Was Christ's Tomb Guarded By Roman Soldiers

[bevin]

In a completely unrelated thread, Shane remarked...

Quote:

It is like the priests paying the Roman soldiers to say they fell asleep.

Many years ago I came across a book (title forgotten, non-SDA) about the time-of-Christ event's that presented a plausible argument that it was Jewish rather than Roman guards on the tomb.

The basis of the argument is

• The Bible never says they were Roman
• The original text does not Pilate grants the Jews request - he says "you have a guard" (i.e. your own troops) go and make it as secure as "you know how" (i.e. not "as I know how")
• The guard went to the priests - but Roman troops were religious and would have no problem telling their commander that they had seen a god
• They were prepared to say they were asleep - but this was punished by death in the Roman army

Makes a lot of sense

/Bevin

[John317]

In a completely unrelated thread, Shane remarked...

Quote:

It is like the priests paying the Roman soldiers to say they fell asleep.

Many years ago I came across a book (title forgotten, non-SDA) about the time-of-Christ event's that presented a plausible argument that it was Jewish rather than Roman guards on the tomb.

The basis of the argument is

• The Bible never says they were Roman
• The original text does not Pilate grants the Jews request - he says "you have a guard" (i.e. your own troops) go and make it as secure as "you know how" (i.e. not "as I know how")
• The guard went to the priests - but Roman troops were religious and would have no problem telling their commander that they had seen a god
• They were prepared to say they were asleep - but this was punished by death in the Roman army

Makes a lot of sense

/Bevin

Ellen White says it was the "Roman guard" who guarded the tomb of Jesus. DA 780. 781. She says she saw these things happen in vision. I choose to believe her.

[Clio]

Please keep in mind that her son gave us insight into how her visions worked.

He stated that she was often given flashes of a scene, and then left to struggle and put it into her own words.

"Roman" soldiers could clearly be an assumption based on Rome's occupation of Palestine, arms and armor present on those guarding the tomb, and her 3rd grade education.

[Woody]

Clio ... This is a very good point. This is why we say she is not infallible.

As she told us to do .... We are to check the Bible and if it does not go with the Biblical account then we must be careful.

[John317]

Here's a good example of when it is best to trust Ellen White, because the New Testament appears to lend Sister White excellent support. The following is part of the evidence pointing to Roman guards.

In Matthew 27: 65, 66 and 28: 11, the word for "guard," or "watch," is a Latin word, "koustodian," transliterated into Greek and refers to Roman soldiers.

In Matthew 28:14, the guards were responsible to the governor, which argues for Roman soldiers and not Jewish temple guards.

At Matthew 27:65, the Greek word, echete, can be translated as an imperative verb or an an indicative verb. If it is imperative, it refers to Roman guards. Examples of the imperative: "Have a guard," Take a guard," or "The guard is yours." If it is indicative, it can be either Roman soldiers or Jewish temple guards. Examples of the Indicative: "You have a guard."

See translators notes in New American Bible at Matthew 27: 65.

See also notes in the Nelson Study Bible at Matt. 27: 65: "The noun translated guard is a Latin word, since the soldiers were Romans and not part of the temple guard."

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says (p. 358; #2892) "(A Latin word), guard; used of the Roman soldiers guarding the sepulchre of Christ."

See also Strong's Concordance, #2892, "A Roman sentry."

See also Greek-English Lexicon, Baur, Arndt, Gingrich, p. 448.

The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, p. 356.

The SDA Bible Commentary also takes the position that the soldiers were Roman and not Temple guards.

[bevin]

Here are some other sites that have this concept - not that they are authorities with credibility

http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/jerusalem.htm

http://www.thefamily.org/word/reflections/index2.php3?refid=194

http://www.korky.info/book2/ch10.html

2892 is ONLY used in the NT in the resurrection story. It is not used for any of the other places Roman Soldiers are involved.

4757 soldier is used independently of the particular army - eg: 2 Tim 2:3 soldier of christ. This is the word used when Paul is being escorted around the place by Roman soldiers, for instance.

Matt 28:14 says IF the governor hears about it the priests will satisfy him. If they were Roman guards, there would be no doubt the word would get to Pilate - and Pilate would be livid if he were NOT told. The "if" here actually supports the idea that they were NOT Romans.

This is actually a good demonstration of why NOT to implicitly trust EGW. Indeed even you are actually looking at a wide range of evidence, not taking her word for it.

/Bevin

[John317]

Here are some other sites that have this concept - not that they are authorities with credibility...

/Bevin

Given the evidence as it appears in both your sources and in the ones I have cited in my previous post, I would be willing to put my trust in what Ellen White has stated. She claims she saw these things in vision, and there is plenty of evidence pointing to the soldiers being Roman. I choose to trust what she says. There are many things for which there is no proof or evidence, but we have to be willing to trust the Bible because we have learned that it is worthy of our trust. We have to trust God on many things simply because of who He is. That is the same with Ellen White. I have found her to be trust worthy and therefore I can trust her when I lack proof. This is an instance where the evidence supports her, although there is some evidence that she could be wrong. I choose to trust Ellen White. We know the time is coming when we will have to trust God and His Word, including things that Ellen White has said, and distrust our human reasoning and our senses.

Eve was faced with the decision whether to trust God's Word or her human reasoning. She chose her human reasoning over God's Word. Before the controversy is over, we're going to be faced with the same decision: whether to obey God's commandment simply because of His word or whether to accept what appears to make good sense but which contradicts God's instructions.

[John317]

Here are some other sites that have this concept - not that they are authorities with credibility

I agree with you that these are not the best of sources. One is simply the Living Bible's paraphrase of Matthew's account. As you say, none of the sources have credible authority on the subject. One even contains an illustration of the nail being driven through the palm of Christ's hand, and we know that this was not the way it happened. I point this out as an example of how poorly the authors of that article apparently did their research.

Please consider carefully the following evidence:

1) Jewish temple police, or guards, are never called "soldiers" in the New Testament.

(If Matthew 28:12 refers to the temple guards as "soldiers," it would be the only place in the entire New Testament where that word carries this meaning.)

2) The New Testament language clearly distinguishes between the Roman soldier and the Temple guards. Compare John 19:2 and 6, where "hoi stratiotai" is used for the Roman soldiers and "hoi huperetai" is used for the temple guards. This is also done in John 18: 3 and 18:12. Please also see references to temple guards in John 7: 32, 45, 46; John 18:18, 22; Acts 5:22 and Acts 8:26.

3) The Complete Jewish Bible translates "hoi stratiotai" as "soldier" (i.e., Roman soldier) and "hoi huperetai" as "temple guards," never as "soldiers."

4) In Matthew 28:12, "the guard" are called "the soldiers," showing that the guards of Matthew 28: 11 are the same as the Roman soldiers.

5) There is no place in the New Testament where the word for "soldier"-- stratiotes-- refers to the temple guards. It always refers to Roman soldiers: Matt. 8:9; 27: 27; 28: 12; Mark 15:16; Luke 3:14; Luke 7:8; Luke 23: 36; John 19:2; 19:23, 24. 32. 34. (All of the occurrences of "stratiotes" in the book of Acts also refer to Roman soldiers.)

6) I don't know of any reason for applying to a Jewish Temple guard a Latin term for a Roman soldier. The latin word, "Koustodian," occurs outside of the Bible in reference only to Roman soldiers, not to Jewish Temple police, or guards.

Another point is that if Pilate was as concerned as you say he would have been, it seems reasonable to suppose that he would certainly have used Roman guards and not been satisfied with the Jewish Temple guards.

Notice that Matt. 26:58; Luke 22: 52 and John 18: 3, 18, 22 refer to the temple police as "officers," not soldiers. It shows that the "guards" of Matthew 28:11 are not Jewish temple guards but rather "soldiers" just as verse 12 calls them.

[bevin]

Quote:

Another point is that if Pilate was as concerned as you say he would have been, it seems reasonable to suppose that he would certainly have used Roman guards and not been satisfied with the Jewish Temple guards.

No - he didn't care a great deal about the theft of a body - but he would care a great deal about his soldiers not telling him the truth and even more about his soldiers sleeping on duty

Quote:

many other points

These are very interesting, and perhaps very solid, points. I'll have to look into them deeper.

I have no particular axe to grind here - it makes no difference to me whether it was a Roman or a Jewish guard.

/Bevin

[John317]

Quote:

These are very interesting, and perhaps very solid, points. I'll have to look into them deeper.

I have no particular axe to grind here - it makes no difference to me whether it was a Roman or a Jewish guard.

/Bevin

I don't really care THAT MUCH either actually. I'm glad the subject came up, though, otherwise I wouldn't have even looked into it. Who knows, maybe there were both Jewish guards and Roman soldiers there. I'll have to do more research on that aspect.

[David Koot]

Yes, indeed, John371's discussion of Biblical Greek is very helpful here. It is very helpful to have him on C/A as our resident NT Greek expert. In addition to the Greek words, there is the fact that the Jews had neither an army nor soldiers. While subjugated nations, particular in the later years of the Empire, did provide contingents of soldiers, they were incorporated into the legions as Roman soldiers. As for the temple guards . . . The jurisdiction of the temple guards or officers would have been limited to the temple.

[bevin]

Quote:

In Matthew 28:12, "the guard" are called "the soldiers," showing that the guards of Matthew 28: 11 are the same as the Roman soldiers.

The same word 4757 is used later for "soldiers of Christ" - it is not specific to Roman soldiers - this also weakens your point (5).

Quote:

Notice that Matt. 26:58;

Luke 22: 52 and John 18: 3, 18, 22 refer to the temple police as "officers," not soldiers.

and Acts 5:22/23 uses different words for officers 5257 and guards 5441. 5257 also variously refers to ministers, servants.

Quote:

The latin word, "Koustodian," occurs outside of the Bible in reference only to Roman soldiers, not to Jewish Temple police, or guards.

It is a Greek word - there is a similar Latin word, but the Greek language predates Latin and lots of Greek slaves were used to do the Roman writing, so the "which came first" issue is irrelevant.

Its use outside the NT I have no knowledge of - nor the resources here to investigate the issue.

This is an interesting issue because of its irrelevance. One can either decide the evidence points left, points right, or is inconclusive, without any impact on any theology.

/Bevin

[John317]

Quote:

The latin word, "Koustodian," occurs outside of the Bible in reference only to Roman soldiers, not to Jewish Temple police, or guards.

Quote:

It is a Greek word - there is a similar Latin word, but the Greek language predates Latin and lots of Greek slaves were used to do the Roman writing, so the "which came first" issue is irrelevant.

Its use outside the NT I have no knowledge of - nor the resources here to investigate the issue.

This is an interesting issue because of its irrelevance. One can either decide the evidence points left, points right, or is inconclusive, without any impact on any theology./Bevin

Yes, that word as we read it in the Greek New Testament is certainly in the Greek alphabet, but the original word is Latin and it is simply transliterated into Greek, rather like the Aramaic words spoken by Christ on the cross. In other words, "Koustodian" was not originally part of the Greek language but is a "borrowed word," according to all the reference works that I've studied.

You can find non-Biblical sources for its use in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1930, 1976, p. 356. One is a reference to "public clothing for the guards," which occurs in an ancient document dated AD 128 and which is in the Catalogue of the Greek Papyri, II 189, in the John Rylands Library, Manchester.

The word also occures in a fragmentary report referring to the Jewish War of Trajan, Paris Papyri in Notices et Extraits XVIII. ii. Ed. Brunet de Presle. Paris, 1865.

There are about half a dozen other extra-Biblical sources cited for the use of the word in ancient times, and they all have to do with Roman soldiers.

[John317]

Please keep in mind that her son gave us insight into how her visions worked.

He stated that she was often given flashes of a scene, and then left to struggle and put it into her own words.

"Roman" soldiers could clearly be an assumption based on Rome's occupation of Palestine, arms and armor present on those guarding the tomb, and her 3rd grade education.

I doubt that God would go to the effort of giving Ellen White visions and then just leave her to write error. That doesn't mean she didn't sometimes have to struggle to get it right or that she didn't have to write something several times. There was nothing strange about that. Many accomplished writers, some the greatest the world has ever known, have rewritten books over 15 times before they got it right. Christ never promised Ellen White that writing was going to be easy. She learned the same way anyone learns, the same way Christ Himself learned as a man. But the point is that God was directing her thinking and her choices. It was not unusual for Christ to gave her the same vision several times in order to make her remember scenes more clearly when the need arose for either writing or talking publically about it.

While it's true that Ellen White didn't have much formal education, yet anyone who reads Desire of Ages must realize that the writer had progressed far beyond the third grade. In fact, I would challange anyone living today to write as much as she did or to write as wisely or intelligently.

[bevin]

Sigh - not that rat-hole yet again. She had copious help from her editors and literary assistants and friends.

