The 1911 Edition of The Great Controversy
By Arthur
L. White
From
The Later Elmshaven Years, pp. 302-321
A matter of importance to
Ellen White and her staff reached back to early January, 1910. This was the
development of a new edition of her book The Great Controversy. From the early
summer of 1888, when the enlarged book with 678 pages of text was introduced,
printing after printing had come from the presses of Pacific Press in the West
and the Review and Herald in the East, and then in time from the presses of
Southern Publishing Association in Nashville, Tennessee. The book, issued by
the thousands, served the growing church and was a standby work, one sold widely
by literature evangelists. Through the early years of the new century the printing
plates gave increasing evidence of wear. In 1907, repairs were made to the most
badly worn plates, some improvements in illustrations were made, a subject index
was added, and the book was dressed up generally.
As C. H. Jones, manager
of Pacific Press in early January, 1910, was preparing for the annual constituency
meeting to be held later in the month, he took stock of the accomplishments
in 1909, the work in hand, and some things to which attention needed to be given
in 1910. On January 5 he wrote to his close friend and long associate in the
work of the church, W. C. White, listing things he felt needed consideration.
Among these, under the heading "Great Controversy, English," he wrote:
It will be necessary
to print another edition of this book on or before July, 1910. You are aware
that the plates are worn out. New plates ought to be made before printing another
edition.
Plans were set in motion
for a discussion of The
Great Controversy matter when W. C. White would be in Mountain View
attending the constituency meeting later in the month. But even before this
meeting was held, word came from the Review and Herald that they, too, needed
new plates for the book (C. H. Jones to WCW, Jan. 12, 1910). Ellen White owned
the printing plates for her books; whatever would be done with The Great
Controversy would be done under her direction and at her expense. In these
matters, W. C. White served as her business agent.
The procedures seemed routine
and uncomplicated. Not waiting till he would be in Mountain View later in the
month, White wrote to Jones on January 14 of what he thought would be a workable
plan for the resetting of "Great Controversy, English":
Arrange for the
Southern Publishing Association to keep and continue to use the set of plates
which they have and on which they have done considerable repairing.
Inform Curtiss [in Washington]
that we will reset the book immediately, and send the Review and Herald a
set of plates, and advise him if they run short of books to buy a few in sheets
from the Southern Publishing Association
Instruct Mary Steward
to read carefully one of the last editions of the book and to mark anything
that needs consideration in resetting.
Then instruct Pacific
Press to reset at its earliest convenience, finishing up two sets of electrotype
plates, one for Review and Herald and one for Pacific Press.
Hold the [linotype] slugs
till we learn what can be done about providing a set of plates for the London
office and a set of plates for the Southern Publishing Association. It seems
to me that we ought to go forward with the work, but we do not wish to make
unnecessary expense in finishing up sets of plates before they are needed.
From this it is clear that
the work that eventually was done in what has come to be known as the 1911 "revision"--a
term too strong for what actually took place--was not contemplated in the initial
plans. In other words, no need was seen for changes in the book at the time
that plans were initiated for resetting the type, nor were any alterations in
the E. G. White text contemplated, beyond technical corrections as might be
suggested by Miss Mary Steward, a proofreader of long experience and now a member
of Ellen White's staff. Work on the book was undertaken in a routine fashion
and according to plan. Miss Steward reviewed the book, checking spelling, capitalization,
punctuation, et cetera. She finished her work on this in late February. By mid-March,
Pacific Press had copy for resetting the first five chapters and a portion of
the sixth. On March 22, Jones reported to White:
We have received corrected
copy for about 100 pages of Great Controversy, and have already begun
typesetting. We found the ten-point linotype matrices which we have been using
on the Signs were so badly worn that they would hardly do for book work,
so we sent for a new set of matrices, and they arrived last night. This will
give us a good, clear-cut face. We want this new edition to be just as near
correct and just as good as possible. Miss Steward is here, and I understand
that she is to take the responsibility of reading the final page proofs, but
she wants our proofreaders to read galley proofs, etc.
Jones, in his letter, discussed
the number of sets of printing plates that would be wanted and expressed the
hope he could have a visit with W. C. White before White had to leave to attend
the Spring Meeting of the General Conference Committee in Washington, D.C.
