Recent online discussions have re-opened the question in certain minds as to how Ellen White viewed the non-canonical books collectively designated as the Apocrypha. Did she consider these writings a legitimate part of Scripture? Or were they simply another uninspired source from which she occasionally gleaned material?
The claim is being made that early Adventists, including Ellen White, were significantly influenced by the Apocrypha, with some even regarding portions thereof as at least “semi-canonical” [1]. Some have correctly noted that until the latter part of the nineteenth century, not only Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox but many Protestant Bibles also included the Apocrypha [2], and that for this reason if no other, it would have been easy for early Adventist Bible students to view these additional books as authoritative to a point, if not in fact a part of Scripture.
Moreover, at least two statements have been cited as evidence that Ellen White held the Apocrypha in high esteem, perhaps even as an authentic part of the Bible which God’s people in these last days should make a point of understanding.
The Bible and the Apocrypha
To begin with, it should be clear as to why the books commonly called the Apocrypha were left out of the Biblical canon. While the narrative segments of these books—such as First and Second Maccabees—certainly possess historical value, they offer clear evidence of a finite human origin very different from the claims of Scripture. Consider the following passage from the close of Second Maccabees:
At this point I will bring my work to an end. If it is found well written and aptly composed, that is what I myself hoped for; if cheap and mediocre, I could only do my best (II Maccabees 15:38, NEB).
What a contrast with the apostle Peter’s assurance in the following verses:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:20-21).
Elsewhere the Apocrypha speaks of the performing of pious deeds, such as the giving of alms, as acts by which God is appeased (Ecclesiasticus 3:33-34; Tobit 4:11-12). Monastic isolation is praised (Judith 8:5-6), as is the slaughter of the Shechemites chronicled in Genesis 34 (Judith 9:2), in stark contrast to the condemnation offered by Jacob in Genesis 49:5-7. In another passage, racks, torture, and fetters are prescribed as just treatment for insubordinate slaves (Ecclesiastics 33:26,28).
But perhaps the most egregious doctrinal errors found in these books concern the state of the dead. Dead human beings are identified with heavenly angels (Tobit 5:4-7,14-19; 12:15). Human souls are described as pre-existent (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20), and the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory traces its roots to these writings (II Maccabees 12:42-46; Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-6). In a book on the Apocrypha written several decades ago, a Catholic nun-turned-Adventist convert describes purgatory as “the cardinal doctrine of the Apocrypha” [3].
Little wonder that a prominent Adventist scholar, writing some years ago, rightly observed that “Seventh-day Adventists view these books as apocrypha because their alleged authorship is doubtful and some of their teachings do not harmonize with the rest of the Bible” [4.
The “Hidden Book” Statement
First and foremost, it should be clarified that only one Adventist pioneer was inspired, and that was Ellen G. White. Only she possessed the gift of prophecy and its attendant authority. What other early Adventists believed regarding the Apocrypha is significant for historical purposes, but that is all. As we can see in her articulation of such issues as the Trinity, Ellen White’s inspired perspective was not necessarily bound to the convictions of her Adventist contemporaries.
Of the two Ellen White statements cited as speaking favorably of the Apocrypha, the following is the clearest:
I then saw the Word of God, pure and unadulterated, and that we must answer for the way we received the truth proclaimed from that Word. I saw that it had been a hammer to break the flinty heart in pieces, and a fire to consume the dross and tin, that the heart might be pure and holy. I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard Book, that will judge us at the last day. I saw that heaven would be cheap enough, and that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for Jesus, and that we must give all to enter the kingdom [5].
This statement is unique in all of the writings of Ellen White, despite what is alleged relative to another statement which we will shortly consider. Certainly the above statement doesn’t claim inspiration for the Apocrypha, only that “the wise of these last days should understand it.” Moreover, the above statement distinguishes the Apocrypha, which is called the “hidden book,” from the Bible, the latter being called the “standard book that will judge us at the last day.” The Apocrypha, by contrast, is not declared to be the book that will serve as the basis of final judgment.
Arthur White, Ellen White’s grandson, wrote as follows regarding the above statement to the dean of the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University, in a letter dated January 20, 1970:
There are a number of very uncertain factors in connection with the statement in question. . . . We do not have the statement in what we know to be an absolute authentic E. G. White source. That which is in the file is said to be "a copy of E. G. White's vision which she had at Oswego, New York." Had this been Ellen White's copy it would not have been so titled. This indicates to us that what we have before us is a copy held by one of our believers, perhaps copied from someone else's copy, but it did help to furnish a part of the record of the early days, and was one of the documents embodied in what we call 'Record Number 1'" [6].
