From Schulz and de Vienne, Separate Identity, vol. 2:
We can forgive inexperienced students for accepting Rogerson’s
work. He is supposed to know his subject matter. An experienced historian, unless
his intellect is clouded by prejudice or by a quest for a preferred result,
would look at the un-footnoted assertions found within his book with an adult
skepticism. Accepting something because ‘everyone knows it’s true,’ is a major logic
flaw – argumentum ad populum. A writer with some depth of research into Watch
Tower history should be able to recognize typical research flaws. If one has
coached students through thesis and dissertation writing, one knows the
shortcuts some students take. An example in Rogerson’s case is presenting a
lengthy quotation from Zion’s Watch Tower and footnoting it to the original
issue. This quotation is found on page eleven:
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the
divine plan in
studying the Bible by itself, but we see also that if anyone
lays the ‘Scripture
Studies’ aside, even after he has used them, after he has
become familiar with
them, after he has read them for ten years – if he lays them
aside and ignores
them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood
his Bible for ten
years, our experience shows that within two years he goes
into darkness. On
the other hand, if he had merely read the 'Scripture
Studies' and had not read a
page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the
end of two years,
because he would have the light of the Scriptures.
Rogerson did not consult the Watch Tower article where one
finds the original. He lifted this entire and without alteration from opposition
literature. Judging by his bibliography he found this in Martin and Klann’s
Jehovah of the Watch Tower. He leads us through his footnote not to the
secondary source from which he drew this but to a specific page in Zion’s Watch
Tower. Even his footnote is uncharacteristic, citing a specific page when he otherwise
cited a date of publication without noting a page number. Even his footnote is
borrowed. Ethically, he should have consulted the original article. Instead,
he chose to pretend that he had. In context, the original says something different. Russell’s
full message was that to have confidence in Studies of the Scriptures one must
test it against scripture:
The six volumes of Scripture Studies are not intended to
supplant the Bible.
There are various methods to be pursued in the study of the
Bible and these
aids to Bible study are in such form that they, of
themselves, contain the
important elements of the Bible as well as the comments or
elucidations of
those that our Lord and the Apostles quoted from the Old
Testament ... .
Our thought, therefore, is that these Scripture Studies are
a great assistance, a
very valuable help, in the understanding of God’s Word. If
these books are to
be of any value to us it must be because we see in them
loyalty to the Word of
God, and as far as our judgment goes, see them to be in full
harmony with the
Word and not antagonistic to it. Therefore, in reading them
the first time, and
perhaps the second time, and before we would accept anything
as being our
own personal faith and conviction, we should say, “I will
not take it because
these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says.” And
so we would ...
prove every point or disprove it, as the case may be. We
would be satisfied
with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible
from this
standpoint.
Russell’s comments on his books do not differ in purpose or
meaning from those of other Protestant writers but are part of a tradition that extends back to 17th
Century British – primarily English – and American Colonial Era writers. David
Hall demonstrates that the objective of lay writers and clergy was to “reduce
the distance between what they said and what was contained in the great
original;” i.e. the Bible. They believed they’d gotten it right, and their
words were the Bible condensed or clarified. Hall takes us to a colonial-era
writer who advised readers to “diligently read it over and over again, and when
you have done, enter upon a serious consideration.” Russell trod this familiar
path.
