C. Piazzi Smyth, Charles Taze Russell
and
the
|
It is not the purpose
of this paper to point out that the Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society
was wrong to appeal to the Pyramid to support it's chronological speculations.
J. F. Rutherford in the book Prophecy (and various other contemporaneous
publications) has already done this - even going so far as to say
that the Pyramid, rather than being "God's stone witness"
was built at the "instance" of the Devil (Prophecy,
p. 143-144). Since this has already been covered by the second President
of the Watch Tower Society, there is no need for me to go into it
now. It is the purpose
of this paper to raise certain questions regarding discrepancies in
the measurement of one of the passages of the Great Pyramid as they
appear in the book Thy Kingdom Come by Charles Taze Russell.
The following three books were consulted when researching this paper:
From this paper a
person should be able to determine if C. T. Russell was honest in
his presentation of the material dealing with the Pyramid. What follows
are my observations on the subject. Please let me know if, after looking
at the material, you disagree with my conclusions. I would encourage
you to look at the original books if you have them. If you do not
have them, but would like to see them I can supply photocopies of
the relevant passages. Section
II. The Material This Paper Is Based On The measurement in
question is on page 342 of Thy Kingdom Come (sources (1) and
(2) above). In the table below I have placed the passages side by
side. The text in red indicates Russell's
changes.
When you compare
the text in red, above, you will notice that the significant change
is the elongation of the Passage from 3416 inches to 3457 inches,
(a difference of 41 inches). The other changes are the deletion of
one word ("chronological")
and the change of one verb from past to future tense ("was"
to "will be"). Apparently these
changes were made to buttress Russell's new date of 1914 for the "beginning"
of the period of trouble. What I would like to learn is did Russell
alter data on a whim to conform to his speculation or did he have
some justifiable reason for changing his measurements? In other words,
Russell changed the measurements. Why?? Did further research show
that the original measurements (supposedly from Smyth) were in error?
And if so, where is the documented evidence? Russell stated that
the source for his measurements was the published work of Professor
Smyth. He further stated that Professor Smyth's measurements are very
accurate. Why then did he twice change the measurements?
The diagram which Russell made reference to in # (3), above, appears
in Our Inheritance in Stone, by Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth, on page
235 ("Plate DC"). It also appears on page 333 in all printings
of Thy Kingdom Come.
You may want to have
a copy of these diagrams before you as we go on. For your convenience,
I have created links to the images. The links are: C.
Piazzi Smyth's original drawing, and Charles Russell's copy.
You will notice that
the diagrams are not the same. First, the reference to Piazzi Smyth
as the artist that appears just outside the upper left corner of the
drawing in Smyth's book, has been erased from Russell's. Second, the
measurements that were printed in the lower right quadrant of the
original drawing have been deleted as well. Third, the measurement
of the Descending Entrance Passage floor, which is printed on Smyth's
drawing, has been erased from Russell's. This measurement is central
to Russell's chronology. Charles
Russell altered Prof. Smyth's diagram so that it would be appropriate
to include in his book. While the measurements for the "Ascending
Passage" (1542 inches) and the measurement for the "Entrance
Passage" (985 inches) still appear in Russell's book, the measurement
for the entire "Entrance Passage Floor" (i.e. "Entrance
Passage" and "Descending Entrance Passage") does not.
Prof. Smyth gives this measurement as 4446 inches. If you look at
Smyth's drawing, directly under the label "Descending Entrance
Passage", you will see this. That means that the measurement
of the "Descending Entrance Passage"(3)
is actually 3461 inches(4), not 3416 as Russell gave from 1891-1904, or 3457 as
he gave from 1905 onward. So,
why did Russell alter the diagram? I feel that the answer is because
he could not support his eschatology (chronology for the last days)
with the Pyramid without making it say something it did not.(5) Section
III. The Letter From Professor C. Piazzi Smyth. On pages 311 and
312 of all editions of Thy Kingdom Come, Charles Russell discusses
C. Piazzi Smyth's involvement with the pre-publication manuscript
of the book (e.g. Thy Kingdom Come). Additionally, on page
312, he reproduces a letter, which he claims is from the Professor,
endorsing his pyramid chapter. In part, Professor Smyth writes: "I
have been rather longer than I could hare wished in looking over the
MS. of your friend, C. T. Russell, of Allegheny, Penn., but I have
now completed a pretty careful examination, word by word." At the conclusion
of the same letter, Professor Smyth indicates that he has made "a
thorough reading of this advanced Pyramid chapter of the third volume..."
Elsewhere, he states that "there were not
a few passages" that he "should
have been glad to take a copy for quotation in the next possible edition
of my Pyramid book." (312). It seems clear that Professor
Smyth was well acquainted with what Russell wrote in his pyramid chapter.
And, further, being so acquainted, he was in agreement with it - so
much so, that he wanted to quote portions of Russell's work in some
future edition of his own! The obvious question
is: Why would Professor Smyth give such high praise for a work that
misrepresented his own? It is clear that Russell never used
the correct measurement, even though it was printed in Professor
Smyth's book. And what about the altered diagram? What is the
explanation? As
to the diagram, C. Piazzi Smyth was not sent any diagrams to look
over so he would not have had the opportunity to see that Russell
altered them. Professor Smyth was only sent an advance type-written
copy of Russell's Pyramid Chapter(6).
In view of this there seems to be only three possible explanations:
Before you decide,
let's consider one more quotation from Thy Kingdom Come. On
page 365 Russell writes: "And
let it be remembered, too, that we who understood the Scriptural presentation
of these times and seasons had nothing to do with the taking of these
measurements of the Great Pyramid; and that they who took the measurements
knew nothing of our application of the prophecy at the time the measurements
were taken, nor do they yet, so far as we know."
[Italics mine] In
view of the supposed endorsement letter cited above, could Russell
honestly state that people such as C. Piazzi Smyth(7) have no knowledge of the way he has applied their work?(8) If Russell's statement above is true, then the letter
(from Smyth) is a hoax and Charles Taze Russell was being less than
truthful. However, if the statement (above, from pg. 365 of Russell's
book) is not true then it appears that Russell is still not being
truthful. Unfortunately, the conclusion then is that Charles Taze
Russell was a liar either way. Summary It seems clear that
Charles Taze Russell, the founder and first president of the Watch
Tower Bible And Tract Society, was not honest in his presentation
of the facts relating to the Bible and the Great Pyramid of Egypt.
Further, without judging his heart, it appears that he wrote in such
a way as to mislead and deceive his readers. It appears that his only
concern was to lend credence to his personal eschatological views.
This he did with very little regard for accuracy or respect for the
truth. Challenge If you think another conclusion is reasonable given the facts, or if you have a question or a concern, please send me your comments. ~Chuck~
|