Ellen G. White and Her Critics

Borrowed Matter in “The Great Controversy”

Let the reader go through the pages of the 1911 edition, noting the quotation marks enclosing statements by other writers, and excluding quotations from Scripture. Does the total of quoted portions warrant the critics’ sweeping statement that the book “was taken largely” from the writings of others? The answer is patently No. By actual count, excluding Bible quotations, only 12 per cent of the book is quoted matter. EGWC 420.1

But let us look more closely at this quoted material. In a majority of instances such quotations are largely, if not wholly, the words of some notable person in history, such as Luther or some martyr. Thus, the historian is himself simply copying. Mrs. White may quote Luther’s words as found in Wylie, but she might have quoted them as found in any one of a hundred church histories. To the extent that anyone, including a prophet, discusses history—and The Great Controversy has a historical framework—he must certainly quote the words of various notable personages connected with that history. Such words are the common property of all writers. EGWC 420.2

To be exact, then, we should subtract from The Great Controversy total of quotations drawn from D’Aubigne, Wylie, and others, all the lines that consist of the words of historical personages, and view the quotations in terms of the words actually borrowed from the historians themselves. A breakdown of the 12 per cent of quoted matter reveals that exactly two thirds of it (8 per cent of the book) consists of quotations from various historical personages, thus only one third of it (4 per cent of the book) is material drawn from original writing by other authors, such as D’Aubigne, Wylie, et cetera. In other words, only 4 per cent of the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy is borrowed from the actual words of other authors. EGWC 420.3

So much for the 1911 edition. Let us compare its almost identical pages with those of the 1888 edition. According to the critics, we should expect to find most of the quotation marks missing in the 1888 edition. Instead, we find that quotation marks stand out almost as prominently on the pages of this edition as on those of the 1911 edition, even though the source of the quotations is generally not given. ^* EGWC 421.1

Let us look, finally, at the 1884 edition. Fortunately, copies of its numerous printing are not really rare; hence, many readers will be able to check personally on the statements here made. The number of pages in this edition is much less than in the others, but so is the number of quotations. If the reader really wishes to make a careful check, he can generally follow in the 1884 edition the sequence of the narrative as given in the later editions. Thus he can check the quoted material. He will discover that many of the quotations have quotation marks, and that the grand total of quoted passages that have no quotation marks is small in relation to the total volume of the book. ^† EGWC 421.2