Chapter 20—Editorial Experience Confirms Credibility

The work of an editor is unique. Only those who have been editors understand its ramifications and implications. Many surprises await those who enter the profession. This was my experience.WEWMM 153.1

My work in that field began when I assisted in editing The SDA Bible Commentary. When I arrived to take over my responsibilities the editor in chief of the project, Francis D. Nichol, told me solemnly, “It takes fifteen years to make an editor.” He knew, for he had been an editor for a much longer period. The truth of that statement has been confirmed to me in the nineteen years that have passed since that time.WEWMM 153.2

The work of editing the SDA Bible Commentary was especially demanding. It involved much more than checking the grammar and spelling, cutting the material or adding to it to make it fit the space provided, or making the manuscripts conform to an overall style adopted for the Commentary.WEWMM 153.3

Every interpretation needed to be weighed to see whether the Bible writer’s meaning was made clear. This involved attention to the original languages, historical backgrounds, context, and the analogy of Scripture.WEWMM 153.4

And since this was a Seventh-day Adventist commentary there was another important rule the editors were solemnly enjoined to observe. The writings of Ellen White were to be constantly consulted and her interpretation of, or references to, passages duly noted.WEWMM 153.5

This rule did not mean that the Commentary was to reflect merely Ellen White’s interpretation of Scripture. First of all, there are many parts of Scripture on which she has not commented. Furthermore, if she commented on a passage, she did not necessarily exhaust its meaning. Some of her comments are homiletical rather than exegetical. At times she merely borrows the words of a passage and uses them in another context.WEWMM 154.1

The point I am trying to make is this: all the way through Scripture we compared Ellen White’s writings with the Scriptures and had the opportunity of weighing her competence as an interpreter and her accuracy as a historian. We discovered that she comments on an amazing amount of background history—Babylonian, Assyrian, Palestinian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, medieval, and modern. Available to us were not only her published writings, but the material now appearing at the end of each volume of the SDA Bible Commentary entitled, “Ellen G. White Comments.” The quotations were drawn from unpublished manuscripts and from articles in various papers not incorporated in current Ellen G. White books.WEWMM 154.2

First of all, how did her writings compare with the manuscripts submitted to us? It should be noted that these manuscripts were the work of carefully selected writers who had attained a level of competence in Biblical studies.WEWMM 154.3

The editors soon discovered that even with the highest level of training men are fallible. It appears to be impossible for anyone to write extendedly on even a simple subject without some error in fact, in deduction, in logic.WEWMM 154.4

The expression “feet of clay” was heard repeatedly in conversation among the editors, with regard to men whose manuscripts we were handling. When a man wrote in the area of his special competence the level of his accuracy was fairly high, but when he stepped outside of his area his percentage of error rose rapidly.WEWMM 154.5

With the amount of information available today it is possible for one man to master only a small area. That is why this is an age of specialization. In the field of Biblical studies there are many areas of specialization—Old Testament, New Testament, Biblical languages, comparative linguistics, ancient Near Eastern studies, systematic theology, church history, Biblical archeology, and others.WEWMM 154.6

But even when a man works in the area of his competence he may err. Perhaps he is interrupted while gathering his information, or is writing. Perhaps in a moment of less than peak alertness he misinterprets a source he is consulting, or in writing does not follow logically to a conclusion.WEWMM 155.1

All this was impressed on us as day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year we continued our work on the commentary. We editors recognized that we ourselves are just as fallible. Distrusting ourselves in our own writings, we begged our fellow editors and experts in various areas to check our work. In fact, we discovered that only when many eyes go over the material could we expect reasonable freedom from error.WEWMM 155.2

But before us day by day, alongside the writings of fallible men, were the writings of one who claimed that she was inspired of God to write what she did. The contrast was amazing and could not be missed. Absent were the “pretty follies” uninspired writers commit. Gone was the excess, useless verbiage. When her historical material was compared with secular sources it checked out. True, there have often been several schools of interpretation regarding certain events and characters of history, and she could be expected to support but one interpretation. With Biblical history and secular history closely intertwined in her writings, she covers the gamut of human history from the beginning of civilization to the end of world history. To observe how she did this and remained so free from error, and at the same time to observe that men highly trained in narrow fields of history erred—and at times rather grossly—confirmed to me that hers was more than human work. The fact that her work cut across the various areas of specialization made the observation even more amazing.WEWMM 155.3

Someone might observe that she, too, had her editors. True. But there is no evidence of extensive editing of her writings. Nor were these editors highly trained specialists. If any of them would have undertaken the task of writing as extensively as she did on as broad a field, their writings would have been as fallible, if not more so, as the human writings we were examining.WEWMM 155.4

In the field of Bible interpretation she followed generally accepted principles of hermeneutics (interpretation), which was not always true of the contributors to the Commentary. Here again, of course, there are several schools of hermeneutics, and all her principles would not be accepted by all interpreters. But her historical principle, for example, according to which she interpreted the books of the Old and New Testaments in their historical context, is an almost universally adopted principle today. It was interesting to me to observe how often in her interpretation of a passage she wove in elements not evident in the English translation but evident in either the Hebrew or Greek, neither of which she could read.WEWMM 156.1

Following is an example that I noted recently. For years interpreters have titled Psalm 71 the Psalm of an Old Man. Verse 18 states plainly, in the King James Version, “Now also when I am old and grayheaded, O God, forsake me not.” But Ellen White says David wrote this psalm, not when he was old, but when “he looked forward to the time when he should be aged.”—The SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, on Psalm 71:9, 17, 19, p. 1148. How could she say this when the author in verse 18 seemingly identifies himself as “old” and “grayheaded”?WEWMM 156.2

It happens that the Hebrew of verse 18 can also be translated thus: “Until the time that I am old and grayheaded, O God, forsake me not.” Thus the Hebrew allows a younger author. Was she aware of this Hebrew nuance? Or did she get her information supernaturally? Even if some translator before she wrote her comment in 1880 had given the alternative reading, judgment as to which reading is preferable would have been involved.WEWMM 156.3

The evidence is cumulative. Knowing that Ellen White had little formal education; knowing also that as a busy mother, as an itinerant preacher, and as one who was often ill she could not through self-education have attained the breadth of knowledge, or the consistency and accuracy evident in her works, we need another explanation.WEWMM 156.4

To me the explanation that she was inspired by God as were Biblical writers is fully substantiated by the evidence. There is consistency in her Scripture interpretation because the Spirit that inspired the original messages inspired the interpretation. Ancient history is correctly understood and set forth because the One who has been active in human history since its beginning and who has had and still has the destiny of nations under His control revealed its meaning to her.WEWMM 157.1

The contrast between her writings and those of others who did not have these special aids was clearly apparent to me and was reconfirmed to me day by day in fresh exhibits as the work on the Commentary progressed. The cumulative evidence is overwhelming.WEWMM 157.2

Takoma Park, Maryland
November 1972