewn by the contrast with ‘absence’ (implied in 2 Co. x. 10, and expressed in Ph. ii. 12) that the question naturally arises, –  Why not always so render it?”[10] Martin failed to cite or quote any of the “great” scholars who rejected Watch Tower exposition of παρουσία. When one only writes polemics, it is convenient to avoid citing sources.

            Martin misrepresents Russell and modern Watchtower belief, claiming that their view is that only “the faithful” would be aware of it. He puts ‘the faithful’ in quotes, but the phrase is lacking on the pages he sites as is the belief he attributes to Watch Tower adherents. Russell, the modern Watch Tower and Bible Student groups all believe that in time it will become apparent to everyone, at least by the time Christ executes God’s judgment. If one writes a polemic their statements should be accurate, but polemicists are seldom interested in accuracy. Martin’s real objection is that it Russell, and modern descendent religions, present an understanding of prophecy different from his own. The same is true for those who were Russell’s contemporaries and wrote similarly. Many who wrote anti-Russell tracts simply mentioned the teaching without refuting it, relying on shock value to accomplish their purpose. An example is George Whitefield Ridout’s The Deadly Fallacy of Russellism or Millennial Dawnism.

The Narrow Way to Life

            Russell dates their discussion of Matthew 7:13-14[11] to the Allgheny Study Groups early days, but it became a matter for general discussion with October 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower.

---

[1]           C. T. Russell: Dialogue. Rev. 13., Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1880, page 1.

[2]           C. T. Russell: “The Name of the Beast, Or the Number of his Name”, Zion’s Watch Tower, January/February 1882, page 7-8.

[3]           Long-Looked-For Seventh Volume, The Watch Tower, August 1, 1917, page 226.

[4]           C. T. Russell: Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, Herald of the Morning, First Edition, 1877, page 39.

[5]           The Watchtower publication Aid to Bible Understanding [1971] and its revision as Insight on the Scriptures comment on Jesus words: “There would be nothing to hide about Jesus’ having come as King, at the beginning of his royal presence.” [Insight, volume 2, page 255] Though this sentence is somewhat convoluted, it suggests only that Jesus’ parousia would be widely known. However, The Watchtower [May 1, 1995, page 12] returned to Allen’s exposition, saying: “As Jesus foretold, in a global way, lightnings of Bible truth continue to flash over broad areas from eastern parts to western parts. Truly, as modern light bearers, Jehovah’s Witnesses prove to be ‘a light of the nations, that [Jehovah’s] salvation may come to be to the extremity of the earth.’—Isaiah 49:6.”

[6]           C.T. Russell: Optamai, Zion’s Watch Tower, September 1880, page 8.

[7]           W. R. Goff: The Handbook of Eschatology, Or, A Consistent Biblical View of the Lord’s Return,  Keystone Publishing House, Blairsville, Pennsylvania, 1917, page 34.

[8]           C. T. Russell: Food for Thinking Christians, Watch Tower supplement, 1881, page 63.

[9]           W. Martin and R. Zarcharias: The Kingdom of the Cults, “updated edition,” 2003, page 101.

[10]          J. B. Rotherham: Emphasized Bible, 1897 edition, appendix, page 271.

[11]          “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

D. D. Lathrop again

The Wisconsin library that holds his booklet sent it to me [as a scan] at no cost. Any of our regular readers who may be interested may have a copy by emailing me. Posting a request here may not work. Use email.

Some of you may be interested in this

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1924-THE-GREAT-PYRAMID-bound-book-set-by-Morton-Edgar-Watchtower-vintage-antique/273952976563?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3Da25f0ff72af9497ca5545082057739b6%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D143342061858%26itm%3D273952976563%26pg%3D2481888&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3Acbc54736-ba34-11e9-ad13-74dbd18070a9%7Cparentrq%3A7393aab516c0a4e9229ff124ffce2f00%7Ciid%3A1

B. Vance

A brother B. Vance started preaching in Canada sometime near 1898. Other than a letter from him to The Enterprise I know nothing about him. Anyone?

Update

Reading through all the finished chapters suggests to me that what I had planned as the final chapter of volume 2 should be shoved off into volume three. That leaves one chapter and an afterward to finish.

It appears that volume 2 will have about 600 pages. It may cost about five dollars more than volume one, though I will try to prevent that. Without chapter one, which isn't finished, there are a little over 370,000 words. Prepare to read ... a lot.

D. D. Lathrop

University of Wisconsin at Madison has a copy of Lathrop's 8 page poem. If they won't scan it for me, I will need someone to visit and copy it. Anyone?

The parting of the ways

There is a certain poignancy to these two advertisements from the Washington DC Evening Star for October 7, 1922, page 10. In the Church Notices under Bible Students you were given two choices.

There were the regular meetings of the IBSA group at the Pythian Temple Auditorium. G W Walters was a local man, whose lectures were often advertised at this venue over 1921-1922. The visiting speaker was W E Van Amburgh.

But there was also a meeting being sponsored by the Associated Bible Students, which was the name now used by those who separated from the Watch Tower Society. The speaker here was F H Robison. Robison and Van Amburgh had been at Bethel together for many years and were jailed together as part of the “Brooklyn 8” in 1918. But Robison had left Bethel and his position on the Watch Tower editorial committee early in 1922. His journey would lead him into Universalism by 1923.

Here they were at the same city, lecturing at different venues. Interestingly, the timing as advertised would have allowed any wavering or curious to attend both meetings.

Some of you will find this useful

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1808-Disertations-on-the-Prophecies-1260-yrs-Geo-Stanley-Faber-2vo-in-1/323869400075?hash=item4b681edc0b:g:nlQAAOSwqKFdO6gi

1913 Photo - Click image to see entire

Marley Cole

Cole wrote at least one article for Consolation. I can't find it, and I do not have time to find it. Can you? Date of issue, please, if you find it.

For Comment - Temporary Post

Someone at Patterson visits this blog seeking information about Rachael's point of view. I herewith oblige, though they have to find it on their own. Comments are welcome. However, other than some proof reading this will not change. My intro to it explains why.

Introductory Essay 2 – By R. M. de Vienne

Editor’s Note

This is Rachael’s Essay as it stood on the day she died. Our agreement was that it was hers to write without my interference. She may be gone, but our agreement stands. So, though we discussed planned revisions, additions and changes, they weren’t made, and I present it to you as she left it. It includes some statements that I probably would not have made. However, while I do not see the wisdom behind a criticism or two, I do not see anything she presents as without basis in fact, though her interpretation may differ from mine.

An advance reader expressed upset at her description of the Watchtower Society product Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom as hagiography. The person who found this offensive is not a native English speaker. Before you reject that description, I suggest consulting a dictionary.

            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.

            Volume 3 will focus on the fragmentation that followed 1881 and the issues surrounding the publication of The Plan of the Ages. It is partially written, but much hard research remains. Though some of the continuing issues between Barbour and Russell fall into the years we consider here, they are part of the history destined for volume 3 and will appear there. As always, we’re hampered by lack of resources. We have few issues of key magazines. We do not have anything like a complete run of A. P. Adams’ Spirit of the Word. We miss key years of J. H. Paton’s The World’s Hope. A paper published in California exists as a few clippings pasted into a scrapbook. A booklet written by Barbour seems to have been lost. We do not have any of the first issues of Jones’ Day Star. We appreciate help locating things like these.

            Now, let me tell you about volume two. We tell you about the Watch Tower’s principals’ struggle to preserve the body of believers, to transition Barbourite believers into Watch Tower adherents. We tell you about their earliest missionary journeys, drawing much of this from sources not referenced by anyone else. We introduce you to people mentioned only once or twice in Zion’s Watch Tower but who played an important role in its earliest years. We tell you about the nature of the earliest congregations and fellowships and how they were formed. Again, we draw on first-hand experiences not found in any history of the movement. We tell you about the reaffirmation of old doctrines and the discussions behind that.