It is evident that all concerned
expected that the work called for would be pushed through in a matter of weeks.
In the meantime, as a corollary
to the resetting of the type for The Great Controversy, thoughts began
to develop both in the minds of Ellen White and the members of her staff regarding
certain features of the new reset book. These related not only to the physical
features of the book--type face, illustrations, et cetera--but also to the text
itself. Ellen White wrote of this to F. M. Wilcox, chairman of the Review and
Herald board:
When I learned
that Great Controversy must be reset, I determined that we would have
everything closely examined, to see if the truths it contained were stated in
the very best manner, to convince those not of our faith that the Lord had guided
and sustained me in the writing of its pages.--Letter 56, 1911.
These and other considerations
led W. C. White to reach out for helpful suggestions. He reported:
We took counsel
with the men of the Publishing Department, with State canvassing agents, and
with members of the publishing committees, not only in Washington, but in California,
and I asked them to kindly call our attention to any passages that needed to
be considered in connection with the resetting of the book.--WCW to "Our
General Missionary Agents," July 24, 1911 (see also 3SM, pp. 439, 440).
As suggestions began to
come in, he called a halt in typesetting and the making of printing plates.
At this point 120 pages had been sent to the type foundry for platemaking, and
the type was set for 100 more pages.
Considerations Initiated by Plans
for a New Edition
The Great Controversy
was Ellen White's most important book. She regarded it as a volume designed
to win readers to an understanding and acceptance of the light of present truth.
This lifted the matter of
a new edition somewhat above the mechanical production of a volume for literature
evangelists to introduce to the people of the world, to the excellence of the
text itself, depicting the great controversy story in an accurate and winning
way.
So, relatively early in 1910, there loomed before Ellen White, her staff, and
the publishers a perfecting of the text to reflect a precision of expression,
and the employment of words acceptable to both Catholic and Protestant readers.
The steps to accomplish this were grasped somewhat progressively. While Ellen
White, with a full sense of this implication, carried the responsibility for
many changes in the text, she delegated the details of the work to several members
of her experienced and trusted office staff. But she held herself as the ultimate
judge, and she would from time to time consider specific points and finally
review the text of the manuscript.
It should be stated here
that neither Ellen White nor her staff considered what was done as an actual
"revision," and all studiously avoided the use of the term, for it
was entirely too broad in its connotation.
Here were the involvements
that developed as the work was entered upon.
1. First and foremost, giving
the full reference in connection with each quotation drawn from histories, commentaries,
and other theological works. While these stood in quotation marks, only a very
few carried source references. Each item was to be verified to ensure its accuracy,
and reference to the original source was to be given. This was a point that
had been raised in preceding years from time to time, especially by those engaged
in book distribution.
2. Rewording time references,
such as "forty years ago," "a century ago," et cetera--putting
the book in a position of correctness regardless of when it would be read.
3. In a few instances, selecting
words more precise in their meaning than those first employed by the author,
to set forth facts and truths more correctly and accurately.
4. Having the Catholic reader
in mind, to employ words that in expressing truth would do so kindly and win
rather than repel.
5. Presenting, in cases
where facts might be challenged (especially in reviewing the history of the
conflict in Reformation days), only that which could be supported by available
reference works of ready access.
6. Including appendix notes,
supportive of the text of the book.
It was agreed that upon
early that the new book should be held as nearly as possible, page for page,
to the 1888 printing so widely circulated. At the outset, work on the illustrations
for the new book had been undertaken. This was a point of importance in a volume
to be sold by colporteurs.
The typesetting that had begun was now being held in abeyance. W. C. White at
first thought that the delay would be not much more than a week or two, allowing,
as he said in his letter to Jones on May 17, 1910, for "careful study of
suggestions . . .recently received from brethren connected with the Review and
Herald." White continued:
You may be sure
we will do all we can to minimize the changes, not only in the pages molded
and in the pages set, but in the whole book. We feel, however, that now is the
time to give faithful consideration to the suggestions that have been made to
us.
Miss Steward, on completing
her work of correcting spelling, capitalization, punctuation, et cetera, joined
Clarence Crisler in checking historical and other quotations employed in the
book. With other tasks pressing on Miss Steward, Dores Robinson was soon also
drawn in to work at Crisler's side. The publisher and artists were at work on
some new full-page illustrations, perfecting others, and making new engravings.
Other suggestions from publishing
men and publication committees were now coming in. These fell within the guidelines
noted above. W. C. White, while attending the Spring Meeting of the General
Conference Committee in Washington, D.C., in mid-April, 1910, had conferred
with W. W. Prescott, editor of The Protestant Magazine, published by
the Review and Herald, urging him to respond to the invitation to send in suggestions
aimed at meeting Ellen White's expressed determination to have the book as perfect
as possible. Considering his responsibilities, it was appropriate that word
from him should be sought. On April 26, 1910, Prescott rendered his report in
a thirty-nine-page double-spaced letter to W. C. White. His suggestions ranged
all the way from a date given and a precision in wording and the correcting
of minor historical inaccuracies to the proposal of changes that would reflect
his privately held views on some points, such as the dating of the 1260 years
of prophecy.
Each item sent in was reviewed
on May 23 by a group consisting of W. C. White, C. C. Crisler, D. E. Robinson,
A. G. Daniells, and Professor Homer Salisbury, a trusted scholar and president
of Washington Missionary College who was traveling with Daniells. Most of the
suggestions were obviously reasonable, and, in principle, approved. Others were
rejected as being inappropriate or out of harmony with positions held by Ellen
White. Each item, both in the initial review and in further careful probing,
was given careful study. Of the Prescott suggestions, the larger number might
be considered helpful but of minor significance. Some, if adopted, would have
changed the teachings of the book. All such were rejected. His suggestions included
some mentioned by others. In all, about one half of his suggestions were accepted,
and about one half rejected.
[See
W.W. Prescott and The 1911 Edition of The Great Controversy]
The respective identities
of the individuals who submitted suggestions in response to Ellen White's request
were soon lost sight of as the contribution of committees and individuals were
blended into one overall group of points calling for study, first by the staff
and eventually by Ellen White herself. Prescott's name finds no place in the
records, except his letter to W. C. White.
Finding Sources
for the Quotations
[Top
of Document]
The most demanding of the
tasks connected with readying the book for resetting was the tracking down of
all the quotations employed in the book--417 in all, drawn from seventy-five
authors, ten periodicals, and three encyclopedias. It was while Ellen White
was in Europe and had access to the library left by J. N. Andrews at the denomination's
publishing house in Basel, Switzerland, that the manuscript for the 1888 edition
was largely prepared. At Elmshaven, Clarence Crisler was now in charge of seeking
out the sources and verifying the quotations.
Crisler was soon off to
the libraries of the University of California in Berkeley, the State library
at Sacramento, another in San Francisco, and to the Stanford University library
at Palo Alto. His investigations met with reasonably moderate success, but it
was soon seen that they must reach out much farther. To accomplish this, ministers
of experience and educators living near other important libraries in Chicago,
New York, and Washington were drawn into the search, with requests to help in
finding specific items. Then the search led to libraries in Europe--Great Britain,
France, and Germany.
What was at first thought
of as being accomplished in two or three weeks stretched into four months. Crisler
did not leave California; from the Elmshaven office he directed research, sometimes
far afield but yielding significant and satisfying results. By mid-October they
had located almost all the quotations.
Ultimately it was seen that
substitute quotations approved by Ellen White could be used for most of the
few that seemed impossible to locate. A minimum of quoted materials was left
in quotation marks but without references.
One area that seemed the
most difficult to handle was in finding the original source of several of the
quotations used in connection with the chapter on "The Bible and the French
Revolution." The search led to Elder Uriah Smith's Thoughts on Daniel
and the Revelation, and it soon was discovered that Ellen White had depended
on sources Smith employed. Most were traced to their original location, but
in the case of a few, Crisler and his associates failed at first to track them
down.
Meanwhile, the work proceeded
at Elmshaven and at Pacific Press. The longer the delay, the more opportunity
there seemed to be for imaginings and rumors in the field. In a letter to A.
