A couple of newspaper announcements mentioning S. Franklin Logsdon as “of Largo, Florida.” (Click to enlarge)
The Lima (Ohio) News, Saturday, February 5, 1972, p. 9
The Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, Mississippi), Tuesday, September 19, 1978, p. 5B
Around 1973, a man who once supported the NASB turned
to support the KJV. It has driven NASB supporters and KJV supporters to all
sorts of madness!
Warning – this post is quite long, and may be tedious
to anyone not overly interested in the squabble over what Stuart Franklin
Logsdon said about the New American Standard Bible and his relationship to it.
First, we will consider Franklin Logsdon’s own testimony,
then what others have said about it, and finally offer some concluding
thoughts.
Logsdon’s Own Testimony
I know of three different sources of S Franklin
Logsdon’s own testimony: (1) an audio tape of Logsdon speaking, (2) a letter from Logsdon to David Otis Fuller, and (3) a letter from Logsdon to Cecil Joseph Carter.
Audio recording of Franklin Logsdon, answering questions (excerpt) [i]
[This transcript will vary from most (if not all) that
are available online, as I have tried to capture t the
speech patterns rather than smooth them out. This recording was most likely
made in 1974, and had to be made after the death of Dewey Lockman, January 11,
1974.]
So…back in, oh, what was it, 1956, 57, Mr. F. Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation – one of the dearest friends we’ve ever had for 25 years, a big man, some 300 pounds, snow white hair, one of the most terrific businessmen I have ever met. I always said he was like Nehemiah; he was building a wall, and you couldn’t get in his way when he had his mind on something; he went right to it; he couldn’t be daunted. [I] never saw anything like it; most unusual man; very unusual. [I] spent weeks and weeks and weeks in their home, real close friends of the family.
Well, he discovered that the copyright [on the American Standard Version of 1901] was just as loose as a fumbled ball on a football field. Nobody wanted it. The publishers didn’t want it. Who would want it? Nobody wanted it. It didn’t get anywhere. Mr. Lockman got in touch with me and said, “Would you and Anne come out and spend some weeks with us, and we’ll work on a feasibility report; I can pick up the copyright to the 1901 if it seems advisable.” Well, up to that time I thought the Westcott and Hort was the text. You were intelligent if you believed the Westcott and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text, the finest leaders that we have today. You’d be surprised; if I told you, you wouldn’t believe it. They haven’t gone into it, just as I hadn’t gone into it – just taking it for granted.
Well, at any rate, we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord. [Because] I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the New American Standard, they are my words. Well, when I my copy (I got one of the fifty deluxe copies, that were printed; mine was number seven, blue—a light blue cover.) But it was rather big and I couldn’t carry it with me, and I never really looked at it. I just took for granted that it was done as we started it, you know, until some of my friends across the country began to learn that I had some part in it and they started saying, “What about this; what about this?” Especially Dr. David Otis Fuller in Grand Rapids. I’ve known him for 35 years, and he would say (always called me Frank; I’d call him Duke), “Frank, what about this? You had a part in it; what about this; what about this?” And at first I thought, now, wait a minute; let’s don’t go overboard; let’s don’t be too critical. You know how you justify yourself the last minute. [But] I got to the place where I said, “Anne, I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong; it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?” Well, I went through heart searching—some real soul searching for about four months, I don’t know, I think [it was] about four months; and I sat down and wrote the most difficult letter of my life, I think.
I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, “Dewey, I don’t want to add to your problems,” ([he] had lost his wife some three years before;[ii] I was there for the funeral; [also] a doctor had made a mistake in operating on a cataract and he had lost the sight of one eye and had to have an operation on the other [one]; he had a slight heart attack; had sugar diabetes; a man seventy-four years of age) but I wrote and said, “I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them. The only thing I can do—and dear Brother, I haven’t a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100% sincere,” (he’s not a translator; he’s not schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he did promoting; he had the money; he did the promoting; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him, when it was finished), but nevertheless, I said, “I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.”
I have the copy of the letter. In fact, I have his letter. I’ve shown it to some people. The Roberts saw it; Mike saw it; stating that he was bowled over; that he was shocked beyond words. He said that’s putting it mildly, but he said, “I will write you in a few weeks, and I still love you. To me you’re going to be Franklin, my friend, throughout the course.” And he said, “I’ll write you in three weeks.” But he won’t write me now. He was to be married. He sent us an invitation to come to the reception. Standing in the courtroom, I mean in the county court by the desk, the clerk said, “What is your full name, sir?” And he said, “Franklin Dewey…” And that is the last word he spoke on this earth. So he was buried two days before he was supposed to be married, and he’s with the Lord. And he loves the Lord. He knows different now.
But I tell you, dear people, somebody is going to have to stand. No matter if you must stand against everyone else, stand. Don’t get obnoxious; don’t argue. There’s no sense in arguing. But nevertheless, that’s where the New American Standard stands in connection with the Authorized Version.[iii]
A letter from Logsdon to D. Otis Fuller, mentioned in the 1970s.
I just received recently a letter from a good friend of mine I have known for years. He’s one of the best Bible teachers in this country, and if I mentioned his name I know that many of you would know who he was immediately. This is what he says:
“If I knew how to repent in sackcloth and ashes, I would begin immediately for the unpardonable delay in acknowledging receipt of two of the most helpful and timely volumes I have ever owned. I have carried these titles with me all summer and immersed myself in them. I have never underscored books so much as I have done in these. They enhanced my appreciation of the King James Version as the true revelation of God as no other writings. I appreciate so much your sending them to me. As a member of the editorial committee in the production of the Amplified New Testament, we honestly and conscientiously felt it was a mark of intelligence to follow Westcott and Hort. Now, what you have in these books strikes terror to my heart. It proves alarmingly that being conscientiously wrong is a most dangerous state of being. God help us to be more cautious lest we fall into the snare of the archdeceiver.”[iv]
Letter from Logsdon to Cecil Joseph Carter (as transcribed on Carter’s web site).
A Letter From S. Franklin Logsdon
[All emphasis from original]
Received June 9, 1977My dear Brother Carter:
Your letter of June 2 has just reached me, and since I will be leaving in a few hours for a long northern itinerary, I will be unable to write you in any detail.
As an honorary member of the Lockman Foundation, producers of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT and the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD, I was invited to California back in the fifties to do a feasibility on utilizing the copyright of the 1901 which was as loose as a fumbled football. I was delighted and went.
When it was decided to proceed with a revised publication, I assisted Mr. Lockman in interviewing a few of the men who served as “translators” (See enclosure). What was finally used as the Foreword was taken from the feasibility report written before the actural (sic) work had begun. Apart from this I had little to do with its production. Incidentally, you CANNOT get a list of the names of the “translators.” Forbidden![v]
I received #7 of the Deluxe copies, but did not for years even look inside it. It was too cumbersome to carry with me on the road. When questions began to reach me, at first I was quite offended. however, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.
Even if I had the time to more definitely deal with the matter in this communication, I could not add much to what Dr. Fuller has in his books, copies of which you possess. I can aver that the project was produced by thoroughly sincere men who had the best of intentions. The product, however, is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times. God bless you as you press the battle!
Sincerely in Him,
S. Franklin Logsdon [vi]
Anne, Franklin Logsdon’s wife.
David Cloud has recorded that “we know that Logsdon’s
widow in Wheaton, Illinois, has authenticated his testimony in regard to the
NASV” and “[Logsdon] said he was a friend of Lockman and as such was invited to
come out to California and help launch the venture. According to his own
testimony and that of his widow, that is precisely what he did.”[vii]
In New
Age Bible Versions.
Gail Riplinger’s book New Age Bible Versions
contains an excerpt of Logsdon’s spoken testimony, an excerpt from his letter
to C. J. Carter, and some additional material that seems to come from an unidentified
source (at least I have not yet found the source).
The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?...
I don’t want anything to do with it...
...That’s how easily one can be deceived...I’m going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things...
[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!...
At present I cannot confirm whether these words come from S. Franklin Logsdon’s testimony in other media, or whether this is commentary added by Gail Riplinger.
Independent
testimony
The following is available independent testimony – apart
from Logsdon himself, and unrelated to the later Logsdon-NASB-KJV controversy.
C.
