The inspiration issue

For most Seventh-day Adventists, this is the central issue. Even if Ellen White is found to have been writing within the literary norms of her contemporaries, how does one relate her use of material from other authors to her claim of inspiration? Can an inspired writer include material from uninspired sources and still present an inspired message? For believers, the only legitimate way to determine an authoritative answer to this question is to examine the evidence from Scripture.UEGW 154.4

The biblical model indicates that inspired writers may incorporate material from other inspired and uninspired sources. Just as it cannot be denied that Ellen White used literary sources in her writings, so it cannot be denied that Bible writers also used the writings of others without giving credit. Originality has been shown not to be a test of inspiration. ^{46 G. Rice proposed that the “Lucan model” of inspiration, in contrast to the “prophetic model” provides biblical support for this position. See Luke, a Plagiarist? (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press®, 1983). See also D. Johnson, “The Sources of Inspired Writings” Adventist Review, December 30, 1982, 4, 5; and T. Crosby, “Does Inspired Mean Original?” Ministry, February 1986, 4-7. Jud Lake describes how “the nature of inspiration is a major underlying issue in the debate on Ellen White” Ellen White Under Fire: Identifying the Mistakes of Her Critics (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press®, 2010), 90-131.} UEGW 154.5

The rebuttal from Ellen White’s opponents to this comparison is that the quantity of copying is higher in her writings than among the Bible writers. ^{47 Rea, The White Lie, 139.} But the amount of borrowing is irrelevant to the question of whether inspired writers may legitimately use the language of other authors—including extrabiblical sources. ^{48 Jude 9, 14, 15, being a notable example.} Once it is recognized that inspiration is not negated by the use of pre-existing human sources, who is to say what percentage of an inspired messenger’s language must be free from such dependency?UEGW 154.6

Ellen White’s “I saw” parallels, though rare, are not essentially different from any other parallel. Some who are willing to grant that Ellen White could legitimately use sources in certain types of writing draw the line when it comes to her use of another’s language in conveying information received through vision. How could it be that there are examples of parallels even when Ellen White reports words she has heard in vision? ^{49 Rea, The White Lie, 53, 54.} UEGW 155.1

The presupposition of this criticism is that if Ellen White had truly received divine information, the words she used in reporting the vision would have been verbally dictated expressions. While some adhere to a mechanical-dictation view of inspiration in which the inspired writer acts as God’s pen or recording secretary, Adventists have historically recognized from Scripture that inspiration does not function this way. ^{50 See General Conference session action of November 16, 1883: “We believe the light given of God to His servants is by the enlightenment of the mind, thus imparting thoughts, and not (except in rare cases) the very words in which the ideas should be expressed” Review and Herald, November 27, 1883, 741. See EGW, Selected Messages, 1:15-22, for Ellen White’s understanding.} God inspires His messenger with a message, and the writer conveys that message under the influence of the Holy Spirit with the best words available. If the message of inspiration is not verbally dictated in the one case, why should we demand that it be in the other? Rather, “thought” inspiration allows for the messenger to use language drawn from prior experi-ences and associations.UEGW 155.2

Looking again at the biblical model, scholars have noted parallels from extrabiblical sources in John the revelator’s reports of scenes and dialogues from his visions. ^{51 See, e.g., comparisons cited by Crosby, “Does Inspired Mean Original?” 4-7.} The question arises whether Ellen White intended for us to understand her “reporting” of a vision as a verbatim account of what she saw and heard. The answer is, sometimes Yes, sometimes No. She wrote in 1867, “The words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quota-tion.” ^{52 EGW, Review and Herald, October 8, 1867, 260.} UEGW 155.3

Here Ellen White is saying that, except for the words of the angel, the content of the vision was not given to her in verbatim form. At other times, she makes it clear that she is reporting the gist of what she has heard in vision, and not the exact words. “I cannot write the exact words as He spoke them [in vision]. I will try my best to give you the import of them.” ^{53 EGW, Letter 8, 1888, quoted in Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1989), 160; emphasis supplied. See EGW, Gospel Workers (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press®, 1923), 94, for another example.} If Ellen White is “trying her best” to capture the essence of a divine message, it would not be surprising for her to use another’s language if it conveyed well the thought she wished to communicate.UEGW 155.4