Andersonsinfo question: Who wrote them?

by TheOldHippie 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • BabaYaga

    Best wishes and strength to Hillary Step, I am so very sorry for your loss.


    Not to detract from a heartfelt condolence, but it is so very cool to know who wrote which book!

    As always, Barbara, thank you so much!

  • daniel-p


    Dan P-

    Interestingly, last autumn my cong was host for the CA. During his Tuesday night talk the DO referenced "Commentary on James". I was totally shocked! It is also on the latest CD rom.

    I was talking with [email protected] a while back and he said how the Gilead instructors bashed the Commentary on James book, saying that it should have emphasized the ministry more. There was nothing necessarily wrong in what it said, but wrong in what it "didn't say."

  • Quandary

    Dan P-

    I had heard the same thing about the book. I guess I had assumed since it was not in print, it would not be on the CD.
    It is a great book, very well written in a "matter of fact" kind of way with believable interpretations. NOTHING like the refuse in the recent Isaiah, Revealtion and Daniel books.


  • compound complex
    compound complex

    I hope you don't mind my bringing this over from another thread. Perhaps it will generate comment here.



    Who Actually Supplies the "Food"?

    There were, of course, articles that did come through from "anointed" brothers in different countries. [footnote #37: In almost all cases the article came because President Knorr had sent an assignment to the person to write it.] These, however, were subject to review, revision and even total rewriting according to the discretion of the Writing Department overseer, Karl Adams. Yet Karl himself was not of the "anointed." He felt no hesitance in turning over an article written by one of the "anointed" to one of the "other sheep" for reworking or rewriting, and frequently did so. No one of his superiors had any objection to his doing so.

    The sole exception to this rule were the writings prepared by the vice president, Fred Franz. As Karl stated to me, Knorr had made clear that the vice president's writings were to be altered only with the vice president's permission.

    In one Governing Body meeting when this subject of preparation of "spiritual food" came up, President Knorr spontaneously acknowledged that the great bulk of the writing was done by those of the "other sheep" class. To any one writing in the Writing Department this was obvious. Though the Writing Department has since been greatly expanded, the situation remains essentially the same. [footnote # 38: The writing staff in recent years numbers 20 or more persons in all, the great majority professing to be of the "other sheep."]

    The reason generally given to explain away this anomaly is that, even though the non-anointed members do the thinking, development and writing of the material, it is always read and approved by persons of the "anointed" before printing. Evidently this somehow adds an anointed touch or quality to the material. [footnote # 39: Compare Haggai 2:11, 12.] The very fact that such reasoning must be resorted to of itself shows the strained nature of the claim made as to the application of the food-supplying aspect of Jesus' parable.


  • TheOldHippie

    Actually, Ray Franz had nothing to do with the James book - it was Dunlap's project. The couple of major alterations from the original book, burned, and the issued book, can be received in print from Franz's site. I have a list of who wrote some of the other books, I'll see if I can find it. I remember when James and Peter were issued - the speaker said they marked the beginning of something new, a whole new trend, from the Society, and that more would follow - but they never did.

    Someone asked about new light. I knew a senior in translation dept, and he told me it was his impression the GB would send out "trial balloons" to sort of "see what happens". If no big reactions / question would come in, they would proceed along those lines. If questions / critique / massive comments would pour in, they would quietly stop and revert. "They don't know, but make attempts all the time." I remember how he told me an article - question from readers - about birthday celebrations came in for translation, he would give no details, but said the dept was much surprised. Then, few days before printing, a new article on a totally different topic came and should urgently replace the original one ....................... Reminds me about when Beria (Stalin's successor) was killed, all subscribers to The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia received an aricle about Berlin, which was equally long as the article about Beria, and they were informed the Berlin article was to be glued over the Beria article.

  • slimboyfat

    There was a commentary on Peter?

  • Narkissos

    slim: yes, another poster reminded me of the title recently: Choosing the best way of life.

  • TheOldHippie

    Also verse-to-verse as far as I recall.

  • slimboyfat

    I never realised Choose the Best Way of Life was a commentary. Just having a look at it, it doesn't have the verses in header the way the James book does but it does seem to be verse by verse. The brother who studied with me recommended that book to me, he said he read it when he was deciding to get baptised.

    I wonder if the new book aboutActs will be verse by verse too.

    When you compare the commentary on James with the newer book about the Minor Prophets you can see a real decline in the publications. The writing is poorer, the depth of the discussion, everything. It's pretty sad. I doubt the book on Acts will be very interesting either. Is the organization still relied on people buying their books would that improve the quality I wonder?

    Do Watchtower books discussing OT prophets verse by verse count as commentaries do you reckon?

  • Narkissos

    At the time the books on James and 1 Peter struck me (and many others) as entirely new -- but actually the form of verse-by-verse commentary was not; as I recall there had been commentaries on Revelation (Babylon the Great has fallen), Daniel, Ezekiel and so on, long before; what was new to me and others was the kind of commentary -- basically exegetical, even though in a popular and upbuilding way. No mere WT pesher (I mean authoritarian, arbitrary, peremptory, self-centered interpretation). I remember a couple of times where the commentary did not decide between several possible interpretations of the text, which was definitely disturbing or upsetting to some. But to others it revealed negatively (by what it didn't say, indeed) the nature of what they had been fed with too long. Many then did hope that it would be a new trend in WT publishing, and that this type of commentary would gradually extend to the whole Bible.

    Another anecdote: shortly after I went to Bethel a relatively long-time Bethelite invited me to his room. As I was admiring his colossal personal library which included very old publications he told me, you know, that's all crap except a couple of them (pointing to the Aid book and the James/1 Peter commentaries). I was stunned at his way of putting it but I couldn't help understand what he was getting at.

Share this