The scholar quoted earlier goes on to say, regarding the Record Book noted above:
Being before the days of typewriters, the record book is handwritten. At times the names of those from whom copies were secured is given at the close of the document. In this case with Manuscript 4, 1850, this is not so. The title it bears identifies it as some other than a copy made by Ellen White. We have no Ellen White original of this document [7].
Another Statement
In 2014 the Ellen White Estate publicly released all of Ellen White’s unpublished writings [8]. According to another scholar, who has taken a particular interest in the Apocrypha and its influence on early Adventism, it was “for the first time” revealed that Ellen White “had mentioned the Apocrypha during another vision only less than a year before her other vision. There, in a transcript (archived as Manuscript 5, 1849, spoke of the Apocrypha as ‘part’ of ‘the Word of God’ and warned that Satan was trying to remove it from the Bible” [9]].
But is this in fact what Ellen White said in this vision? Here is a transcript of those portions that allegedly say this. Please note that the words in parentheses are from the copyist, not Ellen White:
(Putting the Bible on Augusta Stowell [Harriet Augusta Stowell]): Study it, study it, take it, believe it, walk out on it, the Word of God, faith, the Book of books, the all-seeing eye! Tremble before the Lord of hosts. Look ye, the mind has been filled, it has been engrossed with trash. Cast it off, bear it away. Walk carefully before thy God. Keep thine eye steady upon thy God, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith. Take it as the man of thy counsel, take it as a hammer, a fire it will consume the dross, it will consume the tin, too much trash, cast it out.
(Taking the large Bible containing the apocrypha): Pure and undefiled, a part of it is consumed, holy, holy, walk carefully, tempted. The Word of God, take it (Marion Stowell [Marion Concordia Stowell]), bind it long upon thine heart, pure and unadulterated. How lovely, how lovely, how lovely. My blood, My blood, My blood. O the children of disobedience, reproved, reproved. Thy word, Thy word, Thy word, a part of it is burned unadulterated, a part of the hidden book, a part of it is burned (the apocrypha).
Those that shall despitefully tread [treat?] that remnant would think that they are doing God service. Why? because they are led captive by Satan at his will. Hidden book, it is cast out. Bind it to the heart (4 times) bind it, bind it, bind it, (laying the Bible on Oswell Stowell [Lewis Oswald Stowell]) let not its pages be closed, read it carefully. Snares will beset on every side, take the strait truth, bind it to the heart (3 times), let everything be cast out [10].
When the parenthetical portions in the above statement are removed, one is in no way compelled to see this statement as endorsing the Apocrypha as the Word of God. Naturally she would describe the Bible she was picking up as God’s Word, without making a point of distinguishing the 66 canonical books from the writings of the Apocrypha. Exactly what she means when she speaks of a part of the “hidden book” being consumed, adulterated, or burned is not at all clear in these paragraphs. No specific mention of the Apocrypha can be found here.
The language of the above paragraphs indicate what is likely an uncertain, perhaps disjointed transcription, as such phrases as “holy, holy, walk carefully, tempted,” “hidden book, it is cast out,” “let everything be cast out,” bear witness. If the casting out of the “hidden book” is condemned by God, why does she go on to say, “let everything be cast out”? What in fact is being said here?
The only thing clear in the above statement is that God’s people must bind the Word of God—the Bible—to their hearts. No compelling case can be made for seeing this statement as an endorsement of the Apocrypha as part of the inspired Scriptures.
The scholar noted above with a particular interest in the Apocrypha and Adventism tries to deduce a de facto endorsement by Ellen White of the Apocrypha’s inspiration on account of her passing reference to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament during Hellenistic times) in The Desire of Ages, where she speaks of the dispersion of the Jews throughout the Roman Empire, where Greek was the dominant language. In Ellen White’s words:
For hundreds of years the Scriptures had been translated into the Greek language, then widely spoken throughout the Roman Empire. The Jews were scattered everywhere, and their expectation of the Messiah’s coming was to some extent shared by the Gentiles [11].
