| AlanF | Re: WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge | |
Post 2755 of 4499 since 07-Mar-01 |
Hi Gamaliel, : I had noticed the point about 606 meaning Nebuchadnezzar's succession and invasion of Judah. I'm glad you brought it up. This understanding is better suited to the more probable meaning of Jeremiah and Chronicles when the 70 years are identified for Babylon's rise to power affecting all nations around Judea, rather than their specific association for 70 years with Judea herself. Is there more evidence that this is how Elliott saw it I don't know. I didn't read Elliott's works other than to find out what he had to say about 1914 and his reasoning on related items. : and that Barbour simply misunderstood, or did Barbour purposely make the change believing that all chronology before 536 BCE was murky (and therefore flexible) as Jerry Leslie (Bible Student) says about Russell? My impression is that Barbour rejected Elliott's understanding and adopted that of Christopher Bowen. This seems to have occurred sometime between early 1874 and June, 1875, when he published the first of the new Herald of the Morning tracts, since the available material from 1874 and earlier doesn't show anything like what he adopted by 1875 as his view of Babylonian chronology. : I had mentioned some plans to you for the end of summer. Those plans have changed. I'll write or call you about it on the weekend if you are not terribly busy. Call any time you like, except that I'm probably going up into Rocky Mountain National Park for the entire day Sunday. Otherwise, most weeknights are fine. AlanF | |
Posts by stev
-
3Elliott as a source for Barbour's time proofs
by stev ingamaliel
re: wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge
post 607 of 774. since 19-nov-02.
-
-
stev
-
3
Elliott as a source for Barbour's time proofs
by stev ingamaliel
re: wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge
post 607 of 774. since 19-nov-02.
-
-
stev
Gamaliel WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge Post 604 of 774
since 19-Nov-02Gamaliel Report, September 2003: The source of the 606 and 607 BCE date for Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem was originally based on misunderstanding Ptolemy and some poor Biblical exegesis. Interestingly, a lot more Jehovah's Witnesses are now aware of Second Adventist origins for C.T.Russell's ideas. When challenged with odd or embarrassing beliefs, some Witnesses are quick to dismiss them with phrases like, "Oh, Russell got that from Barbour [Henry Grew, Henry Dunn, George Storrs, etc.]." But most Witnesses still tend to seem quite proud of the wisdom and discernment Russell displayed in promoting the 1914 date. It's vaguely known that Russell and Barbour joined forces to publish this but very few know that it did not originate even from Barbour, but from the Rev. E. B. Elliot, A.M., Vicar of Tuxford and Fellow of Trinity College at Cambridge. It's found in the 1846 edition (2nd edition) of the book "Horae Apocalypticae." This must have been Nelson Barbour's source.
For background, the "anti-chronology" that the Watchtower Society has been promoting, literally from its inception, includes an historically unsupported date for the destruction of Jerusalem's Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Accepting the dates 606 BCE (now, 607 BCE) instead of 587 or 586 BCE for that event has bequeathed an embarrassing situation upon Jehovah's Witnesses. They are forced to deny one of the most well-documented of all periods in ancient history: the entire Neo-Babylonian period. The attempt to promote this 20-year difference even creates issues with synchronizing Assyrian and Egyptian historical touchpoints to the Babylonian period. Also, while one could expect Bible believers to latch onto any small glimmer of historical evidence that upholds the Bible, Witnesses have created a situation for themselves in which they are required to deny a wealth of evidence that actually supports the Bible record very well during this period.
Carl Olaf Jonsson, of Sweden, formally questioned this "chronology" nearly a quarter-century ago in his book "The Gentile Times Reconsidered." The Watchtower Society made no serious attempt to answer it. Rolf Furuli, of Norway, has made what he himself evidently sees as a serious attempt to provide that answer. Rolf Furuli calls this "chronology" the "Oslo Chronology." In other circles, it has been called the "Brooklyn Hypothesis," "The Watchtower Hypothesis," etc. I am of the opinion that Furuli, in stirring up these murky waters again, studiously avoids mentioning Jonsson by name, but has seen fit, instead, to toss a little bit of slanderous "mud" toward Jonsson so that any response by Jonsson might be seen as tainted by personality issues. (See: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furuli.htm )
It's the same ad hominem tactic the Watchtower (and scandalized corporations of all types) have utilized in order to dismiss embarrassing evidence against them without any requirement to discuss the evidence. (The label "apostate," for example, is used the way other corporations might use the phrase "just a disgruntled employee" in lieu of a considered response to facts.)
The real source behind the chronology, however, is neither Pittsburgh, Brooklyn nor Oslo.
The relevant portion of a book entitled Horae Apocalypticae (Commentary on the Apocalypse) by the Rev. E. B. Elliot, A. M (Vicar of Tuxford, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge) has been posted on a site for the Bible Students who still generally support most of C.T.Russell's teachings. Page 260-1 of the book contains the following quote: "
I must add yet a word besides on two or three other more dubious, yet very interesting and important prophetic periods. And, 1st, on the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and state of bestialism: {1} These calculated after the year-day system, on the hypothesis of the Babylonish king's insanity figuring that of the great empires which he then headed, in their state of heathen aberration from God, (an hypothesis on the truth of which I do not myself entertain much doubt,) terminate, -- if dated from the time, B.C. 727, when the Assyrians under Shalmanezer {1} first acted the wild beast's part against Israel,-about the year 1793; that is, at the epoch of the French Revolution, and the coincident going forth of the gospel-message to evangelize the heathen: -- doubtless a very remarkable synchronism: especially considering that the bisecting point of these seven times is then A. D. 533; the very commencing epoch, with Justinian's Decree, of the three and a half times of the Papal Antichrist. Of course if calculated from Nebuchadnezzar's own accession and invasion of Judah, B.C. 606, the end is much later, being A.D. 1914; just one half century, or jubilean period, from our probable date of the opening of the Millennium.
[The opening of the millenium was A.D. 1862, according to Rev. Elliot, from page 260; Russell (via Barbour) used A.D. 1873 (for the end of 6,000 years of man's existence).]
In addition to the above quoted material, I am also copying the title page as shown on the site:( http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/04%20Horae%20Second%20Edition%20Chronology.htm )
HORAE APOCALYPTICAE,
OR
A COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE,
CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL;
INCLUDING ALSO AN EXAMINATION OF THE CHIEF PROPHECIES OF DANIEL.
ILLUSTRATED BY AN APOCALYPTIC CHART,
AND ENGRAVINGS FROM MEDALS AND OTHER EXTANT MONUMENTS OF ANTIQUITY.
BY THE REV. E. B. ELLIOTT, A. M.
LATE VICAR OF TUXFORD, AND FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
SECOND EDITION,
CAREFULLY REVISED, CORRECTED, AND IMPROVED;
WITH AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING, BESIDES OTHER MATTER,
A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF APOCALYPTIC INTERPRETATION, AND INDICES.
VOL. IV.
SEELEY, BURNSIDE, AND SEELEY, FLEET STREET, LONDON.
MDCCCXLVI.
1846
-
3
Elliott as a source for Barbour's time proofs
by stev ingamaliel
re: wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge
post 607 of 774. since 19-nov-02.
-
-
stev
This is a minute historical point, and not of interest to many, but is it true that Barbour derived his time proofs from Elliott?
William Miller had many time proofs for 1843/1844, and Barbour might have reapplied some of these. But I don't think Miller used parallel dispensations. Any evidence that Elliott did?
-
3
Elliott as a source for Barbour's time proofs
by stev ingamaliel
re: wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge
post 607 of 774. since 19-nov-02.
-
-
stev
Gamaliel Re: WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge Post 607 of 774
since 19-Nov-02Hillary, Thanks for the info. Both my copies of GTR have been on continuous loan to others who needed them more than I and, in truth, I have still done little more than skim the book myself. My differences about 1914 were on Scriptural grounds, and it wouldn't have made an iota of difference if, by some coincidence, the JWs had actually used a true chronology to get their dates.
Remembering what COJ was able to uncover on other pre-Russell matters, I was pretty sure that sending him this would more likely just be an excuse to speak with him on some specifics questions within Elliott's work. But I won't embarrass myself by sending this info to him. Elliott already had put almost the entire set of evidence (the jubilees, the 7 times, the 6000 years, the parallel dispensations) only slightly adjusted by Barbour and Russell. The only thing Elliott was missing was the Great Pyramid.
BTW, do you (or perhaps AlanF) know how to get ahold of the "revived" issues of The Bible Examiner? Evidently COJ wrote for the magazine per a reference in Penton's "Apocalypse Delayed."
Gamaliel
-
57
Barbara Anderson- Your new book on Russell
by IW inbarbara,.
i read this recently on the biblestudents.net forum:i know barbara, we use to talk on the phone, when she learned i was writing a history of pastor russell and the ibsa.
in the countless hours we spent on the phone.
-
-
stev
bump
-
57
Barbara Anderson- Your new book on Russell
by IW inbarbara,.
i read this recently on the biblestudents.net forum:i know barbara, we use to talk on the phone, when she learned i was writing a history of pastor russell and the ibsa.
in the countless hours we spent on the phone.
-
-
stev
Below are three quotes from the volumes. The "writer" in each case would be Charles T. Russell, and not Maria.
C93
was predicted for the first movement, and waiting for the 1335 days was necessary; but the second was not a disappointment, and a waiting was no longer necessary; for fulfilment came exactly at the close of the 1335 prophetic days--in October 1874. It was just following the close of the 1335 years, the period of "waiting," that the fact of our Lord's presence, as taught by the foregoing prophecies, began to be recognized. It was very early in the morning of the new age, but it was the "midnight" hour, so far as the deep slumbering of the virgins was concerned, when the cry (which is still ringing) went forth, "Behold the Bridegroom!"--not Behold the Bridegroom cometh,* but Behold he has come, and we are now living "in the [parousia] presence of the Son of man." And such has been the character of the present movement, since that date: a proclamation of the Lord's presence and of the kingdom work now in progress. The writer, and colaborers, proclaimed the fact of the Lord's presence, demonstrating it from prophecy, and on charts or tables, such as are used in this book, until the fall of 1878, when arrangements were made for starting our present publication, "ZION'S WATCH TOWER, and Herald of Christ's Presence." By the Lord's blessing, millions of copies of this publication have carried abroad the tidings that the time is fulfilled, and that the Kingdom of Christ is even now being set up, while the kingdoms and systems of men are crumbling to their utter destruction.C312
Thinking it might be interesting to our readers we give below
Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth's Letter
Clova, Ripon, England, Dec. 21, 1890 Wm. M. Wright, Esq.,
Dear Sir: I have been rather longer than I could have wished in looking over the MS. of your friend, C. T. Russell of Allegheny, Pa., but I have now completed a pretty careful examination, word by word. And that was the least I could do, when you so kindly took the pains to send it with such care between boards by registered parcel, with every page flat, and indited by the typewriter in place of the hand.B223
Nor is it a cunningly devised correspondency, arranged to suit the facts; for many of these parallels, and other truths, were seen from prophecy, and were preached as here presented, several years prior to A.D. 1878--that year being announced as the time of returning favor to Israel, before it came, and before any event marked it so. The author of this volume published these conclusions drawn from Scripture, in pamphlet form, in the spring of A.D. 1877. -
57
Barbara Anderson- Your new book on Russell
by IW inbarbara,.
i read this recently on the biblestudents.net forum:i know barbara, we use to talk on the phone, when she learned i was writing a history of pastor russell and the ibsa.
in the countless hours we spent on the phone.
-
-
stev
Regarding the claim that Maria Russell wrote the first 4 volumes of Millennial Dawn:
After thinking about it, I am skeptical of this claim.
It is true that Charles T. Russell did acknowledge the help of his wife in connection with the volumes, and did use an editorial staff, and Maria was Associate Editor without her name attached to her articles.
On the other hand, like Maria, Charles was capable of writing the books himself. He had written the Object and Manner booklet (1877) , and the Tabernacle and its teachings (1881). Maria could not have helped him with Vol. 5 (1899) or the lengthy Vol. 6 (1903).
Charles was probably more familiar with the time proofs than Maria, having preached them with Barbour, and modifying them in the Tower.
If it is true, Maria was the one responsible for originating the "that servant" doctrine and applying to her husband Charles. If she did indeed write the four volumes and knew it, it seems unlikely to me that she would have done this. The volumes at that time were the main means of spreading the "present truth". This would confirm to me that she thought that Charles had written the volumes himself, and not her.
If Charles was as egotistical and demeaning toward women as the judge in the court case determined, than it doesn't seem reasonable to me that he would arrange for his wife to write the books and palm them off as his own. An egotist would have written the books himself.
It is difficult to imagine any person like Charles who thinks they know the Divine secrets of the timing of Christ's invisible presence and the end of society and feels it is their personal mission to tell others, would give up the opportunity to write about it. There is much ego involved in being a prophet, and would have Charles passed up on being the author of these books?
Even if after the bitter court case, Charles still promoted the Studies in the Scriptures, and made the claim that they were the key to understanding the Bible, and necessary for staying in the light. This extremely laudatory promotion of these books is understandable if he wrote them himself, but does not seem credible if Maria wrote them.
John Paton wrote the book Day Dawn around 1880, and Russell promoted the book, but when he and Paton parted company, he no longer did so. If Maria did in fact write the first four volumes, it would seem difficult for Charles to think of them as highly as he said.