G. Daniells written on June 20, 1910, W. C. White reported:
Shortly after
we sent word to the Pacific Press to delay electrotyping making the printing
plates, one of the workers in the type foundry visited the school [Pacific Union
College], and soon questions and reports were as plentiful on the hillside and
in the valley as quails in August.
He commented:
Questions and
suppositions and remarks come to Mother from all quarters, and she will continue
to be perplexed by them until the work is done.
This letter to the president
of the General Conference was actually a progress report. Continued White:
During the last
two weeks, we have been busily engaged in studying those matters which demanded
consideration in connection with the bringing out of the new edition of Great
Controversy. When I presented to Mother questions as to what we should do
regarding the quotations from historians and the references to these historians,
she was prompt and clear in her opinion that we ought to give proper credit
wherever we can. This has called for a good deal of searching of histories.
Brethren Crisler and
Robinson have taken much pains to look up the very best English authorities
for the bulls and decrees and Letters quoted and referred to, and they have
been successful beyond my fondest hopes.
And then White wrote of
the involvements in the preparation of this new edition of the book:
Further than this there
will be very few changes made. In a few places where ambiguous or misleading
terms have been used, Mother has authorized a changed reading, but she protests
against any change in the argument or subject matter of the book, and indeed,
we find, as we study into the matter, a clear and satisfactory defense for
those passages to which our critics might take exception.
There are a few historical
matters which we are still searching for. The most perplexing one is that
regarding the three and a half days when the dead bodies of the two witnesses
lay unburied, as referred to in Revelation 11:9-11.
White then alluded to the
question of the influence of General Conference leaders on the project. He wrote:
A number of questions
have arisen over here as to what we are doing and why. Some have asked if
you and Brother Prescott have been criticizing Great Controversy, and
have asked to have it changed so that it will agree with the new light on
the "daily."
Our answer is, No; that
you have neither of you expressed any wish of this sort; that the "daily"
is not mentioned or referred to in Great Controversy, that it is wholly
ignored in that book, as are many other points of prophetic interpretation
which, as published in Elder Smith's Daniel and Revelation, are being
criticized.
I have maintained that
as far as I can discern, you and Brother Salisbury and Elder Wilcox are in
hearty sympathy with us and are doing what you can to help us to find clear
and substantial evidence for the positions taken in Great Controversy.
As he wrote of the work
and reports that were being circulated, some of which came to the attention
of Ellen White, he declared:
I shall be wonderfully
glad when we get a little further along with the work, so that we can show
her [E. G. White] the proof pages of the new edition with a good, clear red
mark in every place where the wording has been changed in harmony with her
general instruction regarding historical quotations.
Aside from this, where
we are working under a general order, we shall show her every change of wording
that is proposed, and if it does not meet her approval, it will not be followed.--DF
83b.
E. G. White Settles
the Question of the D'Aubigne Quotations
Ten days after this report
was made by W. C. White to A. G. Daniells, a question arose, sparked by the
checking of all quoted materials in the book. It was found that the most frequently
quoted historian was D'Aubigne, whose History of the Reformation, written
in French, had been published in five translations in England and the United
States. Three of the translations were represented in The Great Controversy,
but it was discovered that only one had the wholehearted approval of the author.
The question now was "Should all the matter quoted from this author be
from just the one which had the author's approval?" To do so would call
for a good many changes in The Great Controversy text, and in some cases,
provide a less desirable wording. Work on the pages involved was held up until
this matter could be settled by Ellen White herself. And this was delayed considerably
because of some long absences of W. C. White from Elmshaven, a number of them
in behalf of the new medical school. No attempt would be made in the matter
until W. C. White could be home and present the question to his mother. Crisler,
on July 22, wrote to him at Loma Linda:
We are hoping that you
will be sure to run up to St. Helena immediately after the close of the Loma
Linda council, so that we may consider finally the D'Aubigne matters, et cetera.
In the meantime, Ellen
White, possibly with some intimation of the question that had to be settled,
made a clear-cut statement to Mary Steward that Mary carefully wrote out,
dated, and signed on July 31. Here it is:
Whenever any of my workers
find quotations in my writings, I want those quotations to be exactly like
the book they are taken from. Sometimes they have thought they might change
a few words to make it a little better; but it must not be done; it is not
fair. When we quote a thing, we must put it just as it is.--DF 83b.
