Dear Sir:
I wish to thank you for your letter assuring me that the notice of the
CONCORDANT VERSION in THE WATCH TOWER of June 15, 1920 was inserted without authority. I
am sorry that you find it necessary to offer an excuse which so sorely lacks the support
of the facts, which are as follows:
A number of members of the Society who had seen the CONCORDANT VERSION
were so pleased with it that they wrote to headquarters. I never approached the Society at
all. They wrote to me on their official stationery, signed by a name recognized in THE
WATCH TOWER. One of the editors was sent to see me. I told him that I did not agree with
some of the doctrines of the International Bible Students Association, and that this was
to be distinctly understood, so that they could not repudiate any agreement on the ground
of differences in doctrine. To this he heartily agreed. I had assured myself of his
identity by going to an International Bible Students Association conference and found that
he was a recognized national leader. Because the regular edition contained my notes, it
was agreed that I print a special edition for your use, without any notes whatever.
In THE WATCH TOWER I found this notice: "This Journal is published
under the supervision of an Editorial Committee, at least three of whom must have read and
have approved as Truth each and every article appearing in these columns. The names of the
Editorial Committee now serving are: W. E. VAN AMBURGH, J. F. RUTHERFORD, H. C. ROCKWELL,
F. H. ROBINSON, R. H. HIRCH."
I know of no other publication which is so thoroughly safeguarded
against unofficial announcements. This is more than sufficient evidence that the
commendation of the Version was not inserted by one who had no right to do so, but was
backed by the authority of the leaders and published as the official voice of the Society.
You asked me if I had a written contract. The endorsement of the Society was a {printed}
contract, not only with me but with your members, and {it was my bounded duty to do my
part in fulfilling it}. You sold about two thousand parts and paid for them with checks
signed by your treasurer. He certainly had authority, for the cheeks were all honored.
Then, notwithstanding the verbal agreement, which is just as binding on
saints as a written document, notwithstanding the printed advertisement guaranteed by your
editorial committee, and after you had sold and paid for thousands of copies, without a
moment's warning you repudiated your word and your public announcement {on grounds which
it was expressly agreed should not affect our business relations on any account}.
You are forced to use versions made by men who do not fully agree with
your doctrinal position. There are no others. The CONCORDANT VERSION is the only one which
has a practical plan to exclude the private opinion of the translator. No one who renders
each Greek word consistently {can} introduce his own ideas, as is done in the Emphatic
Diaglott on almost every opening. Without special examination, I have noticed the same
Greek word translated four different ways on a single page. {Your reason for rejecting the
CONCORDANT VERSION is the very one which should force you to accept it}. It alone, of all
versions, has on elaborate plan which makes a deliberate effort to exclude private
interpretation, and it alone will provide its readers with the evidence to test each
rendering.
I believe that God "through the Son of His love" will
"reconcile all things for Him, having made peace by means of the blood of His cross,
whether the things on the earth, or the things in the heavens" (Col.1:20, Emphatic
Diaglott). You do not believe this. I do. This is my crime.
Your own friends here who knew about your course did what they could to
get you to right the wrong. They arranged a meeting at which I asked you to make some
announcement in THE WATCH TOWER. You refused to give any reason for your action or to do
anything, because I had no written contract. Being a lawyer, you knew better than I that
we had much more than that. I confess that such an attitude from one in your position,
under the circumstances, was exceedingly painful to me. I suppose men of the world will go
back on their word under the plea of a written contract, but I hoped that you were
actuated by superior principles.
I am sorry to see that your letter shows the same spirit. You say the
Society is a corporation. I have heard of soulless corporations which descended to
anything legal to gain their ends, even repudiating the acts of their employees. Surely
you do not voluntarily class your Society among these! Your friends, of course, are
responsible with you, but I do not hold it against them, because everyone of them who
hears of it is shocked by your attitude.
Lastly, the "Popular" versions, specially prepared for you,
had absolutely no indication of our teaching whatever. The Emphatic Diaglott, which you
publish, has very much to indicate the bias of the author in its text and notes, yet
Pastor Russell contented himself with calling attention to such differences.
I need say no more. You do not seek to justify your action, but prefer
to introduce legal technicalities, such as "a written contract" and "a
corporation." Does not this convince you, as it does all others, that all is not
right in the sight of God?
Yours in the Lord,
A. E. KNOCH.