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/HowEGWbksWCW.html#Mrs.%20White's%20Copyists%20and%20Secretaries

Quote:

Thus, in a letter written to Dr. J. H. Kellogg, October 25, 1895, she says:

"Marian is working at the greatest disadvantage. I find but little time in which to write on the life of Christ. I am continually receiving letters that demand an answer, and I dare not neglect important matters that are brought to my notice. Then there are churches to visit, private testimonies to write, and many other things to be attended to that tax me and consume my time. Marian greedily grasps every letter I write to others in order to find sentences that she can use in the Life of Christ. She has been collecting everything that has a bearing on Christ's lessons to His disciples, from all possible sources. . . . I have about decided to . . . devote all my time to writing for the books that ought to be prepared without further delay. I would like to write on the Life of Christ, on Christian Temperance, and prepare Testimony Number 34, for it is very much needed. . . .

Go and read that whole White Estate approved article. It is acknowledged that both grammar and style were improved by the assistants - although I grant you that the very biased author is down-playing it as much as he dares.

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-egw.html

Quote:

[Ellen White did not always use perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence or paragraph construction in her writing. She freely acknowledged her lack of such technical skills. In 1873 she lamented, "I am not a scholar. I cannot prepare my own writings for the press. . . . I am not a grammarian" (Selected Messages, book 3, p. 90). She felt the need of help from others in the preparation of her manuscripts for publication. W. C. White describes the boundaries that his mother set for her workers:

"Mother's copyists are entrusted with the work of correcting grammatical errors, of eliminating unnecessary repetitions, and of grouping paragraphs and sections in their best order. . . .

"Mother's workers of experience, such as Sisters Davis, Burnham, Bolton, Peck, and Hare, who are very familiar with her writings, are authorized to take a sentence, paragraph, or section from one manuscript and incorporate it with another manuscript where the same thought was expressed but not so clearly. But none of Mother's workers are authorized to add to the manuscripts by introducing thoughts of their own" (W. C. White to G. A. Irwin, May 7, 1900).

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/pay/PAYc17.html

Quote:

Mrs. White's meager classroom education was a source of continual regret to her, and led her to turn to

[331]

others better qualified than herself to help with the technical details of readying copy to be sent to the printer, and in later years to do the same for letters and other communications. For some years, Elder James White was the one who gave help along this line.

“While my husband lived, he acted as a helper and counselor in the sending out of the messages that were given to me. We traveled extensively. Sometimes light would be given to me in the night season, sometimes in the daytime before large congregations. The instruction I received in vision was faithfully written out by me, as I had time and strength for the work. Afterward we examined the matter together, my husband correcting grammatical errors, and eliminating needless repetition. Then it was carefully copied for the persons addressed, or for the printer.”—Ellen G. White, “The Writing and Sending Out of the Testimonies to the Church,” page 4.

In fact there are many authors today who have written more actual material than she did - because you have to remember that a lot of what was published under her name was a direct result of literary asssistants assembling stuff that she had already written.

In fact I have never seen a direct estimate of how much non-rehashed material she wrote - but I doubt, for instance, that it is any more than the Harry Potter series of fictional books that J.K.Rowling has produced, or more than James Mitchener, or Anthony Trollope or ...

/Bevin

[John317]

Sigh - not that rat-hole yet again. She had copious help from her editors and literary assistants and friends.

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/HowEGWbksWCW.html#Mrs.%20White's%20Copyists%20and%20Secretaries.../Bevin

None of the evidence you posted denies that Ellen White wrote more than any other woman in history up to her time, and that was really my point. She certainly wrote much more than George Eliot (English female author) or Jane Austen or even more than the three Bronte sisters together.

(Have you heard of or read anything by Joyce Carol Oates? Oates has probably written more than Ellen White but she is a current writer in modern conditions and using a computer. To date, Oates has written more than 60 books. Stephen King has written about 40 books, some quite long ones.)

I seriously doubt the 6 or 7 books in the Harry Potter series contains more pages than all of the writings of Ellen White. I'm very familiar with Trollope and Michener. James Michener's approximately 18 books certainly did not come to more pages than Ellen White wrote in her lifetime. The writings of Trollope, on the other hand, may come to more than all that Ellen White wrote, although there are many things Ellen White wrote that have never yet been published. Trollope himself wrote more than 50 volumes. He was criticised because people thought of him as a book factory, but it was really simply that Trollope was such a disciplined writer. However, when I wrote what I did, I had in mind women writers who had written up to the time of Ellen White.

