Review of Dr. Chryssides' new book on Jehovah's Witnesses

by Old Goat 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html

    the book costs 140.00, but i bought it. I agree with Dr. de Vienne's review. It won't be for everyone, but if you're into researching Witnesses, this is a book for you.

  • Doubtfully Yours
    Doubtfully Yours

    What can possibly be in a book about JWs that I do not already know?! Pleeeaaaase!!!

    I predict it will be a flop in sales.

    140???!!!

    DY

  • notsurewheretogo
    notsurewheretogo
    Isn't it 144?
  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    wow - Chryssides is an expert. someone ought to tell Jehovahs witnesses they will be pleased and would prolly put it in their library

    i'll wait until it comes out on kindle

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy
    Why do I feel that Dr Chryssides is very pro JW ? am I right ?
  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    Thanks, Old Goat, for drawing out attention to the book. Like Doubtfully Yours, I do not plan to buy a copy, having more interesting academic books on my Book Depository list,

    But if I really need to check something concerning my former loving brothers and sisters, I'll know where to head. That's if I can find a copy. Probably in all of Australia, the National Library in Canberra may be the only library that will have a copy.

    We should also thank Dr. de Vienne, PhD, for his unbiased review. Those of us who want to see our past in an unbiased light should be appreciative of his work.

    Phizzy : Why do I feel that Dr Chryssides is very pro JW ? am I right ?
    I doubt that Chryssides is "very pro JW." He's a historian digging out information and couldn't give a stuff whether the JWs. are right or wrong.
  • oppostate
    oppostate

    From the review at http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html

    it sure seems like Dr. C. got a lot of facts wrong!

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent
    oppostate : From the review at http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html it sure seems like Dr. C. got a lot of facts wrong

    I think you skimmed Dr. de Vienne's review. Tracing what happened 150 years ago is difficult (even 50 years ago can be difficult). A scholar can spend decades studying a particular era of history and still have some details wrong.

    That's more pertinent when it comes to a small, obscure sect like the first 'Bible Students' who were Russell's followers. Who thought to keep a diary of the activities of those involved? Who knew all of the movements of the people who appeared in the story.

    For a comparison, look at how little we really know about the life of Jesus or the history of the early church. And what we do have is clearly coloured and biased.

    Twice, de Vienne, makes the point that getting a detail wrong does not detract from the value of the book.

    In the first paragraph de Vienne states:

    "It is free of polemic, largely accurate and well written. ... In these respects it is superior to almost every book written about the Bible Student and Witness movements since 1920."

    And later in his review he writes:

    "While I believe it necessary to point out some flaws, I restate my opening point. This is an exceptional book, well worth the time spent reading it (four times.) It is impossible, or nearly so, to write a book like this and not have errors appear."
  • Terry
    Terry

    If I remember correctly, you can preview a certain number of pages at a time on Google Books.

    Let's say you want to preview Chryssides' Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses

    (https://books.google.com/books?id=Xx6nUwZzeCsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    This alone will give you a flabbergasting glimpse at details you never imagined existed.

    It is quite an exhaustive study, believe me!

  • steve2
    steve2

    it sure seems like Dr. C. got a lot of facts wrong!

    Given the huge level of research that underlies the book and the highly detailed account on the earlier history of the organization, it is unsurprising that some relatively minor points were inaccurate (e.g., the author called one of the earlier figures in Charles Russell's earlier years "John" when it was (I think) George. Or the author made an assumption that Russell derived the notion of the memorial from the Adventists when his notion of it predated his contact with the Adventists. This is the level of his getting the facts wrong - really quite minor.

    Indeed, it would be incredibly hard for any scholar to produce a 100% accurate record. So to conclude "Dr. C. got a lot of facts wrong!" as Oppostate claims is simplistic - a conclusion that the main reviewer would likely repudiate.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit