Was The Desire of Ages Plagiarized? -- Part 2

EllenWhite.info — The Ellen G. White Information Website

Did God send a prophet?

Return to http://www.ellenwhite.info/desire_of_ages_ch_5_rea_b.htm.

Color Key

Material that is an exact, word-for-word match of the alleged source.

Words that are a match of the source, but also of biblical material.

Material dropped from the beginning or end of the paragraph of the alleged source by Rea.

Material clipped from the beginning or end of a sentence in Rea's comparison, without giving the reader any indication of such. (Either a capital letter or a period appears where it should not, hiding the fact that material is missing.)

An Analysis of the Literary Dependency of Desire of Ages, chapter 5

contributed by David J. Conklin

Paragraph 3 (analysis of pp. 321, 322 of White Lie)

In this comparison, Rea in The White Lie begins to do something he hasn't done before. He places in both bold and italics all direct quotations of Scripture. This results in drawing the attention of the reader to the similarity in wording between Hanna and White which occurs whenever they happen to quote the same Bible verse. But this seems inappropriate, since his book is intended to demonstrate Ellen White's plagiarism of Hanna, not her plagiarism of Scripture.

We have returned these selections back to the condition of the original source by removing the bold and italics from the Scripture quotations. In this comparison, only Mrs. White's citation of 1 Peter 1:19 is affected.

Desire of Ages (1898)
Ellen G. White, pp. 50, 51 Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim (1883), v. 1, p. 194 Scripture

The offerings presented to the Lord were to be without blemish.³ These offerings represented Christ, and from this it is evident that Jesus Himself was free from physical deformity. He was the "lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 1:19. His physical structure was not marred by any defect; His body was strong and healthy. And throughout His lifetime He lived in conformity to nature's laws. Physically as well as spiritually, He was an example of what God designed all humanity to be through obedience to His laws.

The first of these was Circumcision, representing voluntary subjection to the conditions of the Law, and acceptance of the obligations, but also of the privileges, of the Covenant between God and Abraham and his seed. Any attempt to show the deep significance of such a rite in the case of Jesus, could only weaken the impression which the fact itself conveys. The ceremony took place, as in all ordinary circumstances, on the eight day, when the Child received the Angel-given name Jeshua (Jesus). Two other legal ordinances still remained to be observed. The firstborn son of every household was, according to the Law, to be 'redeemed' of the priest at the price of five shekels of the Sanctuary. [e Numb. xviii. 16] Rabbinic casuistry here added many needless, and even repulsive, details. The following, however, are of practical interest. The earliest period of presentation was thirty-one days after birth so as to make the legal month quite complete. The child must have been the firstborn of his mother (according to some writers, of his father also); [1 So Lundius, Jud. Alterth. p.621, and Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. p. 1699. But I am bound to say, that this seems contrary to the sayings of the Rabbis.] neither father nor mother [2 This disposes of the idea, that the Virgin-Mother was of direct Aaronic or Levitic descent.] must be of Levitic descent; and the child must be free from all such bodily blemishes³ as would have disqualified him for the priesthood, or, as it was expressed: 'the firstborn for the priesthood.' It was a thing much dreaded, that the child should die before his redemption; but if his father died in the interval, the child had to redeem himself when of age. As the Rabbinic law expressly states, that the shekels were to be of 'Tyrian weight,' [a Bechor viii. 7] the value of the 'redemption money' would amount to about ten or twelve shillings. The redemption could be made from any priest, and attendance in the Temple was not requisite. It was otherwise with the 'purification' of the mother. [b Lev. xii.] The Rabbinic law fixed this at forty-one days after the birth of a son, and eighty-one after that of a daughter, [3 Archdeacon Farrar is mistaken in supposing, that the 'thirty-three days' were counted 'after the circumcision.' The idea must have arisen from a misunderstanding of the English version of Lev. xii. 4. There was no connection between the time of the circumcision of the child, and that of the purification of his mother. In certain circumstances circumcision might have to be delayed for days, in case of sickness, till recovery. It is equally a mistake to suppose, that a Jewish mother could not leave the house till after the forty days of her purification.] so as to make the Biblical terms quite complete. [c Comp. Sifra, ed. Weiss, p. 59 a and b; Maimonides, Yad haChaz. Hal.Mechusre Capp., ed. Amst., vol. iii. p. 255 a and b.] But it might take place any time later, notably, when attendance on any of the great feasts brought a family to Jerusalem. Thus, we read of cases when a mother would offer several sacrifices of purification at the same time. [4 Comp. Kerith. i. 7.] But, indeed, the woman was not required to be personally present at all, when her offering was presented, or, rather (as we shall see), provided for, say, by the representatives of the laity, who daily took part in the services for the various districts from which they came. This also is specially provided for in the Talmud. [5 Jer. Sheq. 50 b.] But mothers who were within convenient distance of the Temple, and especially the more earnest among them, would naturally attend personally in the Temple; [6 There is no ground whatever for the objection which Rabbi Low (Lebensalter, p. 112) raises against the account of St. Luke. Jewish documents only prove, that a mother need not personally attend in the Temple; not that they did not do so, when attendance was possible. The contrary impression is conveyed to us by Jewish notices.] and in such cases, when practicable, the redemption of the firstborn, and the purification of his mother, would be combined. Such was undoubtedly the case with the Virgin-Mother and her Son.
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Pet. 1:19)

Observations: No comment.

Notes

Did Ellen G. White get the idea for this lone word from Edersheim as Rea's book suggests? Or, did she get it from one of the forty Bible texts that use the phrase "without blemish," one of which she actually quoted?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Send comments and questions by going to: /var/www/ellenwhite.info/web/FEEDBACK_EMAIL.

AdventWeb