Ellen G. White and Her Critics

That Parenthetical Number, 666

2. A point has also been made out of the “666” found in parentheses in the sentence. It is assumed that this number is part of the original manuscript written by Mrs. White. The following facts indicate, we believe, that this is an unwarranted assumption: EGWC 291.2

a. The use of parentheses, as in the case before us, is alien to the style of Mrs. White’s writing. An examination of her handwritten manuscripts of the early years reveals that rarely if ever did she insert explanatory matter in parentheses. EGWC 291.3

b. As explained a little later in this chapter, Joseph Bates was the first publisher of this vision, which he brought out on a single sheet of paper, called a broadside. In this original printing the “(666)” is found. When next the vision was published, in A Word to the “Little Flock,” there is not only the parenthetical “(666)” but also parenthetical letters, for example, “(a),” “(b),” etc., which refer the reader to footnotes. Uriah Smith, writing in defense of the visions in 1866, declares that all of these parenthetical letters, and also the “(666),” were not inserted by Mrs. White, but by “the publisher,” and were “no part of the vision itself.” The Review and Herald, July 31, 1866, p. 65. Smith wrote this while all the parties concerned—Mrs. White, James White, and Joseph Bates—were living. Though it is true that Mrs. White rarely commented on explanations offered concerning her visions, it is hard to believe that if Smith had been in error in this statement, neither James White nor Joseph Bates would have corrected him. But when Smith republished the statement in a book in 1868, his words here quoted are unchanged. (See The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, pp. 100, 101.) EGWC 291.4

c. If the parenthetical “(666)” was written by Mrs. White, then James White would have had much clearer light on this mystic number than he gives evidence of having. As late as 1860 he confessed to great ignorance on this matter, and stated that in contrast there were some who, “fifteen years” before, had “declared the number 666 to be full.” He evidently disagreed with their idea that the number 666 was “full,” as well as with the explanation offered as to the manner in which it was full. But if Mrs. White had written that parenthetical “(666)” in her vision, would he have commented quite as he did in 1860? EGWC 292.1

The foregoing would seem to make wholly implausible the assumption that Mrs. White wrote the “(666)” that appears in the printed form of the vision. The reasonable conclusion is that Joseph Bates inserted it to clarify the passage in terms of his own interpretation of her words. This is a practice often followed by good men when they deal with difficult or obscure texts in the Bible. There was no special reason why James White, when republishing the vision a month later, should remove the “(666).” He confessed he did not know; why not permit his loyal colaborer, Bates, to offer his parenthetical comment! EGWC 292.2