It is sometimes disturbing to the average reader to find that writers of history often differ widely in their portrayal of the same series of past events. Such readers may quickly assume that one or the other of the historians in conflict is ignorant, dishonest or both. In actuality, he may be neither.CBPH 7.1

The lay reader’s misconceptions arise largely from a misunderstanding in two basic areas: 1) the nature of historical facts and 2) the methods used in putting these facts together. Sadly, too often we historians have been guilty of contributing to our reader’s misunderstanding, instead of seeking to allay it. In part this is because, as with other professionals, historians largely tend to write for each other. Realizing that his peers have been exposed to roughly the same methodology as he has, the historian will trust his fellows to understand him—to know when he is generalizing, making value judgments or overstating a point in order to secure a desired effect. But, alas, most readers of an historical treatise, especially one done in a popular style, may not recognize these literary techniques, employed by an author to make as strong a case as possible for the viewpoint he is propounding.CBPH 7.2

Almost all history today is written from a particular viewpoint or thesis. Gone are the days of the nineteenth century historian who sought to write a simple narrative history according to Leopold von Ranke’s famous injunction to “write history as it actually happened.” The move toward “thesis” history was itself the result of several factors. First was a realization that, for all their pretensions to objectivity, the great narrative historians like Ranke and Parkman really could not escape arranging and interpreting the facts with which they worked according to their own preconceptions and value systems. Since this was the case, many modern historians argue that it is better to let the reader know at the start the assumptions and point of view from which they write. Second, many historians believe that by writing their account to bolster a particular thesis, they are stimulating discussion, further investigation and the reflection necessary to more closely approach Ranke’s goal of “seeing things as they have actually happened.”CBPH 7.3

Historians work with many kinds of “facts.” Some are easily verified because they were widely observed and carefully recorded. All historians would probably agree that Cincinnati defeated Boston in the 1975 World Series. There are many other easily verifiable facts in this particular instance—the scores of the series games, who pitched in each game, etc.CBPH 7.4

Soon, however, we come to things that are more debatable. How many errors were there in a particular game, for instance? The number of errors recorded by the official scorers can be easily ascertained. It is a fact that they scored x number of plays as errors in the third game, let us say. But were all of these actually errors? This may depend on many things—the observer’s physical view of the play in question, his predilection for one team over another, his understanding of the rules of baseball, etc. The sports historian, faced with several conflicting accounts will probably accept the one that best fits his own understanding of baseball, the value of the various reporters as witnesses, etc.CBPH 7.5

The point I am trying to make is that many “facts” are facts only in the mind of the observer. To someone else, they may appear in an entirely different light. It is possible to assemble these “facts” in a number of different ways according to the pattern in the mind of the narrator. To illustrate, a child may use the same blocks to build a tower, a house or a wall. But the blocks which he puts together to form a house, may appear to be a prison stockade to someone else.CBPH 7.6

All this is by way of background to try and explain why Dr. Ronald Numbers and I, using essentially the same facts, can come up with very different viewpoints on the development of Ellen G. White as a health reformer. We both agree that she wrote extensively on the subject of healthful living, that her writings were the dominant cause of Seventh-day Adventists incorporating a gospel of health into their teachings, that she advocated simple natural remedies, and that her particular emphasis varied from time to time.CBPH 7.7

We disagree as to the source of her inspiration (secular or divine), the quality and truthfulness of some of the witnesses who provide “facts” to use in reconstructing certain events and the interpretations to be placed on many of these events. By stating this I do not mean for one to imply that Dr. Numbers is dishonest. He, in fact, states frankly in the preface of his book that he has “refrained from using divine inspiration as an historical explanation.” From this, I think, we may deduce that he feels that it is both possible and preferable to explain Ellen White’s views and visions on matters of health as the result of natural or human causes.CBPH 8.1

While I would agree that it is possible to arrange a selection of the facts to arrive at this viewpoint, I would argue that a consideration of the entire life, work and writings of Mrs. White makes the supernatural explanation more satisfying to me. I will, then, consider that the way I see things more nearly approximates the “truth” or things “as they actually happened.” This I do, frankly admitting that, since historians use vastly different data than natural scientists, it cannot be proven with scientific precision that the supernatural forces of good and evil have operated as I think the evidence suggests.CBPH 8.2

It seems vital to me that readers of Dr. Numbers’ book constantly bear in mind the viewpoint from which he is writing—one of naturalistic explanation alone. Readers should also understand that in trying to prove the “noticeable” influence of men like Horace Mann, Dio Lewis and L. B. Coles on Ellen White’s ideas, Dr. Numbers is trying to do one of the most difficult things facing an historian. Long ago Louis Gottschalk pointed out that similar ideas held by different individuals “may be due to other factors than the direct shaping of the later man’s ideas by the earlier man’s.” Among other things Gottschalk suggests that both may have been influenced “by an independent third person” or that it “may be due to similar cultural and intellectual atmospheres.” Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History (1961), p. 241.CBPH 8.3

Gottschalk goes so far as to argue that to prove an influence “it is necessary to show that the similar ideas thus dressed up would not have been born in the mind of the later thinker or would have had a different form or emphasis if they had not been generated or modified directly or indirectly by the supposed source.” “Such a demonstration,” he continues, “involves speculation upon how things might have happened if they had not in fact happened as they seem to have.” (Ibid., pp. 241 -42) (Emphasis mine.)CBPH 8.4

Thus while it is permissible for Numbers to argue Ellen White’s debt to Mann, Lewis and Coles, it is just as permissible (and I think as intellectually respectable) to argue otherwise. In some instances during her lifetime it appears that Mrs. White gave information available to her from no known source; on other occasions that she supplied information at a particularly apropos or crucial time when she could hardly have known through human means how crucial the situation was. (There are numerous testimonials to such cases.) In such circumstances, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that her information was supernaturally received.CBPH 8.5

It is even possible to speculate that Lewis, Coles and Mann may have received supernatural enlightenment—not necessarily in visions, but through that elusive means called “insight.” Thus Coles and White might have had a common source for their beliefs—although receiving their inspiration in different ways. And even if we concede that Dr. Numbers has proven that Mrs. White “borrowed” organization, ideas, or language from Coles, have we proven that this could not have been Inspiration’s way of bringing this material to her?CBPH 8.6

There are a number of other points on which I differ with Dr. Numbers. I have little confidence in some of the “facts” he derives from certain witnesses. Although recognizing that H. E. Carver, D. M. Canright, Frank Belden, and M. G. and John Harvey Kellogg are hostile witnesses, Numbers places more faith in many of their assertions than I would. Strangely he appears to give little weight to the many favorable comments of Canright and the two Kelloggs made during the period before they became disenchanted and bitter toward Ellen White. The evaluation of Mrs. White’s visions that Numbers uses of M. G. Kellogg, for instance, comes from Kellogg’s old age—at a time when he was financially dependent upon J. H. Kellogg, who was then in a bitter dispute with Adventist leaders over the source of some of Mrs. White’s visions. I think it reasonable to suspect that M. G. Kellogg, perhaps approaching senility at this time, was more anxious to be sure of his brother’s favor (no sustentation in those days!) than in complete historical objectivity. Incidentally, he, too, had had his toes stepped on by Ellen White in the past.CBPH 8.7

As another example, Numbers cites J. H. Kellogg as the source for stating that by 1900 vegetarianism was more the exception than the rule among Adventists. This may be so. Yet Kellogg was hardly a disinterested observer. Anyone reading his correspondence, or talking to those who knew him, can readily realize that Kellogg had a virtual “phobia” on this point. Never known to understate things, but rather for his repeated tendency to exaggerate, it seems just as plausible to me that the good doctor was exaggerating in this instance. Other instances of what I consider to be “poor” witnesses by Dr. Numbers could be cited.CBPH 9.1

I hasten to add, however, that Dr. Numbers undoubtedly has reasons for believing the witnesses he cites—for him to do otherwise would be dishonest, and I feel that I know him too well to entertain for a moment the idea that he would cite a witness for dishonest purposes. It is just that on the basis of our different backgrounds, religious presuppositions, study, etc., we evaluate these men’s testimony differently. It is a fact that they said what they did, but not necessarily that what they said was true.CBPH 9.2

There are other areas in which I disagree with Dr. Numbers. To mention them all would weary the reader, but perhaps several other samples will be useful. I believe, on occasion, Numbers generalizes beyond what his facts warrant. One case in point is his statement that the Millerite movement caused some cases of insanity. This again may be true, but given the level of diagnosis, the type of records and the complexity of deciding what causes irrational behavior, I would prefer a more cautious and qualified statement. There are other instances of this. Was “poor health” really the “one constant” during Ellen White’s early difficult years? I suspect there were others. Can we on the evidence we have say with assurance that other early SDA leaders “undoubtedly” spoke to James and Ellen White of their “experiences in health reform.” Can we be certain that James Caleb Jackson was the inspiration for Ellen White’s moderate attitude toward the use of salt?CBPH 9.3

There are times, too, when Dr. Numbers exaggerates to make a point. We might class this as literary hyperbole—overstatement in an attempt to call attention to a condition generally true, but ignoring minor contradictory data. For instance—Dr. Numbers in referring to the Millerite movement, specifically the Midnight Cry movement, states that by mid-August 1844, “all hopes” were fixed on October 22. It would be more accurate, but less forceful, to say most hopes. Numbers knows, of course, that key Millerite leaders like Himes and Miller, himself, did not accept the October 22 date until late September or early October, 1844. Yet the bulk of the rank and file had done so by late August. Clearly he has utilized literary hyperbole to make a point. Having done this, would it be too farfetched to ask him to accept Ellen White’s right to do the same in denying her health teachings were derived from others. I think not.CBPH 9.4

One final word—What will be the impact of Dr. Number’s portrayal of Ellen White as a health reformer? It would be presumptuous to prognosticate. Some will undoubtedly conclude that she was a “pious fraud.” Others will conclude that Dr. Numbers is maliciously dishonest. I believe neither. My own hope, and prayer, is that the reader of Dr. Numbers’ elaborately researched and skillfully written study will be led to consider at least several things more carefully: 1) What was the entire impact of Ellen White’s work? 2) What are my reasoned views for accepting or rejecting her supernatural inspiration? 3) Just what is the role of a prophet—are they somehow so controlled by God as to lose their human characteristics? 4) How does inspiration work? 5) Am I a victim of presuppositions that have not been carefully, thoughtfully and prayerfully arrived at? If the reader is led to the thoughtful consideration of such topics, Dr. Numbers will for that person have performed a service. I rather suspect that this was what he originally wanted to do.CBPH 9.5

Berrien Springs, Mich. April 20, 1976

A Word to the Reader

Putting Prophetess of Health in Perspective