You see, what's amazing about Ellen White is to consider the circumstances under which Ellen wrote all of those books and letters and articles, etc. She wrote while riding in trains, stage coaches, buggies, and even while sitting in church. Today's writers don't generally have to deal with all the conditions she had to write under, including poor health, poverty, the death of two children, and the fact that she had to write without benifit of typewriter or computer. Ellen White wrote everything in long-hand. (Mark Twain was the first American writer to write a book on the typewriter: Huckleberry Finn, early 1880s.) Consider, too, the fact that Satan and many people under Satan's influence, were attacking her all during that time, which had to be very distracting.

The point I was making is that up until her day Ellen White had written more than any other woman in history and that even by today's standards (when writers use the computer in very nice, pleasant conditions) Ellen White wrote a huge amount, far more than most modern writers of either gender.

I've studied all of Shakespeare's works and read Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, three writers who are considered the greatest of all time, but I'd prefer reading Ellen White any day of the year. Knowing Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, they would have been excited to know Mrs. White. What she wrote is in many ways far more profound and affects the reader spiritually in ways that those others never could. (See, for instance, the books, Ministry of Healing, Desire of Ages, Mind, Character, and Personality, Education, and The Adventist Home, etc.) Tolstoy eventually came to the point where he thought writers who wrote material such as Ellen White produced were greater writers than himself.

It is true that Ellen White had help in writing her books, but Ellen White is the one who wrote them. She had help in gathering material together but she wrote most of the original articles. Even the material that she took from other writers was changed in ways that were common in her day and was found to be perfectly legal by the Supreme Court. If you were to subtract the 10% or so of the material that she took from other's writings, you would still have more than most people have ever written. All writers have people who edit and polish their writings. The only one I know of who didn't was Shakespeare and he didn't have to worry about spelling because in his day you could spell a word any way you wanted.

And by the way, almost all of Shakespeare's plays are based on other sources, and much that he wrote is actually someone else's work. Some, especially his earliest-- again, like Ellen White's-- is terrible when compared with his best. But Shakespeare would do with it just what Ellen White would do with other's writings: make changes and improve it.

Recently a Capote and a Hemingway book have been published based on writings that those writers left following their deaths. Their manuscripts were actually heavily edited by someone else, even whole chapters were written by a different writer, but that didn't prevent the publishers from putting Capote and Hemingway on the front and legitmately selling them as products of Capote and Mr. Hemingway.

[bevin]

Quote:

It is true that Ellen White had help in writing her books, but Ellen White is the one who wrote them.

The meaning of "help in writing" is very vague.

As the quotes I gave, from the official pro-EGW website, clearly show her assistants assembled whole books out of bits and pieces and, while Ellen guided and approved their work, to claim that she "wrote" the book is stretching the definition very thin.

And that doesn't include the books that are explicitly compilations, such as "Messages to Young People".

The point is simply this. You can not use her productivity or her language or her knowledge of facts to prove anything because they are all directly explicable as the effort and research of herself and her associates using contemporary or earlier sources.

Simple question - give a estimate of the number of NON-DUPLICATE pages that SHE wrote, and show that it is credible.

/Bevin

[John317]

Quote:

It is true that Ellen White had help in writing her books, but Ellen White is the one who wrote them.

It is, yes. Unfortunately. But I have no doubt that her writings are really for all practical purposes truly hers. I have helped three writers publish articles and books. I did some of the writing and I edited. But it would be absurd to say they were mine. I wrote only what I knew the writer wanted written, both in substance and in style. The writers were presented with the product and they approved it.

However, I don't think this is how Ellen White's articles and books were written. More often, her letters and articles were apparently selected according to whether they fit the subject she was writing about. I am sure connecting sentences and such were written by others. But I believe the evidence shows that people never wrote anything for her that she herself did not approve and that was not in harmony with what she had said on that subject.

Quote:

And that doesn't include the books that are explicitly compilations, such as "Messages to Young People".

All of the compilations to come out of the White Estate were done according to the agreement that was part of Ellen White's last will and testimony. While I wish they had included some additonal things Ellen White wrote, I don't see anything in MYP that she didn't write or that is inappropriate for that book.

Quote:

The point is simply this. You can not use her productivity or her language or her knowledge of facts to prove anything because they are all directly explicable as the effort and research of herself and her associates using contemporary or earlier sources.

It helps to have known and talked to people who knew Ellen White. As a kid I lived down the street from one of Ellen White's granddaughters, Grace Jaques. Grace's sister actually lived on the same street (Cole St., in Loma Linda), but I did not know her as well as I knew Grace and her husband. (Her husband escaped from a Czarist prison and told exciting stories about travelling dangerously by rail all the way across Siberia. He also loved studying and talking about angels.) When it comes to knowing the truth about Ellen White, it also helps to have read most of her books as well as many books about her by people who have studied her life and even knew her personally. She was well known in her day as a public speaker on health and "temperance." Newspaper reporters would come out to hear her speak for that reason alone. She could speak to thousands without benifit of a microphone. Her extemporaneous speeches were taken down and do not appear to be the ramblings of a third grader. That woman was some woman, and how foolish of us not to realize how fortunate we are that God sent her to us.

Bevin, have you ever thought about the fact that Jesus trusted Ellen White enough to select her as His prophet? Jesus told her, "In the true eloquence of simplicity, with voice and pen, the messages that I give shall be heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit and My power shall be with you." (1 SM 32)

Why did Jesus select Ellen White? Because He knew He could trust Her and He must have known she was able to do what He called her to do. Who are we to find fault with her if God Himself called her to do the work of a prophet?

I'm a partisan, yes. No time to sit on the fence and be neutral.

[bevin]

Quote:

However, I don't think this is how Ellen White's articles and books were written.

Go and research for yourself how the White Estate describes the production of the books that were done just before/after her death. These books were assembled and polished by her assistants, more with her approval than with her guidance.

Quote:

All of the compilations to come out of the White Estate were done according to the agreement that was part of Ellen White's last will and testimony

The compilations certainly reflect the biases of the compilers - which explains why they are much more legalistic than the books she supervised.

However that was not my point - my point is that these books should not be counted at all in estimating her output.

Quote:

Her extemporaneous speeches were taken down and do not appear to be the ramblings of a third grader.

Of course not. She was not a third grader, and the claim that she "only had a third grade education" is absurd - she engaged in life-long learning, reading extensively in her own personal library and a second library that was used by her literary assistants. We know the contents of both libraries - you can find the list, hundreds of books and magazines, on the White Estate website. Heck, for a while she was even interested in phrenology - hardly a third grade topic.

They are the speeches of a woman with vast experience in public speaking without a microphone, covering material that she was intimately familiar with, having both studied the health reform movement of her day, the researchs of her associates, having had numerous conversations on the topic, dreams and visions on the topic, and having given many speeches on the topic.

and we know, because she herself told us, that she got a lot of the background material, such as whether the guard was Roman or Jewish, out of the many history books on her shelves. She told us NOT to use her writings to determine doctrine, and she editted stuff out that was being so abused. She corrected errors of fact in later editions when she became aware of them. You can't use her writings as evidence it was a Roman guard - she is simply using the standard Christian material

[John317]

Quote:

Her extemporaneous speeches were taken down and do not appear to be the ramblings of a third grader.

The reason I pointed out what a well respected public speaker Ellen White was in her day is that I have saw a post on this thread which described Ellen White's mistakes as being due to her third grade education, as if she was practically illiterate. No one who wrote a book such as The Desire of Ages should be considered poorly educated. She was actually very well read in the fields that she had an interest in.

[John317]

Quote:

All of the compilations to come out of the White Estate were done according to the agreement that was part of Ellen White's last will and testimony

Quote:

The compilations certainly reflect the biases of the compilers - which explains why they are much more legalistic than the books she supervised.

However that was not my point - my point is that these books should not be counted at all in estimating her output.

Material should be counted only once, in my view. In other words, if material she wrote was counted once, it shouldn't be counted again unless it was changed in some significant way for republication.

[bevin]

Hmmm - interesting question:

What was the uniform of a temple police "grunt", and what was the uniform of a typical Roman "grunt" in Israel at the time of Christ?

If I showed you a picture, you would be able to distinquish the two?

/Bevin

[John317]

Quote:

However, I don't think this is how Ellen White's articles and books were written.

Arthur White discusses what this subject in his book, Ellen G. White, Messenger To the Remnant, pp. 58-61.