The scholar in question then states, in view of these comments by Ellen White:
As such, it would be less likely that she made these comments imagining a version of the Septuagint that lacked the apocryphal works (and in truth, to this day we don’t know of a single copy of the Septuagint that didn’t include some of them). The likelihood is that she made the comments with the assumption of a Greek translation that looked very similar to her own King James Bible: inclusive of the Apocrypha.
This is clearly important, since for White to speak favorably of the Septuagint as synonymous with “Scriptures,” without distinguishing one set of books in the Septuagint from another, appears to tacitly endorse the entire collection [12].
But as the reader can clearly see, Ellen White’s reference to the Septuagint is merely one of historical fact, without any favorable or unfavorable observation relative to its accuracy or the inspiration of writings additional to the Old Testament which may or may not have been found there. To call the above Ellen White statement an “endorsement” of all that was contained in the Septuagint during the time period in question, including the Apocrypha, can only be called a stretch.
In sum, the statement in the Ellen G. White Encyclopedia that the earlier “hidden book” statement [13], with its specific and positive reference to the Apocrypha, “has no parallel elsewhere in [Ellen White’s] writings” [14], still stands, despite the later release by the White Estate of the 1849 statement cited above. As the latter statement, devoid of parentheses, makes no specific reference to the Apocrypha, and includes phrases (transcribed by witnesses) which seem lacking in clarity, one cannot but conclude that the 1850 “hidden book” statement is Ellen White’s only definitive reference to the Apocrypha as recommended study material for the church.
“Two or Three Witnesses”
This brings us to a key principle of study relative to the inspired writings, one articulated in both Old and New Testaments: that two or three witnesses are needed to establish matters (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; I Cor. 14:29; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Two of the above passages (I Cor. 14:29; II Cor. 13:1) extend this principle beyond judicial proceedings, making it clear that matters of faith and the confirmation of inspired teachings are also subject to this process.
No doctrine, no prophetic understanding, no admonition relative to worship or lifestyle—in either Scripture or the writings of Ellen White—can rightly be based on a single passage. Indeed, it would be difficult if not impossible to list any theoretical or practical imperative upheld by the church (whether officially or unofficially) that finds its support in just one Bible verse or Ellen White statement. The two-or-three-witnesses principle is thus a sound Biblical measure whereby genuine inspired teachings or instructions in any line can be distinguished from those not reflective of the inspired consensus.
In light of this, the fact that no other recommendation that the church study and understand the Apocrypha can be found in the 65 years of her ministry following the 1850 “hidden book” statement, is pivotal to the point of decisive. Had Ellen White truly believed these writings to offer imperative and indispensable insights to God’s end-time people, she would have repeated the 1850 admonition during the course of her subsequent labors. Moreover, the transcription issues noted earlier by Arthur White and the present author relative to both the 1849 and 1850 statements also underscore the need for the clarification that additional inspired admonitions along the same lines would provide. Ellen White herself, speaking of transcription issues relative to the Bible, makes the following observations, which can certainly be seen as relevant to the present case as well:
Some look at us gravely and say, “Don’t you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?” This is all probable, and the mind that so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God [15].
If such mistakes as the above are possible in the transcription of the Bible, it makes sense to believe similar mistakes could have occurred in the transcription of certain of Ellen White’s writings as well. Hence the imperative of the two-or-three-witnesses principle in discovering the collective inspired testimony regarding this and other issues.
Other Ellen White References and Allusions to the Apocrypha
Just as a distinction is imperative to draw between the counsels of Ellen White and the views of her Adventist contemporaries, it is equally important to draw a distinction—on the one hand—between the 1849 and 1850 Ellen White statements (however one may read them) and references or allusions to passages or language from the Apocrypha in other of her writings.
It is a well-established fact that both Scripture and the writings of Ellen White occasionally include language (referenced or not) from uninspired sources. The fact that at least seven explicit references to the Apocrypha can be found in early editions of Ellen White’s A Word to the Little Flock [16], in her account of her first vision [17], in other of her statements from the same period [18], and in some of her subsequent writings also [19], should be no more disturbing than the fact that other of her writings contain quotations (credited or otherwise) from uninspired devotional, historical, and theological writers. Source usage of this kind in no way implies a claim to inspiration by the inspired author for the uninspired sources being used.
Interestingly, side-by-side comparisons have been drawn between certain of Ellen White’s writings and those of the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon [20]. In this case, Ellen White stands in very good company. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger has documented how the apostle Paul borrowed the language of key passages in his epistles from this same apocryphal book [21].
