Are you allowed to examine the same external sources that Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves used?

Recognizable Questions - As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, may I research information outside JW.org ? - Did Jehovah's Witnesses themselves use external sources for their publications? - What scholarly and Bible-based sources were used for Aid to Bible Understanding ? - What did Raymond Franz later describe about that himself? - What happened during the research into 607 B.C.E.? - What can we independently verify from that, and what do we know only from Franz's own account? - Does reading an external source mean you must also believe that source? - How do you ultimately determine for yourself whether information is reliable? May one of Jehovah's Witnesses consult information during Bible study that does not come from JW.org or the Watch Tower organization? For some Witnesses, that very thought can feel uncomfortable. What if you come across information that differs from what you have always been taught? What if that makes you start to doubt? And as a believer, can you actually make use of Bible scholars, historians, archaeologists, or theologians who are not Jehovah's Witnesses? There is an interesting piece of history relevant to these questions: When Jehovah's Witnesses prepared their publications, they themselves also consulted external sources and scholarly research. That is not just a claim made by former Jehovah's Witnesses. Watch Tower said so itself. One of the people who later described in more detail from personal experience how that research was carried out was Raymond Franz . In this article, therefore, we look at two kinds of sources: what Watch Tower itself published about the research and what Raymond Franz later wrote about his personal experiences . That distinction is important. Who was Raymond Franz? Raymond Victor Franz was a Jehovah's Witness for many years and was part of the Governing Body in the 1970s. We can verify that without relying on his own book. In the 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses , Raymond V. Franz is officially listed as one of the eleven members of the Governing Body. Watch Tower's own index also records his later removal as a member of the Governing Body and of the Bethel family; an official announcement dated that to May 22, 1980 . Raymond Franz had previously helped with a comprehensive Bible reference work: Aid to Bible Understanding . Watch Tower began publishing this work in the late 1960s. A 1970 article states that the first volume was released on July 9, 1969, and that five years of work had already gone into the project at that point. The work was later superseded by Insight on the Scriptures . Watch Tower itself confirmed that extensive research was done This is important, because we do not have to take Raymond Franz's word for this at all. In 1970, The Watchtower published an extensive article about the preparation of Aid to Bible Understanding . It explained that the research had been enormous. Even more interesting is what was said about the research method. Watch Tower wrote that different workers were assigned topics so that research could be carried out in several fields at the same time. Scholarly knowledge and research findings were used in the process. The article discusses, among other things, Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries, encyclopedic reference works, research into Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, other ancient Semitic languages, and the work of lexicographers. Watch Tower even wrote that existing Bible dictionaries and reference works contained much useful and valuable information , although the organization at the same time warned that, in its view, these also contained unreliable or Bible-critical information. That distinction is important: An external source was not automatically dismissed as worthless simply because the writer was not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The information had to be evaluated. External scholarship was actually used The 1970 article goes even further. Watch Tower wrote that knowledge of the Bible's original languages had greatly increased through the work of lexicographers and that their research had been consulted and often used in preparing Aid to Bible Understanding . Knowledge of languages such as Arabic and Akkadian was also used to better understand possible meanings of Hebrew words. That is actually quite normal. Good research works that way. You do not look only at who is saying something; you ask: What is the claim based on? Can I verify it? What other sources exist? And how strong is the evidence? What does Raymond Franz's own account add to this? From here we need to carefully distinguish between an official Watch Tower report and Raymond Franz’s personal recollections . In his book Crisis of Conscience , Franz describes how he experienced the research for Aid to Bible Understanding . He explains that the assignment ultimately led to more extensive research than simply collecting and repeating earlier Watch Tower publications. According to Franz, the researchers began looking more fundamentally at the question: What does the Bible itself actually say? It is important to phrase this correctly: we know this part from Raymond Franz’s account. We therefore do not have to treat his recollections as automatically undisputed historical fact. But his general claim that