The next day, W. C. White
was back home and hastened to place the D'Aubigne matter before his mother for
a decision. Her decision was to use the translation approved by the author.
On August 2, he wrote to Clarence Crisler, who was working at Pacific Press:
I undertook yesterday
morning to present to Mother in detail the changes called for in our effort
to correct the quotations from D'Aubigne. Mother examined a few of these and
approved of them, but then told me plainly that she wished us to go forward
with the whole lot, without asking her to examine them one by one.
Three days later, Elder
White wrote to the manager of Pacific Press, reporting on Ellen White's decision
and the work that followed in carrying it out:
I see that this week has
slipped by without our putting the Luther chapters into the hands of the printers.
I think these will come on all right next week.
Mother refuses to go over
the D'Aubigne quotations item by item. She has examined enough to be satisfied
that the work we are doing is right, and she has given full and unqualified
instruction for us to go ahead.
The work in progress in
Mountain View called for the close attention of Mary Steward and frequently
for the presence of Clarence Crisler. While this was in progress, W. C. White
continued to be away from the office, a great deal, serving the general interests
of the church. Crisler knew that Ellen White, now 83 years old, might well be,
under these circumstances, lonely and somewhat concerned. He made it a point
to write to her from time to time from Mountain View. One such letter he typed
out on Monday, August 1.
The historical work connected
with the resetting of Great Controversy is nearly finished. We are
finding nearly all the quoted matter, and proper references are being given
in the margins at the foot of the pages. The quotations are all being verified.
When we learn from you what translation of D'Aubigne should be followed
in the quotations taken from his History of the Reformation, we will
act accordingly.
Great Controversy
will bear the severest tests. When it was prepared years ago, thorough work
was done. This is more and more evident, the more the book is examined.
It would have been better,
of course, if the historical references had been given in the first editions;
but this is a minor matter that can easily be adjusted at the present time,
when new plates are being made. We are copying out historical extracts to
file away with our various publishing houses who are publishing Great Controversy,
so that if anyone should ever question statements that you have made in Great
Controversy, our brethren at these publishing houses will have matter
to place before others, demonstrating that the positions you have taken in
Great Controversy and the historical statements you have made are in
harmony with the best historical records.
Great Controversy
has already had a great sale; and our bookmen who have much to do with pushing
its sale into new fields feel as if the new edition, giving proper credits
to the historical extracts that are quoted in the book, will be all the better
and stronger, and will meet with the full approval of all concerned. They
rejoice to learn that the historical statements you have made in the book
are in harmony with the best histories, and can be fully vindicated.
On September 20, Crisler
wrote to Prof. H. C. Lacey, a teacher at the Adventist College at Stanborough
Park, near London, England, who was helping to track down elusive quotations:
We have endeavored to
have all quoted matter in the book carefully verified, and references to proper
sources inserted at the foot of each page where the extracts occur, throughout
the book. Of course, no revision of the text has been attempted; and
the paging of the reset plates will remain practically the same as in the
former subscription editions, all chapters beginning and ending on the same
pages as hitherto. (Italics supplied.)
"The Bible
and the French Revolution"
[Top
of Document]
On August 1, the very day
Ellen White gave study to and settled the question of the D'Aubigne quotations,
Clarence Crisler, working in Mountain View, wrote to W. C. White:
I wish very soon to look
up items connected with the French Revolution. This has been left, as you
know, to the very last. Most of the other items have been cleared up.
On August 11, Crisler was
rummaging through secondhand bookstores in San Francisco, looking for works
that might help. He was pleased to find a single volume of the big set Historians'
History of the World--the volume covering the entire period of the French
Revolution. He felt it was well worth the dollar he paid for it. A few days
before, he was working at the Stanford University library, reading up on French
history. Of this, he reported:
Examined a good many
works. Some works haven't a thing in them that is of any special value to
us. There is one work, however, which will help a lot in establishing the
soundness of the present philosophy of the French Revolutionary period, as
outlined by Sister White, and that is Buckle's History of Civilization
in England.
Buckle is one of the
greatest of the philosophic historians; and in his work he makes very plain
the fact that prior to any attempt whatever to revolt against the social and
political situation in France, there was a determined effort, on the part
of the thinkers and, in fact, of most of the educated men of France, to break
through the long-established tyranny of the church, which stifled all true
reform, whether religious, social, or political. Buckle makes very clear the
differences between true Christianity and the religion, so-called, revealed
in the lives of the French clergy of that period.--CCC to WCW, Aug. 11, 1910.
The twenty-four-page chapter
in The Great Controversy on the Bible and the French Revolution was a
very important one, in which many lessons were brought out showing the ultimate
fruitage of rejection of God and His Word. Ellen White in this chapter introduced
the prophecy in Revelation 11, concerning the "two witnesses" and
the 1260-year time prophecy of the period that began A.D. 538 and ended in 1798.
One scholar who in April was asked to read The Great Controversy carefully
and point out places that might need strengthening if the book was to accomplish
the most good, took exception to Ellen White's interpretation of the two witnesses
and the validity of the dates of the 1260-year period. This intensified the
need for a careful study of this chapter.
No occasion was found to
turn away from the position taken on the 1260-day (or year) prophecy, but difficulty
was experienced in endeavors to document specific actions of the French Assembly
in 1793, edicts abolishing the Bible, and then three and a half years later
restoring it to favor. Painstaking research failed to disclose such specific
legislation, but edicts were found that did so in effect. Crisler found that
one of the British lords, in a debate in Parliament as it opened in January,
1794, declared, after reading at length from French documents, that "The
Old and New Testament were publicly burnt, as prohibited books." "This,"
Crisler commented in a letter to W. C. White on October 5, "is quite close
to Sister White's declaration, for which we want authentic historical evidence,
that 'it was in 1793 that the decree which prohibited the Bible passed the French
Assembly."' Crisler continued:
You will note, upon examining
Sister White's statement carefully, that the act which passed the assembly
"prohibited the Bible." Even if we cannot find in the wording of
an act these words or words very similar, we can find acts which prohibited
the worship of God, or rather abolished the worship of God; and, as was plainly
brought out in the British Parliament a few weeks after these excesses in
France, the enactments against the Deity were followed by the burning of religious
books, including the Bible.
In one French source,
the original French of which we hope to find soon, it was announced that the
Popular Society of the Section of the Museum had "executed justice upon
all the books of superstition and falsehood; that breviaries, missals, legends,
together with the Old and New Testaments, had expiated in the fire, the follies
which they had occasioned among mankind."
I wish you might have
the privilege of reading the statement which the Rev. Dr. Croly makes concerning
this period. It is in his work Croly on the Apocalypse. Dr. Croly takes
the position squarely that the enactments of the French Assembly abolishing
all respect and worship of God, in fact abolished the Bible; and reasoning
thus, he holds to the same exposition of the two witnesses of Revelation 11
that is given in Great Controversy.
His statements are very
much to the point; and even if we cannot find an express law against the Bible,
or prohibiting the Bible, we can still go far toward defending the position
taken in Great Controversy.
In January, 1911, Clarence
Crisler reported that there were a few references in the French Revolution
chapter that they had not yet found. Two days later he wrote of receiving
a report from Brother Vuilleumier, a denominational worker in France, that
gave "one good passage on the restoration of the Bible at the close of
three and a half years," which was highly prized (DF 84d, CCC to Guy
Dail, Jan. 3, 1911).
Crisler also wrote:
Elder Conradi has given,
in his Die Offenbarung Jesu, more proof in connection with the prophecy
of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 than has any other of our Biblical expositors.--Ibid.
Through January and most
of February it was hoped that with research both in Europe and in America there
would be found the exact edicts of the French Assembly on the abolition and
reinstatement of the Bible. It was not forthcoming, and on February 26, Clarence
Crisler wrote to W. A. Colcord:
In the search for the
original sources of passages quoted in the chapter on "The Bible and
the French Revolution," we were led into a more extended inquiry than
we had at first anticipated entering into.
We have not found every
quotation given in the chapter, but many of them we have found, and verified.
Crisler then explained
that "in order to keep a record of our findings," the staff at Elmshaven
had made many notes. Some of these were included in five manuscripts on the
French Revolution chapter. Where definite verification could not be found
for the crucial statements in The Great Controversy, the wording was
modified. The statement as it appeared in the 1888 edition read:
It was in 1793 that the
decree which prohibited the Bible passed the French Assembly. Three years
and a half later a resolution rescinding the decree, and granting toleration
to the Scriptures, was adopted by the same body.--Pages 286, 287.
The wording in the 1911
edition reads:
It was in 1793 that the
decrees which abolished the Christian religion and set aside the Bible passed
the French Assembly. Three years and a half later a resolution rescinding
these decrees, thus granting toleration to the Scriptures, was adopted by
the same body.--Page 287.
This brought the crucial
statement well within the limits of what could be proved from reliable historical
sources. There was actually little change in intent, but rather a more precise
wording. Ellen White was anxious for this, that the book might serve unquestioned
in the widest possible reading circles. On this point, Crisler, in a letter
to Guy Dail in Europe, stated:
In all this historical
work, we are eager to have the manuscripts that may be submitted, given the
most searching tests. We need never be afraid of historical truth.
And then he made an observation,
one based on his painstaking research over a period of half a year:
We would do well to avoid
accepting the conclusions of some of the more modern historians who are attempting
to rewrite history so as to shape it up in harmony with their philosophical
viewpoint. We find it necessary to exercise constant vigilance in this respect;
and this leads us to set considerable store by the original sources, or fountainheads,
of history.
At this point Crisler offered
his own testimony of what he saw of God's guiding hand in the writing of The
Great Controversy:
The more closely we examine
the use of historical extracts in Controversy, and the historical extracts
themselves, the more profoundly are we impressed with the fact that Sister
White had special guidance in tracing the story from the time of the destruction
of Jerusalem, down through the centuries until the end. No mortal man could
have done the work that she has done in shaping up some of those chapters,
including, we believe, the chapter on the French Revolution, which is a very
remarkable chapter, in more ways than one.
And the more we go into
these matters, the more profound is our conviction that the Lord has helped
not only Sister White in the presentation of truth, but that He has overruled
in the work of other writers, to the praise of His name and the advancement
of present truth.
Our brethren in years
past have used many quotations, and, as a general rule, the Lord surely must
have helped them to avoid making use of many extracts that would have led
them astray. Of course there is still a great deal of room for improvement,
even in a book like Elder U. Smith's Daniel and Revelation. But not
so much needs to be done, as might have had to be done, if the Lord had not
given special help to these various writers.--DF 84d, CCC to Guy Dail, Jan.
3, 1911.
One other point calling
for careful study, which was mentioned in suggestions received in April, 1910,
and surfaced again as final work was done on the book, was the statement found
on page 50 of the 1888 edition:
The pope has arrogated
the very titles of Deity. He styles himself "Lord God the Pope,"
assumes infallibility, and demands that all men pay him homage. (Italics supplied.)
It was pointed out to Ellen
White's staff that "there is abundant proof to establish the fact that
the attributes of the Deity have been ascribed to the pope, but the style of
expression in Great Controversy makes it appear that the pope, himself,
has taken these titles to himself and that he has also assumed infallibility."--S.
N. Curtiss to C. H. Jones, Feb. 14, 1911. There was seemingly full support for
the Great Controversy statement in Giustianni's book Papal Rome as
It Is. But this source was difficult to find and a bit uncertain as to reliability.
Curtiss, manager of the Review and Herald, in his letter to Jones said: "It
seems as though we ought to be very careful to eliminate every expression which
cannot be backed up by authority. In this, I refer to historical statements,
of course. I do not wish to be understood as bringing into question, in any
way, the statements based on the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy."--Ibid.
In December, 1910, Crisler wrote of his discovery on the point of the statement
"Lord God the Pope."
This is taken direct
from a decretal by Pope Gregory the Ninth and I have copied it out in a large
Jesuit library here on the Coast.--CCC to Adolf Boettcher, Dec. 2, 1910.
