Penton's book is poorly referenced: Apocalypse Unsubstantiated!

by slimboyfat 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Outaservice

  I have an origional copy of A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME in good shape for $35.00 if anyone wants it. Still has the blue jacket on it. First Edition 1967

  Outaservice
• 

  VM44

  Outaservice, you have a PM! :) --VM44
• 

  Country Girl

  Lots of times, all the writer has is heresay because the information is old, there is no witnesses to it, it was never written down or journaled. In addition, sometimes the writer has to infer meaning to a written piece of word, an anecdote, or situation using souces that may not be well documented, anecdotes, or such. I think Mr. Penton should be given such leeway as I am sure that alot of the early history is embellished, not journaled, and word of mouth. I've known Mr. Penton for at least 13 years, and I have never doubted his intent, nor his credentials.

  CG
• 

  stev

  I don't have Penton's book before me, but he does provide footnotes, but often the sources are obscure, and difficult to verify.
  Timothy White's book is Bible Studentish. He likely got some references to sources from the writings of Paul S. L. Johnson, who wrote many books, including one against the Society that is over 800 pages, and was the most vocal opponent among the Bible Students of Rutherford, and documented the many changes that Rutherford made. White is especially good on the theological issues and debates and splits that occurred. He bases much of his book on original source material rather than secondary sources. As time has gone by, many of these issues are no longer relevant. But he was unaware of the Adventist-Russell connection, which Penton helps to illuminate, but does not go far enough. Joseph Zygmunt wrote a doctoral thesis from a sociological perspective, and remains mostly neutral in tone, and is interested in the changes in the power structure and organization.

  Russell is the more interesting figure than Rutherford, is more complex and casts a longer shadow over the JWs/Bible Students. Who he really was remains more of a mystery. The canonization of Russell after his death, shown in the book the Finished Mystery, seriously hampered the movement, neglected the serious mistakes that he had made, and was later rejected by the Society. However, Russell afterwards became a non-figure to the JWs, an unknown.

  Although the JWs have written a history book, they lack a true historical perspective on their past. The Adventists do not identify with the period out of which Russell developed, and have little interest in documenting their connection with the JWs.

  Oftentimes a movement for reform looks to the past for inspiration, and researches for lost treasures to be revived. Penton's group had a journal called the Bible Examiner, after Storrs' magazine the BIble Examiner, and there were some research done on Storrs around that time, but no lasting reform movement developed out of it. Russell had some mainstream Christian ideals that could be a catalyst for change. But both the present-day Bible Students and the JWs are blind to their history. The Bible Students neglect the fact that many of the problems of the present-day JWs are rooted in Russell himself and his movement, his prophetic speculation, the authoritarianism of the "that servant " doctrine, and the focus on date-setting and the endtimes. On the other hand, many of the positive aspects of Russell were cast aside - the importance of love, democracy in the church, proving all things, freedom and liberty in Christ.

  Steve
• 

  slimboyfat

  Outaservice,

  I would offer you $85 at least. Unless you have already "given" it away for $35!

  Slim
• 

  slimboyfat

  I don't see any problem in Penton using oral testimony. Oral history used to have a bad name, but its use has been refined and scholars are utilizing it a lot more. However, oral testimony should be scrutinized like any other form of documentary evidence, and if at all possible a recording of the testimony should be made and a transcript produced. I think it is more problematic that Penton often ignores the scholarly convention that requires two independent lines of evidence to establish the historicity of an event. He does this most often in relation to Rutherford, apparently because he is very eager to believe the worst about him. But his personal antipathy should not be allowed to cloud his scholarly judgement.

  And I don't think that the lack of references most often has to do with a lack of sources. Sometimes it seems that Penton takes some of the things he is commenting on for granted, as if sources would be redundant. Penton was quite a senior Witness who had access to a lot of the leaders of his generation, so certain goings on at Bethel and the like might have seemed "common knowledge" to him. But what was "common knowledge" in certain Witness circles in the 1970s is a bit more doubful now, and in a few years even more so. So he should have taken a bit more care to document exactly where he was getting his various bits of information so future generations won't have to guess in trying to put it back together.

  Slim
• 

  Mary

  I wonder when someone is going to write a better history of the Witnesses than Penton with a better critical apparatus and transparent form of scholarship.

  I can't believe you actually said this Slim. I've read the book and I think he does an excellent job of telling the Witnesses history. I for one, get annoyed when some scholars feel that ever single line they write must be referenced. Guess what? It doesn't and it shouldn't. When every utterance is tagged with a reference to yet another publication, where is the personal thought or opinion? It just isn't necessary. As Jim Penton is a highly respected Professor Emeritus, I fail to see the need to slam his book on so minor a point.