extensive outside research was used for Aid to Bible Understanding is supported by Watch Tower’s own 1970 publication. The research into 607 B.C.E. One of the most interesting examples Franz describes concerns the chronology of Jerusalem’s destruction. For Jehovah's Witnesses, 607 B.C.E. is important because that date plays a role in their chronological calculation, which ultimately arrives at 1914 . Here we need to be very precise about what we know. According to Raymond Franz, when preparing Aid to Bible Understanding he was given responsibility, among other things, for material on chronology. In Crisis of Conscience he writes that much research was done into historical evidence that might support the date 607 B.C.E. Franz describes how a colleague who helped him spent weeks searching libraries in New York for historical material. According to Franz, they found no historical support for 607 B.C.E. That is Franz’s account of the research . It should therefore be presented that way, not as though Watch Tower itself published that conclusion. And then Brown University Franz then describes something even more concrete. He writes that he went with Charles Ploeger to Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island . There they spoke with Professor Abraham Sachs , a specialist in ancient cuneiform texts and, in particular, astronomical data from the relevant historical period. According to Franz, they wanted to investigate whether weaknesses could be found in the astronomical data that did not fit the Watch Tower dating of 607 B.C.E. Franz writes that this research did not produce evidence that could support 607 B.C.E. for them. That description appears in Crisis of Conscience . A available digital edition includes the passage around page 30, including his description of the library research and the visit to Abraham Sachs. A later publication on chronology also cites Franz’s account of this research and names the same colleague, Brown University, and Abraham Sachs. But here too an important caution is needed: The fact that Raymond Franz describes this research in this way does not by itself prove that every conclusion he later drew about 607 or 1914 was automatically correct. His historical and biblical arguments must be assessed separately. For this article, the research method is what is especially interesting. Libraries were consulted, historical sources were examined, and archaeological and astronomical material was reviewed. According to Franz, an external university expert was even consulted. Why is that relevant? Because it raises an interesting question. If people who worked on an important Bible reference work for Jehovah's Witnesses could use external reference works, consult scholarly research, and study lexicographers and, according to Franz, could also consult external academic experts , why should an individual Jehovah's Witness automatically feel guilty when he or she examines reliable outside information? That emphatically does not mean: ‘Everything outside JW.org is reliable.’ Of course not. But the opposite also does not follow: ‘If something does not come from JW.org, it cannot be reliable.’ Watch Tower itself made that distinction In The Watchtower of February 15, 1970, existing Bible dictionaries and other reference works were described as containing much useful and valuable information. At the same time, Watch Tower warned against information in them that it considered unreliable, inaccurate, or incorrect. The method therefore was not: ‘External = wrong.’ It was: ‘Examine the information and evaluate it.’ At the end of the same discussion, Watch Tower wrote that the editors of Aid to Bible Understanding had weighed other sources of information while wanting to continue using the Bible as the primary authority. Researching does not mean you have to believe everything That distinction is extremely important. Reading a source does not mean you believe that source. You can read a Catholic theologian without becoming Catholic. You can read a Protestant Bible scholar without becoming Protestant. You can read an atheist historian without becoming an atheist. You can read JW.org and then check the sources used. And you can read Raymond Franz without automatically accepting his conclusions. Research means: reading, comparing, checking, and then forming a conclusion. Every source can have a perspective A Catholic writer may reason from Catholic convictions. A Protestant theologian may have his own theological assumptions. A historian can make mistakes. A former Jehovah's Witness may bring negative experiences into his interpretation. An active Jehovah's Witness may find it easier to accept information when it confirms existing beliefs. And a religious organization is also made up of people who interpret information. So perhaps the best first question is not: ‘Who wrote this?’ but: ‘What is this claim based on?’ Then ask: What is the original source? Can I examine it myself? Is the source represented accurately? Is there independent evidence? What do experts who disagree say? And what conclusion is actually supported by the available evidence? And Raymond Franz himself? Here too, we want to be careful. On social media, it is sometimes claimed that Raymond Franz supposedly ‘stole’ research by Catholic or Protestant theologians for the Governing Body and then left because of that intellectual dishonesty. We find insufficient support for that specific wording. That external works and scholarly research were consulted is well documented. But consulting a source is not the same as stealing research . And Franz’ eventual conflict with the organization cannot be carefully reduced to this one issue alone. Crisis of Conscience deals with much broader questions of personal conscience, Bible interpretation, organizational authority, and decision-making. So we should not make his story bigger, sharper, or simpler than the sources allow. And Raymond Franz also does not have to be believed automatically. He was personally involved. That makes his testimony historically interesting. But his claims can also be checked. That is exactly the premise of this article. What can we establish independently of Franz? From official Watch Tower sources we can establish that: Aid to Bible Understanding was published starting in 1969; it was preceded by years of extensive research; various contributors were assigned research tasks; existing Bible commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedic works were consulted; research by lexicographers was used; knowledge from other ancient languages was used; Watch Tower acknowledged that external reference works could contain useful and relevant information; Raymond V. Franz was officially listed as a member of the Governing Body in the 1970s. Other details — such as his personal assignment, the library research on 607, and his visit to Abraham Sachs — we know largely from Franz' own account . That distinction does not make the story weaker. It makes it more accurate. The same critical standard for everyone Perhaps this is ultimately the most important point. If we are critical of information from former Jehovah's Witnesses, that is fine. If we are critical of Catholic or Protestant sources, that is fine too. If we do not immediately believe Raymond Franz because he was a former Witness, that is also reasonable. But intellectual honesty requires that we then apply the same critical standard to information that confirms our own beliefs . Not: This comes from my organization, so it must be right. But also not: This comes from an ex-JW, so it must be right. Better is: What exactly is being claimed? Where did the information originally come from? Can I verify that source myself? And does the source actually support the conclusion? What if research actually confirms your faith? That is of course also possible. Maybe you investigate a teaching thoroughly and conclude: ‘I still find the Jehovah's Witness explanation the most convincing.’ Then research has not destroyed your faith. You have examined information and reached a conclusion. But perhaps you also discover something for which you do not yet have an answer. That does not automatically mean you have to leave Jehovah either. You can say: ‘I do not know this at the moment.’ That is not an intellectual defeat. Sometimes that is exactly the most honest answer a researcher can give. Research and faith do not have to be enemies When something is true, careful research does not have to be dangerous to it. And when a claim does not hold up, it is valuable to find that out. That is why the question perhaps should not be: ‘May I read this?’ but: ‘How can I check whether this is true?’ That is also exactly what makes the history of Aid to Bible Understanding interesting. The official Watch Tower literature shows that the compilers made use of knowledge and research that did not originate solely within their own organization. Raymond Franz then describes from his personal experience how far that research, in his view, sometimes went. You do not have to adopt his final conclusions in order to learn something from it. In closing You do not have to be afraid of a source simply because the author is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. But you also do not have to trust a source simply because the author is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The same goes for this article. Check what is written here. Look at the original Watch Tower publications. See what Raymond Franz actually wrote. Compare different sources. Where possible, seek out primary sources. See whether a quotation means the same thing in its context. And then make your own assessment. Perhaps that is ultimately the most important lesson: Research is not about which source you give permission to think for you. Research is about learning how to check why you believe something. Sources and further reading For the history of Aid to Bible Understanding , the 1970 Watch Tower article is especially valuable. There the organization itself describes the scope of the research, the use of existing reference works, and the use of linguistic research. Watchtower Online Library - With All That You Acquire, Acquire Understanding - 1970 The official 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses names Raymond V. Franz as a member of the Governing Body. JW.org - The Governing Body - 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses For the section on 607 BCE, the library research, and Brown University , the primary source for Franz' own version is Crisis of Conscience . In the digitally consulted edition, the relevant passage is around page 30. Raymond Franz - Crisis of Conscience A second source that discusses Franz' account of the research into 607 is The Gentile Times Reconsidered . Use that as a supplementary source, not as a replacement for Franz' own book. Carl Olof Jonsson - The Gentile Times Reconsidered