I've frequently visited the White Estate at Loma Linda U., doing research and talking with James Nix before he went to the White Estate in Silver Spring, Md. I'm aware of how those books were produced. I just don't see any evidence, as you apparently do, that Ellen White's writings are not what she wrote. What you say gives the impression, at least to me, that you believe her writings were manipulated in ways that result in views she herself did not necessarily share or agree with. Let me know if I am misstating what you have in mind.

The problem results from some people's conclusions, after having read such things as you say here, that Ellen White's writings are not trust-worthy.

Quote:

...and we know, because she herself told us, that she got a lot of the background material, such as whether the guard was Roman or Jewish, out of the many history books on her shelves. She told us NOT to use her writings to determine doctrine, and she editted stuff out that was being so abused. She corrected errors of fact in later editions when she became aware of them. You can't use her writings as evidence it was a Roman guard - she is simply using the standard Christian material

But this is not taking into account the fact that Ellen White did not simply copy the errors that other writers made when she used their writings. She made corrections. The Lord guided her in her use of other people's publications. For instance, when she used the works of other writers on the subject of health, she discriminated between what was true and what was false. See, for example, The Prophet and Her Critics, Leonard Brand and Don S. McMahon, chapter five, pp. 48-79.

We know that Ellen White was given visions of the events she is describing in the Desire of Ages. Simply the fact that she used other author's writings to describe those events shouldn't be interpreted to mean that God didn't show her visions about those same events. I don't know if Ellen White was given visions in which she saw Christ resurrected but I would be surprised if she wasn't. We know she was given visions about the Fall that took place both in heaven and on the earth. And in the introduction to The Great Controversy, she writes of God giving her visions of the events about which she writes in that book as well.

Years ago a friend of mine who is not a Christian and who knows nothing of who Ellen White is, told me that when he read parts of the Desire of Ages, it seemed to him that the author had seen the events she was describing.

Another point that needs to be made here is that Satan is having some evident success in getting many in the church to lose confidence in the Testimonies For the Church.

[John317]

Quote:

It is true that Ellen White had help in writing her books, but Ellen White is the one who wrote them.

Please give some specific examples of where you think the evidence shows that something was published under Ellen White's name that she did not write or that is not what Ellen White believed and taught.

[bevin]

Quote:

Please give some specific examples of where you think the evidence shows that something was published under Ellen White's name that she did not write or that is not what Ellen White believed and taught.

Like I said, it all depends on your definition of "write". Steps To Christ is a compilation. Not one page of it exists in her handwriting. However she reviewed, corrected, and approved it. Does this count as "written"? It is a matter of opinion.

The specific compilations made after her death, many of which are very legalistic, she did NOT approve - although she approved the concept of doing compilations. We don't know whether she would have liked the legalistic slant taken by the compilers - I suspect NOT.

Quote:

But this is not taking into account the fact that Ellen White did not simply copy the errors that other writers made when she used their writings. She made corrections.

Give a SINGLE example of a HISTORICAL fact where she corrected the history books of her day! I can give examples where she used the Bible and the history books to correct material she had already published. Here are two...

Spiritual Gifts Vol 1, p.71

“Herod’s heart grew still harder, and when he heard that JESUS had arisen, he was not much troubled. He took the life of James; and when he saw that this pleased the Jews, he took Peter also, intending to put him to death”

Sorry. Wrong Herod. It was two different Herods - Antipas and Agrippa.

“The heart of his disciples fainted within them. The mother of JESUS was agonized, almost beyond endurance, and as they stretched JESUS upon the cross, and were about to fasten his hands with the cruel nails to the wooden arms, the disciples bore the mother of JESUS from the scene, that she might not hear the crashing of the nails, as they were driven through the bone and muscle of his tender hands and feet.” Spiritual Gifts Volume I, p.58

The nails did NOT go through the bone, and she corrected the mistake later...

“She saw His hands stretched upon the cross; the hammer and the nails were brought, and as the spikes were driven through the tender flesh, the heart-stricken disciples bore away from the cruel scene the fainting form of the mother of Jesus.” DoA.

So it is clear that she published a few (not many) factual errors, and corrected them when they were pointed out to her. I do not know a single case where she was right and the history books later changed to match her position.

You need to read...

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/

where a modern SDA pro-EGW theologian corrects a lot of the misconceptions that you are making here.

There were even worse errors in her writings. The most blatant is her condemnation of quinine - a literally fatal health-care mistake.

/Bevin