EGW & The Historians

[Gregory Matthews]

In 1974 Donald R. McAdams wrote a book-length paper on Ellen White and her use of the works of historians which were available to her in her time.

 The evidence was clear: Ellen White was not just borrowing paragraphs here and there that she had run across in her reading, paragraphs that described what she had already seen in vision; she was selectively abridging Wylie, following his sequence, using his descriptions, copying his words, repeating his historical errors, and giving her literary assistant Marian Davis the freedom to cut huge chunks from her manuscript and add significant additional history directly from Wylie

Why, after all these years, publish this paper? The answer is embedded in the Adventist Church’s ongoing struggle to reconcile the evidence from history and science with the belief that Ellen White is authoritative in all matters. This book places McAdams’ paper before the public as a document of historical importance for Adventists because it played a role in re-opening this discussion in the 1970s. Also, publication is timely because George Knight’s book, Ellen White’s Afterlife: Delightful Fictions, Troubling Facts, Enlightening Research, and Gilbert Valentine’s book, Ostriches and Canaries: Coping with Change in Adventism 1966-1979, have contributed renewed interest in this paper. This book is more than a close look at how Ellen White wrote history. It also presents a significant slice of 20th-century Adventist history, an account of the church struggling to defend one of its founding myths—not the inspiration of Ellen White, but her authority in all matters. This book is not just about Ellen White and the historians, it is also about a church in transition.

This work by D. R. McAdams has now been published by Oak & Acorn Publishing, which is the official publisher for the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.  It is being sold on Amazon for $18 in paper and $25 in hardback with free shipping.

NOTE:  Present day SDA scholarship is giving increasing importance to the writings of Uriah Smith as being the source that EGW used to report on the writings of the Protestant historians. 

 

 

[Dr. Shane]

From what I have read, Uriah Smith did not believe Ellen White was authoritative in all matters.

[Hanseng]

On 6/2/2023 at 2:03 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  Present day SDA scholarship is giving increasing importance to the writings of Uriah Smith as being the source that EGW used to report on the writings of the Protestant historians. 

 

Anyone with issues regarding EGW's use of historians can read the works of the historians themselves. J.A. Wiley's History of Protestantism, D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, and History of the Reformation in the time of Calvin can be found online in .pdf format for free. They are also available or used to be available from Ages Software and Logos may have some of or all of the volumes. Are they perfect? Probably not but neither is any other record of history. Certainly, people pushing a papal agenda will try to discredit them as unreliable and biased, just as efforts are made to discredit the Reformation itself. From what I understand, the New Perspective on Paul is an effort in that direction. It has been emphasized in at least one SDA college.

The problem with the Great Controversy is that it is a narrative history. It does not deal with the theological issues of the Reformation. There is a statement in GC which says that ~ Martin Luther clearly taught the doctrine of justification by faith. Another says that ~the day of the Augsburg Confession was the greatest day of the Reformation and one of the greatest days in the history of the world. That second statement is a direct quote from D'Aubigne (vol 3, book 14, ch 7), cited as such.  Neither do the historians deal with the theology much, if at all.

The real theological issues, in a concise format, are found in Melanchthon's "Apology to the Augsburg Confession" and his Commonplaces of Theology (1543). The theology is important for our personal spiritual development. While SDA have tried to make sense of righteousness by faith from the 1888 GC, it's much clearer in Luther's writings., e.g., Galatians commentary, especially chapter 3. His comments on Abraham's justification, recorded in Luther's Genesis commentary on chapter 15 are clearer that most anything I have read in over 50 years in and around Adventism.  In addition to our personal spiritual development, Luther bashers, including Adventist ones, enamored as they are with Rome, tend to present a false picture of Luther's thinking which they then discredit to make Luther and the Reformation irrelevant or even evil. Being informed can be a help.

Luther's "Preface to Romans," commentary on Galatians 3, writings on the 7 Penitential Psalms, and his sermons in several volumes are a good starting point. I read his Genesis commentary through Abraham's life and a bit beyond. Sometimes like walking through a desert but then coming upon a beautiful oasis. Christian Liberty is a short work but worth while.

[So, when you see in an EGW writing a quote that comes from a historian of her time, the question may be:  Did EGW  obtain that quote from the work of that historian, or did she obtain it from Uriah Smith, who obtained it from the historian--Gregory Matthews?]

[Hanseng]

On 6/3/2023 at 8:54 AM, Dr. Shane said:

From what I have read, Uriah Smith did not believe Ellen White was authoritative in all matters.

Do you think he thought she was inspired when she said ~"Brother Smith doesn't know what he is talking about" (1888 materials 348,1) in response to a Review article that he wrote? 

[Dr. Shane]

2 hours ago, Hanseng said:

 Are they perfect? Probably not but neither is any other record of history.

This is a valid point.  The exact details of history are difficult to come to an agreement on.  That is especially true for history that happened before the printing press.  However, even with the invention of the printing press, what was recorded isn't always accurate.  There is a method used by historians today to validate historic events but it is not as precise as the scientific method of testing a hypothesis.  

I think many Adventists want to believe that Ellen White was moved by the Spirit (1 Peter 1:21) every time she wrote something.  Thus they are reluctant to admit any historical error in anything she wrote.  Her critics jump to accuse her of inaccuracies and plagiarism, judging her by the academic standards of today that were not universal during the time of her ministry.  Uriah Smith believed she was inspired at times.  She did receive visions and dreams from God.  Angels were sent to her for guidance at times.  But, he did not read every letter she wrote as if it was written by the Holy Spirit Himself.  Many of her books compiled today are compilations of letters and magazine articles she wrote.  It is likely that many of those are not inspired in the Biblical sense but certainly should not be dismissed.  In addition to being a prophet, Ellen White was one of the church founders.  Her words, even without inspiration, are as valuable as those written by Martin Luther, John Wesley or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. 

[Hanseng]

4 hours ago, Hanseng said:

[So, when you see in an EGW writing a quote that comes from a historian of her time, the question may be:  Did EGW  obtain that quote from the work of that historian, or did she obtain it from Uriah Smith, who obtained it from the historian--Gregory Matthews?]

EGW had numerous editions of D'Aubigne's histories and also Wylie's  History of Protestantism in her library when she died. She also had Luther's Galatians Commentary. Not sure why it would matter where the quotes came from i.e., Smith, or her office staff or her own study. Later editions of Great Controversy contain many quotes from historians which are cited by name. The "ibids" go on for paragraphs. She did a great service to modern Christians by referencing these classic Protestant historians so that we who live today can read them for ourselves.

I was chatting about books with HMS Richards one day. He had a favorite used bookstore in Long Beach he liked to peruse. He said that~ RC clergy regularly visited the shop and purchased any and all Protestant histories of the Reformation. What they did with them, he didn't say. Maybe they were for the library of one of their universities. D'Aubigne, for example, says that the RC church in the Netherlands killed about 50,000 people over religious matters. These massacres were largely provoked by Calvinists destroying religious images. Luther, on the other hand, opposed iconoclasts, believing that people would spiritually grow to a point where images would become irrelevant. There were no massacres in Germany comparable to the Netherlands. 

History is important in that it provides a context for the theological issues of the Reformation.

[Hanseng]

1 hour ago, Dr. Shane said:

Her words, even without inspiration, are as valuable as those written by Martin Luther, John Wesley or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. 

I wouldn't say that neither Luther or EGW were inspired. It all depends on how you understand the meaning of the word "inspired." Inspiration is often understood to mean what Ezekiel, Daniel, John, Zechariah and others experienced. It's not necessarily that. Abraham was certainly inspired but he didn't experience what some of the visionary prophets did. Neither did Job or David or very little if they did. EGW wrote a lot of good stuff in books like Education and Ministry of Healing. Expecting to be moved by her R+H articles in the way Biblical apocalyptic moves is too much. They are different genres of literature.