S. Lovett’s story indicating a friendship between him, Lockman, and Logsdon.
Hugh Harris, a dear friend whom I met in seminary, was in charge of the Navigators work in Japan. Aware of my position as director of the Lockman Foundation, he wrote suggesting we consider doing an update of the 1901 edition of the ‘American Standard Version’ of the Bible. I liked the idea and went to Mr. Lockman with it.
“Dewey,” I said, holding out the letter to him, “this is from Hugh Harris, a missionary friend in Japan. He has an idea I think is right down our alley.’” Then I explained how the copyright had run out on the older version and suggested we use the experience gained from doing the ‘Amplified New Testament’ to put out a ‘New American Standard Bible.’
A man with a passion for God’s Word, Dewey warmed to the idea immediately. He then asked if I knew of a good man who could head up such a project.
“Yes, I know just the man,” I volunteered quickly. “I have a friend at Fuller Seminary by the name of Gleason Archer. He’s a top flight scholar, thoroughly skilled in Hebrew and Greek.”
“Fuller Seminary,” repeated Dewey, “Why I know Charles Fuller real well. He’s an old rancher himself. Let’s go see if he’ll loan us Dr. Archer for the project?”
Three of us piled in a car and drove to Fuller Seminary in Pasadena—Dr. Franklin Logsdon, former pastor of the historic Moody Church in Chicago, Dewey and myself.
Dr. Charles E. Fuller, the founder of Fuller Seminary and long time pastor of the “Old Fashioned Revival Hour” radio broadcast, received us heartily. He offered his full cooperation.
At that particular time, Dr. Fuller’s efforts at Fuller Seminary were being severely attacked by the president of another well-known Christian university. “He’s sure been roasting you lately,” brother Logsdon said, commenting on some rather critical remarks which had appeared in several religious periodicals.
A barrel-chested man with a full head of white hair, Dr. Fuller leaned back in his chair and smiled,
“Ye-e-e-e-s-s,” he responded with his characteristic drawl, “bless his heart.” That was all he said, but it was so full of love.
When I saw how that giant of a man handled the sharp, biting criticisms which had been leveled against him, and his work, I was floored. How unlike him I was, I would never forget that moment. That big man had such a great job to do for Jesus, he wasn’t about to get caught up in a battle of words with anyone. And on top of it, he was obeying the Scriptures—returning good for evil (Matthew 5:44)!
C. S. Lovett: Maranatha Man, an
Autobiography, Cummings Samuel Lovett, Baldwin Park, CA: Personal Christianity, 1978, pp. 187-188.[viii]
The House of Zondervan.
…When Zondervan celebrated its silver anniversary in 1956 its role in Bible translation was just beginning. Translation work was soon to give Zondervan a role as a major Bible publisher.
Early in 1956 Franklin Logsdon, a pastor in nearby Holland, Michigan – and later pastor of Moody Church in Chicago – paid a visit to his friends Pat and Bernie. He brought with him a copy of what was then being called ‘The Amplified Gospel of John,’ which he had obtained from a friend in California. The distinction of this edition was its use of several English words or phrases to illuminate the Greek language where an exact word equivalent was not available. The English was ‘amplified’ to include various meanings of the Greek.
Logsdon advised them, “You ought to make arrangements with the people of the Lockman Foundation in California to publish and distribute this.”
“Frank,” Pat replied, “we don’t publish little items like that.” But Logsdon insisted that they look into it, so Pat agreed to talk with F. Dewey Lockman in La Habra if he had the opportunity on his forthcoming trip to the West Coast.”
When Lockman published ‘The Amplified Gospel of John’ in 1954, it bore Mrs. Siewert’s name as the author and was more precisely called ‘The Self-explaining Gospel (the Holy Glad Tidings) of John.’ But Lockman did not wish to use her name when the project was given over to Zondervan.
The Amplified New Testament was published in May 1958 in a compact hardcover edition with 1,024 pages and a price of $3.95.
The House of Zondervan: Celebrating 75 Years, James E. Ruark, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing, 2006, pp. 77-79.
Miscellaneous
testimony
Translator
Robert Lewis Thomas’s testimony.
Robert L. Thomas, Professor
of New Testament, The Master’s Seminary wrote a review of Gail A. Riplinger’s New
Age Versions. He thought “Perhaps the ‘rumor’ of Frank Logsdon being a ‘co-founder’
of the NASB started with her.”[ix]
Such perversions as these four pervade the book. In addition to notice of such misrepresentations, two more general observations are in order. First, some have found an endorsement page included in some of the printings of New Age Bible Versions to be troubling. The longest of the endorsements – though an endorsement not of the book, but of the King James Version – is from Frank Logsdon (probably known more widely as S. Franklin Logsdon). It is a repudiation of the NASB with which he had a loose association for a while. This reviewer knew Logsdon (who died about four years ago) and knows to be false the endorsement’s claim that he was ‘Co-founder’ of the NASB.[x] Logsdon’s only tie to the NASB was his personal friendship with Dewey Lockman. Lockman was the sole founder of the NASB project, and Logsdon's role was extremely minor as an occasional adviser to Lockman. This reviewer remembers well the meeting of the Editorial Board of the Lockman Foundation when Lockman read the letter from Logsdon declaring his desire not to have any further association with the NASB. Lockman was crushed personally, but Logsdon’s role was so minor that Lockman saw no need to interrupt the project in even the slightest way when he received this letter.
“Review of New Age Versions, by G. A. Riplinger.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 5:2 (Fall
1994): pp. 230-31.
Translation work began on the New American Standard Bible in 1960. Dr. Thomas was invited to join the translation team in the fall of 1961 and was a member of the team until 1970. However, Lockman Foundation lists Robert L. Thomas in the “1977 NASB Translators.” His mention of Logsdon in the review downplays Logsdon’s association with Lockman – but most of Logsdon’s input and association with Lockman on initiated the project occurred before Thomas’s involvement.
Translator
Don Wilkins’s Testimony, via David Cloud. [xi]
“In an e-mail message to me
dated February 16, 1996, Dr. Don Wilkins said, ‘Perhaps the truth of the whole
matter is that none of us has all the facts about the situation.’”
Official
statements by the Lockman Foundation.
Two official statements
made by the Lockman Foundation are part of the testimony to be considered, the
first nearly 50 years after the initiation of the Bible translation project,
and about 25 years after Logsdon’s statement. The second was sent to me 21
years after the first. See “Lockman Foundation official statements on S. Franklin Logsdon” for the transcription of these statements. See Lockman Logsdon Comparison Chart to compare Franklin Logsdon’s and the Lockman Foundation statements.
Concluding
thoughts
There is a good bit of
misinformation on both sides of the debate about Logsdon and his repudiation of
the NASB.[xii]
Some “antis” initially took the tactic of “Who was Frank Logsdon? Did he even
exist?” After it proved true that this was a real person who said these things,
they started attacking his impossible-to-have connection to the Lockman
Foundation and the NASB. On the other hand, some KJV supporters have made and
still make claims about Franklin Logsdon that misunderstands or misrepresents
what he said.
It appears that all the primary players – those who could provide first-hand testimony and/or are
mentioned in the first-hand testimony– are all deceased:
- Dewey Lockman and his wife, Minna
- Franklin Logsdon and his wife, Anne
- David Otis Fuller
- Cummings S. Lovett
- Frances E. Siewert
- Robert Lewis Thomas
- Cecil Joseph Carter
Under these circumstances
it is incumbent on the Lockman Foundation to “come clean” – do the best they
can to be absolutely transparent with any records they have, rather than
obfuscate for their own comfort. They should acknowledge at the least that
mention of the work of Logsdon from the period of the development of the Amplified
New Testament and the New American Standard Bible has survived in print that
can be discovered by the diligent.
KJV Defenders need to stop
repeating false statements. Many claims have been made – for effect, apparently
– that Franklin Logsdon himself did not make. We should repudiate false friends
of the KJV who keep alive these false statements with apparent impunity. Recognize
that Logsdon’s experience can have some merit as a story about someone who changed
his position on Bible versions – but that the New American Standard translation
of the Bible stands or falls on its own merits.[xiii]
KJV Detractors and KJVO Opponents
should not just make a career of refuting the outlandish claims of some King
James Onlyists. Eventually they should come to the lick log, recognizing and dealing
with the fact that there was a known public relationship and history,
associated with the background and development of the Amplified NT and the NASB,
between Dewey Lockman and Franklin Logsdon.
This controversy offers
extreme possibilities at both ends of the spectrum. Maybe the Lockman
Foundation is lying or obfuscating to protect its reputation as a Bible
publisher. Maybe Franklin Logsdon was lying or exaggerating to enhance his
reputation among King James Defenders. But, if so, what about the “innocent
bystanders” in between the crossfire, who were praising both Logsdon and the
Lockman foundation?[xiv]
I suspect the main contemporary witnesses tell the truth to the best of their
abilities. The discrepancies in the testimonies likely represent various people
telling a story as they remember it from their own vantage points. Sufficient evidence
would hopefully clarify and harmonize most of the discrepancies.
With more humility and grace, we might all recognize the generality that was stated by Don Wilkins – that the truth of the whole matter is that none of us has all the facts about the situation. Additionally we may never have all the facts.
[ii] Minna Marie Quast Lockman died February 28, 1971.
[iii] Available in several transcriptions in the internet, including: https://www.scionofzion.com/logsdon.htm Accessed 8 April 2021 1:55 pm.
[iv] The two books are Which Bible (© 1970) and True Or False (© 1973), indicating this message was recorded sometime after the publication of the latter book. It would therefore seem likely that this letter from Logsdon to Fuller was sent in the same general period as the letter from Logsdon to Lockman. “Which Bible is the Preserved Word of God?” by David Otis Fuller https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/fuller-preserved.html Accessed 8 April 2021 1:20 pm.
[v] Logsdon wrote, “you CANNOT get a list of the names of the ‘translators’.” In 1995, the Lockman Foundation reversed course on this and released the names of the translators. One might wonder whether this was in response to the Logsdon controversy, which apparently gained steam in 1992 when David Cloud released the audio recording of Logsdon. “For many years the names of the NASB translators and editors were withheld by the publisher. But in 1995 this information was finally disclosed.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html Accessed 8 April 2021 1:30 pm.
[vi] Accessed 8 April 2021 2:15 pm.
[vii] https://www.willisministries.org/studies/bible_articles/logsdon.php Accessed 24 February 2024 8:35 pm.
[viii] William Cook repeats a version of this story in Success, Motivation, and the Scriptures, William H. Cook, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1974, p. 150. Some people think an account by Lockman Foundation director C. S. Lovett might refer to Franklin Logsdon. He wrote somewhat vaguely about “a strategic meeting of a well known Foundation with people of the translating and publishing committees for a new translation of the Bible,” in which “a friend of mine” spoke words “which stabbed the president of the Foundation with anguish.” The author, however, leaves out the name and simply inserts a space. It is not clear that the spoken words were necessarily even direct opposition to a new translation. Furthermore, this was written by 1967, and Logsdon seems to ascribe his arrival of the stance against the NASB to after D. Otis Fuller wrote two books on the Bible topic (which would be later, in the early 1970s). Dealing with the Devil, C. S. Lovett, Baldwin Park, CA: Personal Christianity, 1967, p. 10
[ix] I did not find the “co-founder” terminology in the edition of New Age Versions that I checked. She did call Logsdon “a force behind the NASB” and a partner of Dewey Lockman (p. 172). Another statement might be taken as implying that he was a translator (p. 491). However, it may have appeared in earlier printings or promotions of the book. Riplinger states that Logsdon says Lockman “did it [the NASB] for money” (p. 172). This is an erroneous quote, taken from the transcription initially made by David Cloud. What Logsdon said of Lockman was that “he was just a business man; he had the money; he did it conscientiously.” Logsdon was ever gracious when referring to Lockman’s motive.
[x] At least in regard to the edition I checked, reviewer Thomas is wrong about Logsdon saying in the endorsement that he was a “co-founder” of the NASB. And, of course, the “endorsement” is not an endorsement of Riplinger’s book, but just an excerpt of statements that Logsdon had made.
[xi] Wilkins was a translator on the 1995 revision rather than the original group. http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html Accessed 8 April 2021 1:30 pm.
[xii] I saw a piece online (which seems to now be unavailable) that called Logsdon’s statement a “so-called repudiation.” Whether or not one agrees with Logsdon about the Bible, it is a very clear and unquestionable repudiation of the NASB!
[xiii] Of text and translation.
[xiv] Such as C. S. Lovett, and Peter & Bernard Zondervan.
No comments:
Post a Comment