Ellen G. White and Her Critics

Borrowings From Farrar

If we were to take literally the charge before us, we would investigate the matter of literary borrowings no further. Mrs. White is alleged to have “copied a large part of her book directly from” Conybeare and Howson. In fact, a present-day critic assures his readers that she copied “practically all” of her book from the English work. However, some have declared that she borrowed a few passages from Farrar’s The Life and Work of St. Paul. EGWC 425.1

Mrs. White’s borrowings from Farrar—direct quotations, plus any accompanying close paraphrase—constitute about 4 per cent of her book. ^* EGWC 425.2

An interesting fact comes to light in this connection, which probably explains why most critics have referred only to Mrs. White’s borrowings from Conybeare and Howson, though Farrar’s book was certainly well known. Farrar’s book reveals a number of paraphrases from Conybeare and Howson when he deals with historical matters! Quite likely Mrs. White’s critics may have thought that she was simply borrowing from Conybeare and Howson when, strictly speaking, she was drawing from Farrar! EGWC 425.3

In the preface to his work Farrar, who was an eminent divine of the Church of England, frankly admits that “all students of St. Paul” are indebted to Conybeare and Howson. But he immediately explains that his work has been “written in great measure with a different purpose, as well as from a different point of view.” ^† Thus he justifies his paraphrastic borrowings and occasional verbatim phrases without quotation marks. His prefatory statement met every ethical demand, because his readers were made conscious of Conybeare and Howson at the outset and of the possibility, at least, that that work would be drawn upon. EGWC 425.4

If the preface to Mrs. White’s work had stated what she knew was evident to her readers, that she had drawn on the Conybeare and Howson work, there would hardly have been even a technical ground for a charge against her. However, she might have said, as did Farrar, that her book was “written in great measure with a different purpose, as well as from a different point of View,” though that was also rather evident. In fact the preface, written by her publishers, declared that “the distinctive feature of the book” was not the “historical narrative” but certain “moral lessons” that were drawn. And it was repeatedly advertised, from the first, as valuable chiefly for “the lessons that are drawn” from Paul’s experiences, and “their practical application to our own times.” ^* EGWC 426.1

If all the critics scrutinizing through the years Mrs. White’s book on Paul, have never even suggested that she drew from other writers than those named, we should hardly be asked to comb the libraries in search of further possible borrowed lines. Thus we may conclude that the total verbatim borrowings and close paraphrases, reckoned generously, are about 11 per cent, and consist almost entirely of historical data and descriptions. EGWC 426.2