Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years: 1905-1915 (vol. 6)

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. 6BIO 305.4

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. 6BIO 305.5

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. 6BIO 305.6

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. 6BIO 305.7

Here were the involvements that developed as the work was entered upon: 6BIO 306.1

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. 6BIO 306.2

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. 6BIO 306.3

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. 6BIO 306.4

4. Having the Catholic reader in mind, to employ words that in expressing truth would do so kindly and win rather than repel. 6BIO 306.5

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. 6BIO 306.6

6. Including appendix notes, supportive of the text of the book. 6BIO 306.7

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. 6BIO 306.8

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: 6BIO 306.9

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. 6BIO 306.10

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. 6BIO 307.1

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. 6BIO 307.2

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. [DF 83D carries detailed documentation on the Prescott Suggestions.] 6BIO 307.3

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. 6BIO 308.1