Fred Franz as Ghostwriter for Rutherford

by slimboyfat 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  It has been claimed that Franz was a ghostwriter for Rutherford in formulating many on the more obscure allegorical interpretations, and "classes" doctrines of the 1930s and 1940s. I wonder just how much evidence there is for this. If there any contemporary testimony that Franz did a lot of the writing for Rutherford?

  I guess the evidence is there in the fact that Franz obviously continued and expanded the fixation on "classes" and "anti-types" in the post-Rutherford years. This was developed and developed to the point of absurdity in later years. The book "Survival" in the 1980s is like the "anti-typical" Fred Franz on speed or ecstasy or something. They came up with hundreds of bizarre allegorical interpretation of Bible situations and characters for that book. Although I think I remember reading that Franz did not actually write that one, it definitely continued what he had started.

  So if Rutherford left Franz to come up with all the scriptural justifications for the new doctrines they were formulating, then what did Rutherford himself actually write? Did he just write the political invective that he enjoyed delivring in his fiery talks so much?

  If we accept that Franz was Rutherford's ghostwriter, then it becomes interesting to speculate just which books Franz was largely responsible for and which Rutherford wrote himself. "Enemies" for instance, seems actually quite devoid of actual biblical exegesis, and I can quite imagine that Rutherford could reel that off himself. The likes of "Jehovah" on the other hand, and all the stuff about Jonadabs and Jehu was probably Franz' doing.

  Also, how early did Franz start assisting Rutherford with his books? "The Harp of God", for instance - surely Franz was not prominent enough that early to have had a hand in that book. So did Rutherford write that himself? Maybe an idea could be gleaned from comparing his later books to the one "from a lawyer's perspective" he wrote before becoming president.

  We know who wrote most of the books from the Knorr era because Ray Franz and other defectors have revealed that information, but after, say, 1984, it seems we are a bit in the dark. Have no more recent defectors from Bethel revealed who has been writing the books for the Society since Fred Franz died/got to old to do most of the writing for them? Who is churning out all this Daniel book and Isaiah book nonsense nowadays? Any ideas?
• 

  Nathan Natas

  The forensic experts at UADNA are skilled in both textual analysis and non-obvious relationship awareness;their word is good enuff for me
• 

  What-A-Coincidence

  
  Writing Department:

  Overseer - John Barr (GB)

  Assistant - David Splane (GB)

  Checking / Proofreading - Dean Songer

  Comm. Secretary - Robert Pevy

  Dispatch - James Mantz

  Librarian - Gene Smalley
• 

  greendawn

  If that is the case then Franz is the major player in formulating the JW dogma, he began writing from the 1920's and continued until the 1980's, good for the dubs to know who created most of the nonsense that rules their lives. Even the blood doctrine that caused unnecesary death to thousands of them over the years.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Nathan - could you explain/provide a reference?
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Google "textual analysis" and "non obvious relationship awarenss" for some fscinating information.

  Do NOT Google "UADNA," or Hank will kick the crap out of you.
• 

  TheOldHippie

  When GB member Berry died in 1999, it was told - and written - that he was the main author of the later books, such as "Knowledge" etc.
• 

  greendawn

  It would be more decent if the authors of the JW books would not hide behind anonymity and let us know who wrote what and it is something dodgy that they do not do so. Perhaps they are afraid of liabilities and prefer to hide their names.
• 

  Forscher

  A. H. Macmillan was a figure in the organization from Russell's day and priviy to much of went on at the top since he was instrumental in helping Rutherford to take over and run the organization after Russell's death. Late in life, he wrote the book Faith on the March, which appears to be a refuttal of Thirty Years A Watchtower Slave. In it we find the following in chapter 13:
  "A scholar from his youth, Franz is a keen student of the Bible. Born in Covington, Kentucky, in 1893, he carried away the honors of the University of Cincinnati and was offered the privilege of going to Oxford or Cambridge in England under the Rhodes Plan. Instead, in 1914, he entered the full-time ministry. His mother was a devout woman and a sincere Bible student and had brought her children up in that way. When Franz came to headquarters in l920, Rutherford saw at once that he was a young man of literary ability and possibilities, so he put him to work as an editorial assistant."
  That is very suggestive of Franz doing some ghost writing for Rutherford. Since MacMillan would never admit that anything carrying the byline of Rutherford was not written by him, the statement does raise the possibility. A textual analysis of Rutherford's books and other writings with a comparison of works known to be Franz's would settle the matter. I don't doubt that much of Rutherford's works would be revealed as Franz's. Maybe Natan can give us some specifics or link us to people who have done that work.
  Forscher
• 

  TheOldHippie

  But lots and lots of messages have been written on this site and other ones, on how the books issued in Rutherford's days clearly show they are the rantings of an alcoholic, that they are not coherent, that the teachings in them have all been discarded etc. - in short, point to the lunacy of Rutherford. So they say. But if Franz was the author, how come these teachings were done away with, how come many of these same posters tell us Franz did have much Biblical knowledge etc.? If he wrote the books of the 20s and 30s which were lunacyaccording to these posters, how come he also wrote the books of the 50s and 60s which were - at least to a certain degree - not so?