What is more, the same Adventist Apocrypha scholar cited throughout the present article claimed in a recent Facebook exchange that the Golden Rule as articulated by Jesus in Matthew 7:12 borrows language from Tobit 4:15, which states: “Do not do to anyone what you yourself would hate” (NEB). It would seem Ellen White is in the best of company so far as the uncredited use of uninspired material is concerned.
Whether he wishes so or not, the scholar in question has offered a most persuasive argument as to why the persistent attacks on Ellen White’s alleged “plagiarism” call into question the credibility of the Bible itself, and the Lord Jesus also. Whether credited or otherwise, Ellen White’s use of uninspired sources—including the Apocrypha—follows a literary pattern whose ethical propriety can’t be questioned without impugning the integrity of any number of Bible writers, and of the Savior Himself. Many seem to forget that the meticulous crediting of an author’s or teacher’s sources is a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of human literature and learning.
When uninspired materials are incorporated into the body of inspired writings, that doesn’t make the original source inspired. It only means that the inspired author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has found insights and material congruent with the divinely-imparted message. However questionable the surrounding source material may be, the borrowed material becomes inspired when the inspired messenger blends it with the inspired message.
Conclusion
The following points may best summarize the findings of this article:
1. Irrespective of how other Adventist pioneers viewed the writings we call the Apocrypha, Ellen White is the only inspired pioneer, and thus her perspective on this subject—or any other—is the only one with authoritative implications for the teachings of the church.
2. The statement regarding the Apocrypha being the “hidden book” to be understood by God’s people in these last days [22], is the only Ellen White statement containing such a recommendation, even though the statement stops short of identifying the Apocrypha as the Word of God. At no point in the 65 years of her prophetic ministry is any such recommendation repeated.
3. The vision whose transcript is found in Manuscript 5, 1849 [23] makes no specific mention of the Apocrypha, the parenthetical additions being added by the copyist. By itself, this statement is not at all clear regarding the identity of the “hidden book” noted in context or that portion of the Bible which was being wrongfully disregarded.
4. The Biblical principle that two or three witnesses are needed to establish a matter (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; I Cor. 14:29; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28) must be operative in our study of the inspired writings. The above verses offer a persuasive and practical template for identifying the inspired consensus regarding a particular issue. In light of this principle, together with the transcription issues cited in the present article, the single positive reference in Ellen White’s writings to the study of the Apocrypha cannot suffice as a credible admonition for the church going forward.
5. Ellen White’s occasional references or allusions to the language of the Apocrypha at different times throughout her ministry present no more of a challenge to her prophetic authority than the documented examples of occasional usage of uninspired sources by the Bible writers, by Jesus Himself, or the other documented cases of Ellen White’s use of such sources.
The issue of Ellen White’s view of the Apocrypha in relation to that of her pioneer contemporaries brings to the fore yet another flash point of conflict between the perspective which views the inspired writings as the product of divine intervention in human affairs, and the perspective which views such writings as significantly, if not primarily, a product of their environment. The assumption in certain circles that Ellen White’s thinking must be understood within the matrix of commonly-held beliefs in early Adventism is similar to the assumption that the Bible must be similarly understood, with supernaturalism effectively sidelined as a credible explanation. Such an approach robs the inspired text of its divine transcendence, and places it in subjection to the varied opinions of presumed “experts.”
The scholar referenced repeatedly in the present article appears to follow a popular but discredited conspiracy narrative held by theological liberals in the Adventist Church, regarding the White Estate allegedly concealing facts presumably seen as unfriendly to Ellen White’s prophetic authority. The scholar in question writes:
In 1969, Arthur White, the grandson of Ellen White and working at The White Estate which oversees her writings, was aware that Ellen White had mentioned the Apocrypha positively during a vision. This vision had never been released to the Adventist public or acknowledged to exist, but Arthur White recognizing that it might prove a problem someday, attempted to write a response to it. This written response by him and the vision’s content relating to the Apocrypha, which was kept secret from the wider church, was only eventually released publicly in 1985 because Ron Jolliff, at what was then Southwestern Adventist College, requested its release [24].
