Chryssides is male. de Vienne is not. Personally, I'd include Separate Identity in his list of major works. I think it is story-changing.
De Vienne's review touched on the Jewish issue in Rutherford's day. This doesn't add any thing. Rutherford did indeed express reservations about the society's management, expressing them to Russell. This is in the original documentation His concerns were narrowly focused, relating only to the election process.
We sometimes wish an author addressed our pet issues in more detail. Both de Vienne and Persson fall into that in their reviews, though Rachael de Vienne tells you up front that's what she's doing. Chryssides presents the blood issues in a manner appropriate to a generalist history.
We approach books such as Chryssides from our own viewpoints. Perrson has a personal agenda that shows through in the blood comment. Is Penton's last revision the better book? In some ways, certainly. But they do not approach the matter in the same way. Penton does not address contemporary Witness social structure to the same depth. I have both books. You should too. And if you ignore Schulz and de Vienne's two books, you've made a serious mistake.
Other than Rutherford raising the issue of the legal form of elections with Russell, Perrson's comments on the 1918 schism are accurate. I still recommend Chryssides' book, though it is obscenely expensive.
I agree with this:
Lieu 2 hours ago
Biased
people can't read unbiased information without complaining and focusing
on minor errors. We should all know that from JWism.
With each book of research, we glean more and more information. Looks an interesting read.
On the question raised about the date of Jesus birth: Most scholars disagree with the Watchtower by from two to four years. Scholars have been wrong before. I've never seen a good refutation of the Watchtower's reasoning, but I've never perused it either. Sorry, I don't have a well-founded opinion on that issue.