by IW 57 Replies latest jw friends
Sadly it's Maria who is villified today both in the Watchtower and among some Bible Students.
Also sadly, this is a specific example of a more general principle among humankind: The dominant group - relatively speaking - often gets to 'bend' historical accounts in its own favour and the individual or smaller group's behaviour becomes distorted and vilified.
Regarding the claim that Maria Russell wrote the first 4 volumes of Millennial Dawn:
After thinking about it, I am skeptical of this claim.
It is true that Charles T. Russell did acknowledge the help of his wife in connection with the volumes, and did use an editorial staff, and Maria was Associate Editor without her name attached to her articles.
On the other hand, like Maria, Charles was capable of writing the books himself. He had written the Object and Manner booklet (1877) , and the Tabernacle and its teachings (1881). Maria could not have helped him with Vol. 5 (1899) or the lengthy Vol. 6 (1903).
Charles was probably more familiar with the time proofs than Maria, having preached them with Barbour, and modifying them in the Tower.
If it is true, Maria was the one responsible for originating the "that servant" doctrine and applying to her husband Charles. If she did indeed write the four volumes and knew it, it seems unlikely to me that she would have done this. The volumes at that time were the main means of spreading the "present truth". This would confirm to me that she thought that Charles had written the volumes himself, and not her.
If Charles was as egotistical and demeaning toward women as the judge in the court case determined, than it doesn't seem reasonable to me that he would arrange for his wife to write the books and palm them off as his own. An egotist would have written the books himself.
It is difficult to imagine any person like Charles who thinks they know the Divine secrets of the timing of Christ's invisible presence and the end of society and feels it is their personal mission to tell others, would give up the opportunity to write about it. There is much ego involved in being a prophet, and would have Charles passed up on being the author of these books?
Even if after the bitter court case, Charles still promoted the Studies in the Scriptures, and made the claim that they were the key to understanding the Bible, and necessary for staying in the light. This extremely laudatory promotion of these books is understandable if he wrote them himself, but does not seem credible if Maria wrote them.
John Paton wrote the book Day Dawn around 1880, and Russell promoted the book, but when he and Paton parted company, he no longer did so. If Maria did in fact write the first four volumes, it would seem difficult for Charles to think of them as highly as he said.
What's more, if Maria had in fact written the books, then she and not Charles is responsible for the dogmatic and unqualified statements regarding the chronological predictions, and the fatalistic, inevitable, and total collapse of society and the establishment of the Kingdom. Historically, it makes a difference who wrote these claims. To me, if Maria had in fact written them, it would be lower my estimation of her. Whoever was responsible for writing in this tone was not serving the public interest, and is the worst thing that came out of the Russell movement.
Unfortunately, other than a manuscript, there is little today that could confirm whether Maria's claim is true. The circumstances of their marriage is unusual and even bizarre, and we have a "he said", "she said" situation here.
Below are three quotes from the volumes. The "writer" in each case would be Charles T. Russell, and not Maria.
C93
was predicted for the first movement, and waiting for the 1335 days was necessary; but the second was not a disappointment, and a waiting was no longer necessary; for fulfilment came exactly at the close of the 1335 prophetic days--in October 1874. It was just following the close of the 1335 years, the period of "waiting," that the fact of our Lord's presence, as taught by the foregoing prophecies, began to be recognized. It was very early in the morning of the new age, but it was the "midnight" hour, so far as the deep slumbering of the virgins was concerned, when the cry (which is still ringing) went forth, "Behold the Bridegroom!"--not Behold the Bridegroom cometh,* but Behold he has come, and we are now living "in the [parousia] presence of the Son of man." And such has been the character of the present movement, since that date: a proclamation of the Lord's presence and of the kingdom work now in progress. The writer, and colaborers, proclaimed the fact of the Lord's presence, demonstrating it from prophecy, and on charts or tables, such as are used in this book, until the fall of 1878, when arrangements were made for starting our present publication, "ZION'S WATCH TOWER, and Herald of Christ's Presence." By the Lord's blessing, millions of copies of this publication have carried abroad the tidings that the time is fulfilled, and that the Kingdom of Christ is even now being set up, while the kingdoms and systems of men are crumbling to their utter destruction.
C312
Thinking it might be interesting to our readers we give below
Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth's Letter
Clova, Ripon, England, Dec. 21, 1890 Wm. M. Wright, Esq.,
Dear Sir: I have been rather longer than I could have wished in looking over the MS. of your friend, C. T. Russell of Allegheny, Pa., but I have now completed a pretty careful examination, word by word. And that was the least I could do, when you so kindly took the pains to send it with such care between boards by registered parcel, with every page flat, and indited by the typewriter in place of the hand.
B223
Nor is it a cunningly devised correspondency, arranged to suit the facts; for many of these parallels, and other truths, were seen from prophecy, and were preached as here presented, several years prior to A.D. 1878--that year being announced as the time of returning favor to Israel, before it came, and before any event marked it so. The author of this volume published these conclusions drawn from Scripture, in pamphlet form, in the spring of A.D. 1877.
I've heard that the Russells' marriage was unconsummated. What is the source for that information? Just curious ...
Cathy Koenig
bump
I am reading Penton's book, and I would LOVE to have the Russell vs. Russell transcript. Anyone know where to get it?
Ilove TTATT
Look up a previous poster with the List , fascinating stuff
smiddy
The List by prominent bethelite - morloc
smiddy