            The movement attracted clergy. We discuss this in some detail, naming names, telling the story as we could uncover it of several clergy turned Watch Tower believers. In 1881 Russell and a few others organized and provided initial financing for the work. We provide details not found elsewhere, and we correct a widely-spread error. We tell you about the start of the publishing ministry and the development of the Priesthood of All Believers doctrine among Watch Tower adherents. A key event was the printing and circulation of Food for Thinking Christians. We offer our readers a full discussion of this small book’s circulation and its effects on readership. With the circulation of Food new workers entered the field. The Watchtower society has ignored these, especially John B. Adamson, in its histories. Adamson and some others among the earliest missionaries left the Watch Tower movement. Watchtower writers tend to ignore the contributions of those who defected from the movement. It is probably safe to say that much of this history is unknown to Watchtower researchers – or at least unacknowledged by them. It’s not their focus.

            An important part of this era’s story is the spread of Watch Tower doctrine to various ethnic groups within the United States and to other lands. So we tell you about work among foreign language groups in the United States. The von Zechs and a Norwegian sea captain are part of this story. We tell you about the early work in Canada, the United Kingdom, China, and other lands. We discuss at length the history of a man mentioned with favor in Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom.[1] His story is far different from what the author of that book presumed. We tell you about the early work in Liberia. [This history appeared first as B. W. Schulz: “Watch Tower Faith in Liberia: A Conflict of Faith and Authority,” Nsukka Journal of History, University of Nigeria, Volume 4, 2017, page 31ff.] Almost none of this has been published anywhere except in the original documents.

            Eighteen eighty-one was a key year in Watch Tower history. Most of those who mention that year’s events misstate them. We do our best to correct the misdirection and misstatement common among recent writers. We think we provide a more complete picture of the Watch Tower’s earliest years, a more balanced picture than found elsewhere.

            Read Mr. Schulz’ Introductory Essay. It clarifies issues that confuse some writers. It puts Russell and the Watch Tower movement in a historical perspective often misstated or ignored by recent writers. A later chapter takes up attempts by some historians and sociologists to place the Watch Tower movement within one of the current theoretical frameworks. We suggest that they ignore key elements of the Watch Tower belief system so that their theories are questionable. 

the remainder of this post has been deleted.

CTR "in color"

(with grateful thanks to Brian K)

1906

1911

1911

1911

1914

From L to R - Robert Hollister, J A Bohnet, C T Russell.

1916

I'm off for emergency surgery

I will be unavailable for most of the next two weeks.

Translate this?

Can any of our German speakers translate and transcribe this. I can understand parts of it, but not all of it. Anyone?

Thanks and a Comment

This is a ‘card of thanks’ to those who recently contributed to my research fund. Your contributions allowed me to acquire some rare material, including a book that was available to me only as a partial and poorly done photocopy. Originals are fragile and rare, and they’re not available through Inter-Library Loan because of that. The last one I saw for sale cost four hundred dollars. With some considerable negotiation and by selling something to add to the fund, I was able to acquire this book for just under one hundred dollars. Yes, original research is expensive.

If I live long enough to write it, research for a book on the World War One era will entail massive expense. But that’s way in the future. Two other multi-volume books will come between Separate Identity and that. Probably, given my age, this simply will not happen.

Someone recommended A. Vandenberg’s article printed in the January 1986 Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine. I am aware of it. Before I comment further, I should disclose that I knew Al Vandenberg. We worked for the same school district, and we discussed Witness history. My view of him is colored by our history, and, while I will be as fair as possible with my comments, you should know this. I saw him, despite his ‘awards,’ as a sloppy teacher and worse researcher. He declined access to original material that would have changed what he wrote. His personal behavior was questionable, and later he was convicted of child-rape and sent to prison. Not at all a good companion.

This does not mean I will not reference this article at some point. But his article is based on personal opinion and shallow research. It is based on secondary, faulty, and misleading sources, and though it is not as obvious, it is a Catholic apologetic. I won’t analyze his article in detail. But you should know that using it as authoritative perils your own research.

