ClaimThe Bible and the translationsupported1950sContext

The Bible and the translation · Claim record

A widely circulated typescript of the proof records Frederick W. Franz, under cross-examination on 24 November 1954, saying that he did not speak Hebrew and, asked to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, answering ‘No. I won’t attempt to do that.’ The organisation has never published a response to this passage.

Claim ID claim-bible-walsh-franz-hebrew-exchangeConcerns 24 November 1954Context

The claim and its evidence

Context · 24 November 1954 Supported

A widely circulated typescript of the proof records Frederick W. Franz, under cross-examination on 24 November 1954, saying that he did not speak Hebrew and, asked to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, answering ‘No. I won’t attempt to do that.’ The organisation has never published a response to this passage. Source: Court of Session, Edinburgh — Pursuer’s Proof, 24 November 1954Source: Crisis of Conscience (4th edition), 2004 (unverified)Source: The Watchtower, 1 June 1955

Show the evidence (3 sources)
Discovery source only Supported

Court of Session, Edinburgh — Pursuer’s Proof, “Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, M.P., P.C. — evidence of Frederick William Franz”

24 November 1954 · pp.102-103 (also pp. 87-88, 100-101 of the same transcript)

“Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you? A. I do not speak Hebrew. Q. You do not? A. No. Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew? A. Which? Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis? A. You mean here? Q. Yes. A. No. I won’t attempt to do that.”

The exchange follows counsel for the defender directing the witness to the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures at Genesis 2:4. Elsewhere in the same cross-examination the witness is recorded as saying that when the translation was donated “the Translation Committee made it known that they did not wish their names to be disclosed . . . that the names would not be revealed now or after death”, that whether the translators are all Jehovah’s Witnesses “is part and parcel of the agreement that their names shall not be revealed”, and that doctrinal advances are not voted on by the board of directors: “They go through the editorial committee, and I give my O.K. after Scriptural examination. Then I pass them on to President Knorr, and President Knorr has the final O.K.”

Provenance and verification note for Court of Session, Edinburgh — Pursuer’s Proof, Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, M.P., P.C. — evidence of Frederick William Franz

Confidence note. The scanned typescript and its OCR were downloaded and read on 19 September 2026. The wording above is transcribed from a poor-quality OCR of the scan and has been reconstructed where the OCR is plainly corrupt, so it must be treated as a reading of the scan, not as certified transcript text. Independent corroboration: Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (4th ed., 2004, pp. 76-77), reproduces the ‘editorial committee / final O.K.’ exchange in almost identical words and cites “the official court transcript”, and at p. 100 footnote 14 cites “the official court record, pp. 387, 388”, showing he worked from a paginated transcript. A further internal check, stated with its weakness: the scan’s session headings run “Tuesday, 23rd November”, “Wednesday, 24th November” and “Thursday, 25th November”, a sequence that fits November 1954 and not November 1953, and 23 November 1954 is the proof date The Watchtower itself gives. But the only year legible on a session heading in the scan reads “1953”, which must be either an error on the document or an OCR failure and which the scan cannot resolve; this weakens rather than supports the check. The page footers of the two pages quoted here read “102. F.W. Franz. (Cross.)” and “103. F.W. Franz. (Cross.)”, and the same pages also carry a second, stamped number (“Page 347”), so the typescript has two numbering systems and a page citation must say which one it uses. No repository-authenticated copy was located, so this is not recorded as verified.

Scan provenance. Scanned typescript uploaded to the Internet Archive on 16 November 2008 by a private individual, identified in the item metadata only by a personal email address. The item is titled simply “Walsh Trial”; it names no holding repository and records no chain of custody, and the uploader’s own description misstates the case as “L Strachan v. Douglas Walsh (1954)”. The uploader attached a public-domain dedication to the item, which is an assertion by the uploader and not evidence of provenance. The copy consulted is hosted by a third party and its lawfulness is not established, so no link to it is published here.

Corroborated by. src-nwto-w-1955-0601-walsh, src-nwto-rfranz-2004-cc-walsh

Notes. The National Records of Scotland hold Court of Session processes, and the LSE archives catalogue lists a file referenced RAEBURN/6/25 described in search results as “[Douglas Walsh Case]”; neither was accessible to our tools on the access date. Until a repository copy is examined, the site should describe this as a widely circulated transcript whose provenance we have not been able to authenticate.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwto-walsh-1954-transcript

Discovery source only Unverified

Crisis of Conscience (4th edition), “Chapter 3, “Governing Body””

2004 · pp.75-76 · Raymond Franz · Commentary Press, Atlanta

“Vice President Franz made this clear when testifying before a court in Scotland in 1954 in a case known as the Walsh Case. . . . the material here being reprinted from the official court transcript”

The author then reproduces the cross-examination in which the witness says of doctrinal advances: “They go through the editorial committee, and I give my O.K. after Scriptural examination. Then I pass them on to President Knorr, and President Knorr has the final O.K. Q. Does it not go before the Board of Directors at all? A. No.” The footnote to this passage (note 35, p. 76) cites no page. A later footnote (p. 100, note 14, in chapter 4) does cite “the official court record, pp. 387, 388”, but it supports Hayden Covington’s evidence in the same case, not this passage; it shows only that the author worked from a paginated record.

Provenance and verification note for Crisis of Conscience (4th edition), Chapter 3, “Governing Body”

Confidence note. PDF downloaded and read on 19 September 2026; page numbers from the book’s own running footers. Its value here is corroborative only: it shows that a former Governing Body member, writing independently, quoted the same passage from what he called the official transcript. His wording matches the archive scan almost exactly, but he gives no page for it, so this corroborates the words and not the pagination.

Scan provenance. PDF of the fourth edition hosted by friendsofraymondfranz.com. The copy consulted is hosted by a third party and its lawfulness is not established, so no link to it is published here.

Corroborated by. src-nwto-walsh-1954-transcript

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwto-rfranz-2004-cc-walsh

Primary JW publication Verified

The Watchtower, “Jehovah’s Witnesses—A Religion Without Ministers?”

1 June 1955 · pp.329-332 · Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

“An action for declarator was brought in Scotland that asked the Court of Session to declare that Douglas Walsh was a “regular minister” because of his appointment as a pioneer and also because of his appointment as a congregation servant. The case became known as Walsh v. The Lord Advocate.”

This is the organisation’s own contemporary account of the case. It records that a preliminary hearing was held in Edinburgh in January 1954, that Lord Strachan ordered the case to proof, that “the proof was set down for November 23, 1954”, and that “H. C. Covington, a United States barrister and the Watch Tower Society’s general counsel” together with “F. W. Franz, vice-president of the Society” and “Grant Suiter, the Society’s secretary and treasurer” flew from New York to give evidence, Franz being “the first to go into the witness box”. It records that “The whole of the evidence had taken seven days to give”, that judgment was given on 7 January 1955, that Lord Strachan held Jehovah’s Witnesses to be a religious denomination but Walsh not to be a “regular minister”, and that the press “devoted more than a thousand column-inches to the case”, The Scotsman reporting fully each day.

Provenance and verification note for The Watchtower, Jehovah’s Witnesses—A Religion Without Ministers?

Confidence note. Opened on the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the issue was confirmed by locating the article in the Online Library listing for The Watchtower of 1 June 1955, and page numbers taken from the document’s embedded page markers.

Corroborated by. src-nwto-walsh-1956-hl

Notes. The article states that the appeal would next go to “the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland”. That is Scotland’s supreme criminal court; a civil action for declarator would go to the Inner House of the Court of Session, and the House of Lords report records that the appeal was in fact heard by the Second Division before reaching the House of Lords.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-nwto-w-1955-0601-walsh

Claim page

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/evidence/claim-bible-walsh-franz-hebrew-exchange/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.