But now in late February,
the question of authority for the declaration that the pope himself assumed
the title having been called up again, it was felt that it could be settled
only by Ellen White herself. If any change in wording were to be made, the page
would have to be reset and new plates made. W. C. White writing to C. H. Jones
in February 28, 1911, declared that:
It will depend upon Mother's
decision. We have some questions to submit to her as soon as she is feeling
a little better, and willing to consider them.
The question as to what
the pope has arrogated to himself is a difficult one. The church has attributed
to him all that is claimed in our books, and he has received it and acted
upon it, but it is a little difficult to prove from histories within our reach
that he has assumed the titles of the Deity and the right to change divine
law, and Mother may decide that it is best for us to take a very conservative
position in view of the controversies before us.
As soon as she decides
this question (I hope she will consider it tomorrow), then we will report
to you.
The decision was in favor
of wording the statement in such a way that it could be easily supported by
documents available. The wording in the 1911 edition reads:
More than this, the pope
has been given the very titles of Deity. He has been styled "Lord
God the Pope," and has been declared infallible. He demands the homage
of all men.--Page 50. (Italics supplied.)
The decision was Ellen White's.
While there were days that she, now 83 years of age, found she had to rest her
mind, yet she was well able to make important decisions. At one point, while
the work on The Great Controversy was in progress, W. C. White wrote
of her decision-making ability, an ability that was yet to serve for four more
years. He had just returned from a trip to southern California; Elder J. A.
Burden was with him, eager to seek counsel on some important Loma Linda matters.
Note White's words:
We found Mother quite
well, and she entered heartily into a study of the questions which Brother
Burden came to present. I was glad indeed to see that she has become sufficiently
rested so that she can deal with these important questions in a clear and
decided manner.--WCW to C. H. Jones, Dec. 24, 1910.
Another point, much like
the one on the assumptions of the pope, related to a somewhat similar statement
on page 261. In this case, some quoted material was deleted and the point was
covered by words substituted by the author. Crisler explained:
We are simply discontinuing
the use of these passages because it would be quite impossible to prove to
the world that these passages have in them all the meaning we have hitherto
taught that they convey. Even in the passage that we were considering on page
261 of Controversy. ["'the pope can dispense above the law,"'
et cetera]. I am not at all sure that the author of Controversy erred
in its use in former editions.
However, she herself
recognizes the wisdom of making a substitution in this instance, and of avoiding
the use of it in future, to prove the point under consideration. Sister White
has based her decision on the effort that the Roman Catholic divines have
made to show that this passage refers only to the ecclesiastical law, and
has no reference whatever to the divine law; and also on the fact that in
future our published utterances will be subjected to severe and unfriendly
criticism. She feels very clear in continuing to use only such extracts as
cannot be gain said by our enemies when we are brought into trying situations
in future.
And then Crisler went on
to explain the basis of other decisions on Ellen White's part:
On the other hand, Sister
White has not felt clear in adopting as the full authoritative teaching of
the Roman Catholic Church some of the utterances of their apologists in lands
where religious liberty prevails. For this reason, she has felt clear in holding
to the wording she adopted years ago for her presentation of the doctrine
of indulgences, and her various references to this doctrine also, in the main,
her references to withholding the Bible from the common people.
I might refer to still
other declarations in Controversy that have not been changed in order
to harmonize them with the published works of certain apologists of the Church
of Rome.--CCC to W. A. Colcord, April 9, 1911.
E G. White Reads
and Approves Changes
From time to time as the
work on The Great Controversy progressed, important matters were taken
to Ellen White for decision, and the staff at Elmshaven worked under general
instructions from her. Finally, when the type was set and proof sheets were
available from the publishers, a set was marked showing clearly both the old
reading and the new, and these were submitted to her for careful reading and
approval. An envelope in the White Estate Document File No. 85e carries the
notation: "Controversy Proofs Prepared for Mrs. E. G. White's Inspection
and Approval." "All approved."
At last the work was done,
a work much more demanding than was anticipated when those involved began in
January, 1910. By early July, 1911, the book was in the binderies of Pacific
Press and the Review and Herald. On Monday, July 17, copies of the newly published
Great Controversy--the 1911 edition--were received at Elmshaven. It was
a joyous day.
[Return to the Homepage]
[Return to the Issues
and Answers page]