Vandenberg cites interviews with then living opposing clergy. None of them were authorities; they just said what he liked, what he wanted to hear. Similar interviews may put you on the right trail, but they do not and cannot prove anything. If one stops there, breathes a sigh of satisfaction, and uses the material, one provides to his readers very faulty work. It is similar to cutting out a photo of ice cream and trying to serve it as desert.

One of the items acquired ...

Recent support for my research fund allowed me to finally acquire this, and at a very reasonable price for the item. Thanks to those who support this project! [You may have to 'click' on the image to see the entire picture.]

Some of you will find this useful

Storrs and others

https://archive.org/details/18431880BibleExaminerGeorgeStorrs/page/n467

Books

There are three titles available to me, each costing about fifty dollars. I cannot pay this, even though the amount is relatively small.

Among those publications I need is Pearson's Six General Signs of Our Lord's Return. A good, clear scan would do. 

Thanks to the generosity of a faithful blog reader, I no longer need Pearson's booklet.

Also ... for those who are interested in Storrs, there is this:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1817-NEWTON-DISSERTATIONS-ON-THE-PROPHECIES-2-VOLS-CALF-BINDINGS/323745662949?hash=item4b60bec7e5:g:49QAAOSwHNtckorz

I have this, purchased about twenty years ago. This is a very reasonable price. If you're interested. Storrs quoted from Newton. I do not know if Russell read this book, and I believe any influence from it came through Storrs.

John H Paton - Civil War Reunion

(reprinted)

This photo of men of the 22nd Michigan Infantry, Volunteer 1st Division Reserve Corps, was taken on the occasion of the dedication ceremonies of the Chicamauga and Chattanooga Military Park on September 18, 1895. The monument is located in the Chicamauga Battlefield section of the park, a little northwest of Snodgrass House.

The men appear to be wearing tags commemorating the dedication ceremonies and their reunion at the site where they engaged in a Civil War conflict 32 years earlier. Some are also wearing battle ribbons.

The man kneeling above where the photo is marked with an X is John H. Paton. Kneeling next to him is his brother David, and standing to the right of him is their brother William. The men were, respectfully, 52, 56, and 50 years old when the photo was taken.

Photograph and description kindly supplied some years ago by JPM, a great grandson of John H. Paton.

More on THAT picture

Here is a photograph of C T Russell in his study at the Pittsburgh Bible House c. 1906. Notice the picture on the wall in the top left hand corner of this photograph.

If you look very closely, this is the photograph under discussion. It is a picture taken of the workers at the Bible House. I now have two copies, one marked 1899 and the other 1902. Both came from a relative of W E Van Amburgh. As to which is the correct year, a lot would depend on when the Henninges were in America, between visits to Britain, then Germany, and finally Australia. Bernhard might have those details.

It's trivia - but fun.

Addenda

Bernhard kindly sent through a lot of information on the group photograph which establishes 1902 (or shortly thereafter) as the correct date.

You see on the group photo brother William Van Amburgh and left brother George Garman. Both became members of the Bible House family in autumn 1900. So the photo couldn’t be taken before 1900.

Ernest and Rosa (Rose) Henninges were in England from April 1900 till November 1901 and than he came back to Pittsburgh. They stayed there till June 1903; than they went to Germany. So the photo couldn’t be taken before November 1901.

Otto Koetitz and his wife Jennie succeeded Henninges in November 1903 in Germany. Otto was a coworker in Bethel from 1896 followed by his wife in 1900.

Albert Williamson became a member of the Bible House staff in 1899. Harriet Stark (who married him in 1905) and her mother Britee C. Stark began to work in the Bethel in 1900.

Laura Whitehouse lived also there since 1900.

Johannes Gotthold Kuehn came also in 1900 to the Bible House as a part-time worker. His wife Ottilie Friederike and son Alfred followed in 1902.

So this brings us to the date of 1902, maybe early 1903.