What's more, if Maria had in fact written the books, then she and not Charles is responsible for the dogmatic and unqualified statements regarding the chronological predictions, and the fatalistic, inevitable, and total collapse of society and the establishment of the Kingdom. Historically, it makes a difference who wrote these claims. To me, if Maria had in fact written them, it would be lower my estimation of her. Whoever was responsible for writing in this tone was not serving the public interest, and is the worst thing that came out of the Russell movement.
Unfortunately, other than a manuscript, there is little today that could confirm whether Maria's claim is true. The circumstances of their marriage is unusual and even bizarre, and we have a "he said", "she said" situation here.
-
22
Time Magazine (1927) - Rutherford a Circuit Judge for 14 years!!
by VM44 inhere is an article published in the august 1, 1927 issue of time magazine.
the footnote says concerning rutherford that "he was for 14 years a circuit judge in missouri".. where the the time reporter get that information from rutherford?
more accurately it should have said, "he filled in temporarily as a missouri circuit judge for a total of four days".. this is another example of rutherford bluffing and inflating his credentials to make himself look good to the public.. --vm44.
-
-
stev
Leolaia
On your post regarding 1928:
The Pastoral Bible Institute (PBI) published the Herald magazine, and not Paul S L Johnson. Johnson split to form his own group and magazine. The issues of the Herald are all online. The Gentile Times Reconsidered book mentions that the PBI expected the end of the Gentile Times in 1934, so that could be why the date 1934 was used.
Perhaps the date 1928 came from Morton Edgar's Great Pyramid Passages. Or from Adam Rutherford, who was also a Pyramidologist.
IMO, good and intelligent men have wasted their talents on finding dates and symbolism in the Pyramid. All the failed dates have shown that this is fruitless diversion.
-
38
Was Rutherford Mentally Ill?
by VM44 inin the golden age goodies thread leolaia has posted two letters that were printed in the magazine written by rutherford, one in 1928 and the other in 1938. in both letters rutherford states either that radio "was created by god" or "no man invented radio".. rutherford also goes into his conspiratorial ideas of how the roman catholic church was working with the nazis to overthrow the governments of england and of the usa to bring in a totalitarian fascist government to both countries.. these remarks sound like the ravings of someone who is not mentally all there.. so the question that naturally arises is this: was rutherford mentally ill?.
i believe that he was.. --vm44
-
-
stev
Rutherford was a manipulator and a lawyer and had been involved in Southern politics, so I wonder how much of his activity was conscious, planned, crafty. His power plays and changes in policy to gain more power seemed to been have planned and calculated. The craft does not fit the image of a madman.
Whether mentally ill, the comparison to Hitler is apt. If he wasn't mentally ill, then he was an evil man.
-
38
Was Rutherford Mentally Ill?
by VM44 inin the golden age goodies thread leolaia has posted two letters that were printed in the magazine written by rutherford, one in 1928 and the other in 1938. in both letters rutherford states either that radio "was created by god" or "no man invented radio".. rutherford also goes into his conspiratorial ideas of how the roman catholic church was working with the nazis to overthrow the governments of england and of the usa to bring in a totalitarian fascist government to both countries.. these remarks sound like the ravings of someone who is not mentally all there.. so the question that naturally arises is this: was rutherford mentally ill?.
i believe that he was.. --vm44
-
-
stev
There are other Bible Students whose mental stability has been questioned too - C. T. Russell, Clayton Woodworth, Paul S. L. Johnson. We could add cult leaders, and the founders of any religion we thought delusional, or claimed to be God's messenger. Anthony Storr wrote a book "Feet of Clay" about the psychology of gurus, and discussed Freud, Jung, and Jesus, and discussed the question of mental illness.
There is sometimes a fine line between genius and madness. William Blake was considered to be mad by some of his contemporaries, but by others today he is a genius.
Does delusional thinking cause mental illness, or does mental illness cause delusional thinking?
It's possible for good people to believe delusions.
It is more important to develop and use our critical thinking skills than to diagnose the mental illness of these leaders.
If we consider them mentally ill, it might make it easier for us to excuse their abusive behavior.
There are some religious leaders like George Fox, John Bunyan, Ellen White whose mentally stablity has been questioned but nevertheless it could argued they were a force for good in the world. Ellen White particularly is interesting because of her trances, and the possibility that these were caused by an early head injury.
And there are religious fanatics who yet are lovable eccentrics like the Shakers, the early Quakers, the Amish, and the perhaps even the early Bible Students.
As far as Rutherford goes, whether he was mentally ill or not, I personally have trouble finding something to like about him, and to find a redeeming quality. If there is such a thing as a cult leader, then he would be the classic textbook example.
And as for his remarks about the radio and the Catholic Church - these might be have been only a reflection of his religious views. He probably saw the radio as a Millenial foregleam, and the Catholic Church as "mother of harlots".