Ellen White’s Assistants/Stenographers
Ellen White’s helpers were to remove imperfections without changing the thought. They were absolutely forbidden to alter Ellen White’s concepts or intrude any personal ideas of the assistant into the manuscript (W. C. White to G. A. Irwin, May 7, 1900; cited in Jerry Moon, W. C. White & Ellen G. White: The Relationship Between the Prophet and Her Son [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993], p. 224; hereinafter abbreviated WCW).
b. Even Ellen White’s vocabulary was not to be changed. Fannie Bolton was discharged partly because she substituted her own style and vocabulary for that of Ellen White (Letter, E. G. White to W. C. White, Oct. 21, 1892, in WCW, 222).
New Testament
1. Paul
a. Employed a number of secretarial helpers:
(1) Romans: Tertius (Rom. 16:22).
(2) 1 Corinthians: Sosthenes (?) (1 Cor. 1:1, see also 16:21).
(3) 2 Timothy: Luke
(a) “These words [in 2 Timothy], dictated by Paul just prior to his death, were written by Luke for our profit and warning” (4T 353:1).
b. Necessity for using secretaries:
(1) Imprisonment (?).
(2) Bad eyesight (?)-possibly Paul’s “thorn” (2 Cor. 12:7-9; Gal. 4:15).
(3) Hands suffering permanent injury from torture by persecutors (?) (2 Cor. 11:24-27; 6BC 987).
(4) It was not, however, because of Paul’s limited facility in Greek; he did attend Gamaliel’s rabbinical school in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3).
c. “How did you do it?”- We can, of course, only conjecture at this point how Paul employed his secretaries.
(1) In certain instances he may have given his helper an outline or a rough draft. If Paul wrote Hebrews, then the work of the literary assistant went beyond secretarial to actual editorial work.
(a) Evidence: rhetorical quality (as distinguished from inspired truth) varies from epistle to epistle. Stylistic differences, structural differences, etc., are seen in Paul’s various epistles. (Was Heb. 11, originally a sermon of Paul’s?).
(b) Such reasoning, however, in no way diminishes the quality of inspiration of these epistles/NT books.
2. Peter
a. Identity of secretary: Silvanus [Silas] (1 Peter 5:12).
b. Necessity for using secretaries:
(1) Imprisonment (?).
(2) Limited formal education in the Greek language/rhetoric (?).
(a) 1 Peter: written in a finely-polished style of Greek composition.
(b) 2 Peter: written in a very crude form of Greek, lacking in certain stylistic areas (but not lacking in purity of truth, clarity, accuracy).
(c) Possible explanation of the difference: Silvanus “polished” the first letter; the second may have been written just before Peter’s martyrdom, without literary assistance.
c. “How did you do it?” Again, we can only conjecture:
(1) In 1 Peter, the apostle may have written or dictated to Silvanus an overall plan or rough draft and then trusted his amanuensis to choose the vocabulary, idioms, etc.
3. John
a. Identity: According to a tradition of the Greek Orthodox Church, Prochorus, one of the 1st seven deacons (Acts 6:5) volunteered to share John’s exile on Patmos.
b. “How did you do it?” Possibly John saw things in vision which he then dictated to Prochorus, who then wrote them down. If so, Prochorus’ role was that of a stenographer, but we can only conjecture. There appears to be no corroboration of the identity of John’s helper, nor the method employed, in any inspired work.
Conclusion
1. In both OT and NT there is extensive evidence that Bible writers repeatedly used the assistance of literary helpers, and probably in a number of different ways.
2. In view of this established precedent, it should be neither surprising nor yet worthy of blame, if Ellen White used literary assistants.
Conclusion
1. There is ample evidence in both OT and NT that Bible writers employed literary assistants in the production of their respective inspired books.
2. EGW did so, too; and in so doing, she places herself squarely in the center of the Biblical tradition and precedent. Her practice, thus, need not cause concern or alarm by SDAs today.
3. EGW herself initiated, and personally supervised, from beginning to end, the revision of 1884, 1888, and 1911 editions of GC, in an ongoing attempt to develop a book more acceptable to the non SDA public-at-large.
a. The fact that in this process some statements were modified, and others were deleted entirely, need cause no alarm today.
(1) There has been no sinister conspiratorial plot to destroy her writings by church leadership.
(2) And EGW herself personally initiated and supervised all changes made.
b. The 1911 edition represented a substantially large outlay in time, money, and personnel.
c. And it is clear that it was this edition (and not the earlier ones) which EGW wished to have circulated among the non SDA public once it became available.
d. Contemporary efforts now to continue the circulation of the 1884 and 1888 editions (ostensibly because the 1911 edition is alleged to have been perverted and polluted by unconsecrated, unbelieving SDA leaders) is patently as false as it is absurd.
4. During her lifetime EGW approved the paraphrasing of chapters of DA int a more simple, basic-English presentation by her son Edson, for his use in evangelistic work among newly-freed, largely-illiterate African-American slaves in the post-Civil War South.
a. Paraphrases of her “Conflict of the Ages” series of five works today for specialized audiences would unquestionably meet with her total approval and strong support.
Sent using the mail.com mail app