What's flawed is the Watchtower Society myth about his study method. The actual method used by Russell and his associates was no different that that used by writers of Systematic Theology textbooks. Strong's (same as the guy who made the concordance) Systematic Theology is still printed, I believe. Or at least it was still in print when I took a course back in the 1980s. Topical Bibles and topical study is a seminary norm.
Schulz and deVienne (whom I greatly admire for their accurate research) outline in detail which topics Russell et. al. considered and who they talked to and read. The result is more interesting than the Watchtower myth. A recent watchtower suggests they focused on the divine name. That's totally false. I've read the detailed history as presented by Schulz. (As an advanced reading copy of their next book) It presents the entire matter differently and in detail the watchtower seems determined to avoid, probably because it conflicts with the Russell myth they wish to maintain. Russell and his fellows adopted the views of others, primarily of Age to Come - One Faith believers. None of their research was done in isolation. They read contemporary works, wrote to and or visited prominent clergy, including two local Methodists one of whom was a PhD and former professor.
If we fault systematic and topical study, then we fault every theological school in the United States, Canada and Europe. His study method was not at fault, even if we reject his conclusions. In plain fact, almost none of the original Study Groups' conclusions are now held by Watchtowerites. The exceptions would be found in their conclusions on the state of the dead and the trinity. The original group was disunited. Schulz documents the doctrinal divisions among Allegheny believers in the 1871-1876 period. Divisions included the trinity and hell fire doctrines. Some held views Russell did not. Schulz and deVienne cite a printed interview with one of the group.
I'm a well credentialed writer and educator. But I can tell you, having graduated from college or even ordination by some church does not make you a competent teacher or researcher. Among those associated with Russell in those very early years were ordained clergy. Sunderlin, for instance, was a Methodist clergyman. One source says that there were some 125 or so college educated, previously ordained by other churches, ministers associated with the Pittsburgh congregation. I don't know if that's accurate or not. But I do have a short list of clergy who defected from their churches to Russellism. Simply being a credentialed individual does not make you wise or smart. (A. P. Adams, one of Russell's sometime associates, had a master's degree, but if you read any of his books you would find them on the strange side.) Thackaburry was another college educated former clergyman associated with Russell in the earliest years. Russell's mentor, George Storrs, was an ordained Methodist before leaving that church. A Dutch reformed clergyman wrote to and supported Russell and Barbour. Von Zech was educated in the US and in colleges in Germany and was led to similar doctrines as expressed in the Thubingen school of thought. Early Russellites did not lack exposure to higher education, and though the Watchtower wants to present them as independent students, uninfluenced by others, this is simply a myth. Russell comes out looking better without Watchtower mythology than he does within it.
You will want to read their next book, A Separate Identity, when it is released. I understand volume one is due out in the next few months. I've read it in rough draft (except for the last chapter) and as a professional historian myself, I am truly pleased.
You might give up widekpedia and k.chambers silly and uninformed comments in favor of actually reading what Russell wrote. An informed polemicist is better armed.
