In the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a Rube-Goldberg based prophesying formula, I had mentioned a couple of historical leads I thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way. Explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead. But nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century Americana, there might be some insight after all.
Theologian Albert Barnes (1798–1870) graduated from Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, in 1820, and from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1823. Barnes was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey (1825–1830), and of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (1830–1867).
He held a prominent place in the New School branch of the Presbyterians during the Old School-New School Controversy, to which he adhered on the division of the denomination in 1837. In 1836, he had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy, mostly due to the views he expressed in Notes on Romans of the imputation of the sin of Adam, original sin and the atonement; the bitterness stirred up by this trial contributed towards widening the breach between the conservative and the progressive elements in the church. He was an eloquent preacher, but his reputation rests chiefly on his expository works, which are said to have had a larger circulation both in Europe and America than any others of their class. Of the well-known Notes on the New Testament, it is said that more than a million volumes had been issued by 1870. The Notes on Job, the Psalms, Isaiah and Daniel were also popularly distributed. The popularity of these works rested on how Barnes simplified Biblical criticism so that new developments in the field were made accessible to the general public.
What is significant here is that prior to Russell's publishing career, Albert Barnes had been a national figure for his sermons and a series of books that eventually interpreted or provided commentary on nearly every line of scripture, about 10,000 pages in all. Unlike Russell or Barbour, Barnes had knowledge of Biblical languages, which he provided in the text - and access to some of the best libraries in the country (e.g., Princeton). Much of Barbour's digging around was in Australia - literally mining. And Russell, though he seems to be a good grammarian, probably would not feel very encumbered by his organization's current day attitude toward higher education. In court appearances in Canada prior to the war, it was demonstrated he was absolutely ignorant of either Greek or Hebrew.
Thus, it was said that a 17-volume set of commentaries on nearly every verse of the Bible prepared over several decades; and that the work is filled with cross references to other verses and exegetical texts, u sed by ministers across the country to prepare sermons and originating with Dr. Barnes’ lectures to his Bible study classes. The books were purchased and read by maybe millions of American churchgoers
So, my point here is that although Barnes was not responsible for any of the conclusions drawn and might not even been aware of either Barbour or Russell, his series of books probably were a source for the two Millerite's speculations. Moreover, once the Watchtower Society was institutional, Barnes' Bible Notes, full encyclopedic editions, was a fixture supporting the writing department. It was in one of Ray Franz's two books where he noted that either his uncle Fred or predecessor Knorr ordered the books to be kept off desks and in the drawers or covered shelves.
During the last year, I met a trucker and retired railroad engineer who lives on a boat by the bay. He was setting up a website with ancient history chronologies where he relied greatly on Barnes. As a result of discussions from time to time, he decided to give me a preview look. I have to say that he is the ONLY other instance I have ever encountered beside the Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 607 BC. Chuck Based based this assertion on a Barnes citation. I tracked down Barnes to find out why or how he came up with that and here is what it says.
Daniel 1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem - This event occurred, according to Jahn ("History of the Hebrew Commonwealth"), in the year 607 b.c., and in the 368th year after the revolt of the ten tribes. According to Usher, it was in the 369th year of the revolt, and 606 b.c. The computation of Usher is the one generally received, but the difference of a year in the reckoning is not material. Compare Michaelis, Anmerkung, zu 2 Kon. xxiv. 1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was distinguished for his piety, Kings2 22:2; Chronicles2 35:1-7. After the death of Josiah, the people raised to the throne of Judah Jehoahaz, the youngest son of Josiah, probably because he appeared better qualified to reign than his elder brother, Kg2 23:30; Ch2 36:1. He was a wicked prince, and after he had been on the throne three months, he was removed by Pharaoh-Nechoh, king of Egypt, who returned to Jerusalem from the conquest of Phoenicia, and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of Jehoiakim, on the throne, Kg2 23:34; Ch2 36:4.
-----
He speaks of Nebuchadnazzar but nothing of king Zedekiah. But now look at what he says for
2 Kings 25:8 the verse being
On the seventh day of the fifth month in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.
The nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar - 586 B.C., if we count from the real date of his accession (604 B.C.); but 587 B.C., if, with the Jews, we regard him as beginning to reign when he was sent by his father to recover Syria and gained the battle of Carchemish (in 605 B.C.).
On that day (verse 9 NJB)“He burned down the Temple of Yahweh, the royal palaces and all the houses in Jerusalem.”
-------------------
I thought that that was pretty much the end of the story until I discovered that the encyclopedic Barnes set was published over several decades, some of it post-humously. The New Testament notes came out all together in 1884-85. But beside the dates, it is interesting to contemplate which books of the Bible were given "priority" and the greatest amounts of commentary.
From the 21st century, one assumes that the whole 10,000 page opus suddenly appeared. But it didn't.
Title: Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testaments (26 vols.)
Authors: Albert Barnes and James Murphy Pages: 10,715
Title Publisher Date Pages
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Genesis Eates and Lauriate 1873 540
Exodus to Ruth John Murray 1879 480
I Samuel to Esther John Murray 1879 510
Job, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1847 384
Job, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1847 339
Psalms, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 480
Psalms, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 450
Psalms, Volume 3 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 410
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,
Jeremiah, & Ezekiel John Murray 1879 423
Isaiah, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1851 513
Isaiah, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1851 446
Daniel, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1853 336
Daniel, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1853 310
Minor Prophets, Vol. 1: Hosea to Jonah Funk & Wagnalls 1885 427
Minor Prophets, Vol. 2: Micah to Malachi Funk & Wagnalls 1885 504
Matthew and Mark Blackie & Son 1884–1885 416
Luke and John Blackie & Son 1884–1885 415
Acts Blackie & Son 1884–1885 400
Romans Blackie & Son 1884–1885 344
I Corinthians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 350
II Corinthians and Galatians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 400
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 288
I Thessalonians to Philemon Blackie & Son 1884–1885 316
Hebrews Blackie & Son 1884–1885 328
James to Jude Blackie & Son 1884–1885 406
Revelation Blackie & Son 1884–1885 496
My own prejudice in these matters is that if Christianity is Chrstrianity, then a hierarchy of study would start with the Gospels and Epistles and then work its way toward examining more minor books. The Old Testament, as I learned late in life, has a hierarchy provided by Jewish scholarship of Law, Prophets and Writings, but I can see that it has long been largely ignored in my part of the world. While Roman Catholics are likely to read the same scriptures over and over again as part of the year's liturgy, Protestants (which I have spent some as being raised as as well) tend to treat all writing in the OT as equal in standing.
But in addition to all that, when one considers what Barnes volumes were available to Barbour and Russell when they set out on their determinations of when Christ would return, the volume addressing when Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple was ruined was yet to be published. Russell and Barbour could read all they liked about Daniel, Isaiah and Solomon. And if they thought Barnes was supportive of their claims for Jerusalem's destruction, they would likely have cited his notes on Daniel 1:1.
His later publication of II Kings commentaries would have had to be taken as "New Light". But already it had arrived too late.