The very phrase “kept secret from the wider church”—an allegation for which the author gives no evidence, much less proof—implies a conscious conspiracy of evasion and concealment. The fact that the Ellen White statement in question hadn’t been released till 1985, or that Arthur White—anticipating that it might prove a problem—wrote an explanation for it, hardly proves a strategy of cover-up on the part of the White Estate. Considerable time, effort, and means have been involved in the release to the public of the Ellen G. White writings, and until recently, unless specific requests were made for the release of particular materials, they weren’t published. The above author would have more credibility for his claim of a concealment conspiracy were he to produce evidence that requests were made for the material in question, but denied.
Some folks fail to consider that if church leaders in general and the White Estate in particular considered certain documents in their possession injurious to commonly accepted views of Adventist history and Ellen White’s reputation, why not simply destroy them? Not a difficult thing to do.
Finally, the concern recently expressed by the current General Conference president regarding efforts to reduce confidence in the Biblical canon by urging that books like the Apocrypha could perhaps “broaden our view on truth” [25], is not at all unwarranted. Whether regarding Scripture or the writings of Ellen White, the blurring of the line between what is inspired and authoritative and what is not produces open-ended doubts regarding what in fact constitutes the Word of the living God to His people. The result invariably places uninspired human beings in authority over the inspired text, whether by means of scholarly speculation, personal preference, cultural trends, or the vagaries of experience.
Ellen White spoke of those in the church who consider themselves “wise above what is written” [26]. In view of the doubts presently and increasingly being raised regarding inspired counsel relative to any number of theological and practical issues, it is easy to see this warning as more relevant now than ever.
REFERENCES
1. Matthew J. Korpman, “Forgotten Scriptures: Allusions to and Quotations of the Apocrypha by Ellen White,” Spes Christiana 31.2, 2020, p. 110. file:///C:/Users/Kevin/Downloads/Forgotten_Scriptures_Korpman.pdf
2. Denis Fortin, “Ellen G. White and the Apocrypha” (paper prepared for the Historical Theological Consultation on the Prophetic Gift of Ellen G. White—Silver Spring, June 17-19, 1998 https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=theology-christian-philosophy-pubs
3. Mary Ellen Walsh, The Apocrypha (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Assn, 1968), pp. 52-65.
4. Fortin, “Ellen G. White and the Apocrypha,” p. 1. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=theology-christian-philosophy-pubs
5. Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 66; also in vol. 16, p. 34.
6. Fortin, “Ellen G. White and the Apocrypha,” pp. 7-8. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=theology-christian-philosophy-pubs
7. Ibid, p. 8.
8. Korpman, “The Apocrypha and Adventism: A Response to Elder Ted Wilson,” Adventist Today, Oct. 14, 2021 https://atoday.org/the-apocrypha-adventism-a-response-to-ted-wilson/
9. Ibid.
10. White, Manuscript 5, 1849 https://egwwritings.org/read?panels=p12667.913&index=0#highlight=12667.913|0
11. ----The Desire of Ages, p. 33.
12. Korpman, “Endorsing the Septuagint: Ellen White and Her Later Views of the Apocrypha,” Academia Letters, April 2022, pp. 4-5. file:///C:/Users/Kevin/Downloads/Endorsing_the_Septuagint_Ellen_White_and.pdf
13. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 66; also in vol. 16, p. 34.
14. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon (eds.), The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2013), p. 606.
15. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 16.
16. Fortin and Moon (eds.), The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2013), p. 605.
17. Korpman, “Forgotten Scriptures: Allusions to and Quotations of the Apocrypha by Ellen White,” Spes Christiana 31.2, 2020, p. 113. file:///C:/Users/Kevin/Downloads/Forgotten_Scriptures_Korpman.pdf
18. Ibid, pp. 113-114,117-123; Fortin and Moon (eds.), The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2013), p. 605.
19. Korpman, “Forgotten Scriptures: Allusions to and Quotations of the Apocrypha by Ellen White,” Spes Christiana 31.2, 2020, p. 130-143. file:///C:/Users/Kevin/Downloads/Forgotten_Scriptures_Korpman.pdf
20. Ibid, pp. 132-139.
21. Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 159-160,162.
22. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 66; also in vol. 16, p. 34.
23. https://egwwritings.org/read?panels=p12667.913&index=0#highlight=12667.913|0
24. Korpman, “The Apocrypha and Adventism: A Response to Elder Ted Wilson,” Adventist Today, Oct. 14, 2021 https://atoday.org/the-apocrypha-adventism-a-response-to-ted-wilson/
25. Ibid.
26. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 79.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan