Life of Paul Plagiarized
A Question of Ethics

The Sketches from the Life of Paul Fraud

The Origin of Sketches

Sketches from the Life of Paul was not born from divine revelation. It was born from a business problem.

By the early 1880s, Ellen White's older Spirit of Prophecy series was already showing its age: Uneven in quality, thin in scholarship, and increasingly out of step with a denomination that wanted to be taken seriously. The SDA publishing machine needed fresh product—something polished, professional, and marketable. What emerged was the Conflict of the Ages project. The goal was to offer an expanded retelling of biblical history within the SDA theological framework that both guided SDA interpretation of Scripture and provided a lucrative income for the sect and the Whites.

From a spiritual standpoint, Sketches was completely unnecessary. SDA publishing houses were already selling Conybeare and Howson’s book successfully, and it stood as the definitive nineteenth-century work on the life of Paul. There was no crisis, no gap, no shortage of insight that demanded a replacement. What was needed was a version of Paul repackaged to enforce SDA theology while putting the royalties into SDA pockets instead of Apostate Protestantism.

It can be assumed that the project had several aspirations:

• Doctrinal Control: Present Bible stories filtered through the SDA doctrinal lens—no need for SDAs to get confused by biblical teachings that sometimes contradicted those of the sect
• Missionary Weapon: Introduce unsuspecting converts to SDA doctrines under the guise of "Bible teachings"
• Revenue Stream: Generate continuous income to fund the White's growing publishing empire and reinforce her prophetic authority

Sketches was chosen as the opening salvo because the sect was planning a Sabbath-School study on the Book of Acts in 1883. Many SDAs were already purchasing Conybeare's and Howson's book—offered through SDA publishing houses—to assist them in their upcoming study. The challenge SDA leaders faced was that Conybeare and Howson taught biblical truths that did not align with SDA teachings. This could easily lead to questions being raised about SDA theology during Sabbath Schools. What was needed was a book that could control the narrative and reinforce SDA doctrines.

Furthermore, since the church membership was gearing up for a long study on Acts, this attention would provide the perfect marketing opportunity for the sect to replace Conybeare and Howson's book with their own offering—with the royalties going to the Whites instead of a non-SDA publisher.

The result? A propaganda manual masquerading as biblical exposition. Mrs. White did not illuminate Acts—she put an SDA spin on it. This book could be used to pre-program readers on prophetic authority and other SDA doctrines before they could encounter any competing viewpoints.

Bottom line: Sketches from the Life of Paul was about managing minds and making money. The "inspiration" was entirely financial. The "divine revelation" was plagiarized from Conybeare & Howson. And the whole operation was a calculated fraud designed to control interpretation, proselytize other Christians, and generate income—all while claiming God's stamp of approval.

Programming first. Income second. Fraud throughout. That is the origin of Sketches.

The Evolution of Sketches

Sketches was not a sudden inspiration. It was the next step in a process that began with Spiritual Gifts (1858–1864). In those early writings, the apostles appear only in thin devotional sketches, nearly devoid of historical substance. The reason is simple: Ellen White had not yet encountered Conybeare & Howson.

By the time The Spirit of Prophecy, volume 3, appeared in 1878, those same events suddenly acquired polish, detail, and historical color. This was not the result of new revelation, but of a new source. Mrs. White had discovered Conybeare and Howson’s work and begun drawing heavily from it. Even so, the volume still felt clumsy and amateurish. It needed further revision and expansion.

According to Arthur White (her grandson and chief apologist), this progression created demand—the SDA people were supposedly "clamoring for a book from her pen on the subject."¹ SDA members genuinely longed for their "prophet" to unveil divine insights and reveal her visions of Paul's life. They expected revelation. Instead, they got plagiarism.

The Whites, never ones to miss a revenue opportunity, recognized the perfect storm: devout followers hungry for prophetic revelations + a well-written English textbook filled with material to steal + zero copyright enforcement (it was a foreign book) = maximum profit with minimal effort. It seemed the perfect opportunity. What could go wrong?

So, they formulated a plan. Ellen would "expand" her previous writings, the publishers would market it as inspired revelation—without asking her questions about citations or lack of quotations—and the royalties would flow directly into the White family coffers. The SDA faithful would pay handsomely for plagiarized Victorian scholarship wrapped in prophetic packaging.

Sketches from the Life of Paul was the inevitable result—not of divine visions, but of calculated literary theft meeting opportunistic capitalism.

Enter Marian Davis: The Ghost Writer Behind the "Prophet"

To manufacture Sketches, Ellen White needed professional help. Enter Marian Davis, hired in 1879 as White's literary assistant—or more accurately, her ghost writer and plagiarism coordinator.

Davis's assignment was clear: take the thin and awkwardly-worded material from Spirit of Prophecy and build a professional, full-fledged book on the apostles. How? By systematically mining the writings of Apostate Protestantism's greatest authors:²

1. Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul (primary source)
2. Frederic W. Farrar's The Life and Work of St. Paul (secondary source)
3. Henry Melvill's Sermons (for theological padding)
4. Mirror of the Soul (minimal theft)

Sketches was not a unique literary work. Marian Davis compiled the book from Mrs. White's previous writings and supplemented it with whatever else she could find. After Ellen White rubber-stamped it, the publishers marketed it as divine revelation.

The Propaganda Machine Cranks Up

After Davis finished assembling the 334-page compilation—and prophet White "reviewed" it—the propaganda machine launched into high gear. The SDA publishing house released it with fanfare as Ellen White's definitive work on the apostolic era.

Finally! The SDA sect had their own version of Paul's life—one that prioritized SDA doctrines over actual biblical theology. No more embarrassing reliance on Conybeare & Howson's book. Why was that book embarrassing? Because it explicitly stated that the extraordinary spiritual gifts of the Apostolic Age, including prophecy, were given "for that age alone" and should now be considered "an ordinary talent, namely, the gift of teaching."³

Oops. Statements like that demolished the SDA claim that Ellen White was the modern "Spirit of Prophecy" and identifying mark of the remnant church. It was humiliating for the Review to keep offering a textbook that undermined their prophet's credentials.

Solution? Plagiarize that same book, remove the inconvenient theology, add SDA dogma, and sell it as inspired truth.

The "Great Flood of Light" (Stolen from Conybeare)

By June 1883, thousands of copies of Sketches were rolling off the presses. The Review and Herald ran advertisements targeting those who had been "clamoring" for it. General Conference President G.I. Butler gushed in the Review, claiming the book contained "a great flood of light thrown upon that narrative."⁴

The question Butler never answered: Just exactly where did that "great flood of light" come from?

Davis did the heavy-lifting—stealing and paraphrasing. Ellen White took credit for the finished product. SDA corporate leaders extolled it. And trusting SDA members paid the price—literally.

The Big Lie

In the preface to Sketches, the SDA publishers made a claim so audacious, so brazenly dishonest, that it deserves to be enshrined in the fraud hall of fame:

The writer of this book, having received especial help from the Spirit of God, is able to throw light upon the teachings of Paul and their application to our own time, as no other authors are prepared to do.⁵

Let's unpack this masterpiece of deception:

1. Mrs. White received "especial help from the Spirit of God" in writing the book.
2. No other authors were "prepared" to write such a book.

Claim #1 is technically true—if by "Spirit of God" what was meant was "Marian Davis and Conybeare & Howson's textbook."

Claim #2 is an outright lie. Conybeare and Howson not only were "prepared" to write such a book—they already had written it 31 years earlier! Ellen White's "unique" insights were their scholarly analysis, copy-pasted and repackaged as divine revelation.

The SDA publishers knew exactly what they were doing. For years, they had cultivated the myth of Ellen White as a living prophet with supernatural access to biblical events. Her previous series, titled Spirit of Prophecy, reinforced the delusion that she received visions directly from God—that she could see apostolic history unfold before her eyes and transcribe what the Holy Spirit revealed.

The "especial help from the Spirit of God" was actually:

• Marian Davis doing the plagiarism legwork
• Conybeare & Howson providing the historical content
• Farrar supplying additional scholarly padding
• Ellen White adding SDA doctrinal spin
• The publishers wrapping it all up and selling it as inspired truth

The unsuspecting SDA faithful never had a chance. They had already been conditioned to believe Ellen White was a prophet. They had been told she received visions. They had been taught that her books carried divine authority. They had no reason to suspect that the "light" being thrown on Paul's teachings was actually just reflected light.

"No Other Authors Are Prepared to Do" (Except the Ones She Plagiarized)

The publishers' claim that "no other authors" were positioned to write such a book is laugh-out-loud ridiculous. They were asserting that Mrs. White's book was mysteriously superior to anything mere mortals could produce—thanks to her divine "help."

The reality? Conybeare and Howson had already written exactly such a book—decades earlier. Their book was twice the length and full of illustrations. Any candid reader could discern that Conybeare and Howson's work is vastly superior.

And Conybeare and Howson weren't the only game in town. Around the same time, Frederic W. Farrar cranked out his massive two-volume The Life and Work of St. Paul (1879)—a work of breathtaking scope and documentation. Farrar rigorously cited his sources, with over 2,000 footnotes. He consulted classical texts, church fathers, archaeological evidence, geographical data, and carefully constructed a narrative that remains respected to this day. When he speculated, he said so. When the record was silent, he stopped. No claims of divine inspiration. Just rigorous scholarship, openly documented, that anyone could verify.

This proves something crucial: nineteenth-century scholars were fully capable of producing rich, readable, historically grounded studies of Paul—without claims of divine inspiration. And without hiding their sources.

The Comparison Isn't Even Close

Conybeare and Howson wrote as trained scholars. They openly distinguished Scripture from speculation. They meticulously cited sources. They signaled clearly when they moved beyond the biblical record into historical reconstruction.

Ellen White? She did the opposite. She reproduced the same historical framework. The same narrative sequence. The same interpretive conclusions. However, she stripped away all citations and presented borrowed speculations as divinely revealed fact.

Conybeare's book stands on careful and thorough research by highly-regarded scholars. It gains authority because of its thorough citation of sources. Ellen White's work depends on her own authority. She does not have to cite anything because she expects her followers to believe she is simply writing out what she saw in vision. To cite another author would draw attention to the fact that she was relying on that author to recreate history rather than her own visions.

In substance, method, and intellectual honesty, Conybeare's book doesn't just surpass White's—it obliterates it. Conybeare and Howson's volumes contain approximately 1,500 footnotes and endnotes. Footnotes appear on nearly every page—sometimes more extensive than the main text. Every claim is documented. Every source is credited. Every speculation is marked as such. The reader knows exactly where the information comes from.

Ellen White's Sketches from the Life of Paul contains:

• Zero footnotes
• Zero citations
• Zero acknowledgments of sources

Yet somehow—miraculously—she produced the same historical background, the same narrative expansions, the same interpretive conclusions as Conybeare and Howson!

Let that sink in. Conybeare leaves a paper trail of ~1,500 documented sources, showing exactly where every piece of information originated. Mrs. White offers the same material with the footnotes surgically removed and a halo of "divine inspiration" slapped on top.

One is an outstanding scholarly work, applauded by academics worldwide and still referenced today.

The other is a cheap plagiarized knock-off marketed as a "flood of light" to gullible believers and soon thereafter removed from publication.

The claim that "no other authors are prepared" to write such a book is provably, demonstrably, and laughably false. Conybeare and Howson were not only "prepared"—they had already done it, and done it far better!

The Plagiarism Controversy Erupts

Not long after the June 1883 release of Sketches, controversy erupted. Denis Fortin, professor of historical theology at the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University, explains how Ellen White's followers discovered the truth about her "especial help":

Soon after its publication the book had been criticized for its heavy dependence on Conybeare and Howson's The Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul (1855). Entire chapters of her book followed the same sequence of events or commentaries as given by Conybeare and Howson. Many paragraphs and sentences were almost identical. The level of dependency was a shock to many readers.⁶

Ironically, the Review and Herald had been selling Conybeare and Howson's book to SDAs for years. Some SDAs owned both books. When they compared them side by side, the plagiarism was impossible to miss. Sister White's "inspired" work was revealed to be exactly what it was: a rehash of her earlier writings padded with paraphrased material from non-SDA authors.

The shock was real. But the lesson learned was not "stop plagiarizing." The lesson learned was: be more careful next time. Henceforth, Marian Davis would employ more sophisticated paraphrasing techniques to make the literary theft less obvious to readers.⁷

Round Two: The Blue Book Resurfaces the Evidence

The dust gradually settled, but the matter was stirred up again in 1907. Dr. Charles Stewart of Battle Creek published his Blue Book letter, which resurfaced the plagiarism issue with documented evidence. The controversy was back in the public eye. It even caught the attention of non-SDAs in Battle Creek, and an investigative report was printed about the incident in a local paper (see the end of this page for that article).

The Vanishing Letter

After two or three initial printings of Sketches, the Review and Herald ran out of copies in the 1890s. The book's sales were unimpressive compared to the prophet's other headline books, which is unsurprising given the plagiarism scandal. When contacted about reprinting, Mrs. White declined, claiming she planned to replace it with Acts of the Apostles.⁸

According to W.C. White (Ellen's son and damage control specialist), this decision was made before a certain letter arrived from the T.Y. Crowell Publishing Company—the American publisher of Conybeare and Howson's work:

It was after this decision of Mrs. White's not to reprint Sketches from the Life of Paul, that she was informed that a letter had been received by the Review and Herald from the T. Y. Crowell Publishing Company of Boston asking regarding their plans for the reprinting of this book. This letter was written in a kindly spirit. It contained no threats of prosecution, nor any complaints as to plagiarism from Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Reply was made that further editions were not contemplated and there the correspondence closed.⁹

W.C. White wants SDAs to believe this was just a "kindly" letter with "no threats" and "no complaints." If so, several questions demand answers:

• Why would a major publishing company inquire about the reprint plans of a small denominational book?
• Why did they care whether Ellen White's book would be republished?
• What was actually in that letter?
• Where is the letter now?

The answer to that last question: the letter allegedly burned up in a fire at the Review and Herald in 1902.¹⁰

How convenient. The one piece of documentary evidence that might reveal whether Crowell Publishing Company threatened legal action over plagiarism was forever gone.

The only evidence remaining is W.C. White's self-serving account, written decades later, assuring everyone there was nothing to worry about—no complaints, just a "kindly" inquiry that coincidentally resulted in the permanent shelving of a plagiarized book.

The timeline tells the real story:

1. 1883: Sketches published with extensive plagiarism from Conybeare & Howson
2. 1883-1890s: Plagiarism controversy erupts, sales are impacted
3. 1890s: Crowell Publishing inquires about reprint plans
4. 1890s: Ellen White suddenly decides not to reprint (purely coincidental, of course)
5. 1902: The letter conveniently burns in a fire
6. Later: W.C. White assures everyone it was all perfectly innocent

Whether the letter contained threats or not, the facts remain: Ellen White's plagiarized book was quietly shelved after the publisher of her primary source made inquiries, and the documentary evidence of that correspondence was destroyed.

Oh, That Troubling Letter!

The vanishing letter raises far more questions than damage-control-artist W.C. White's response answers. While he assured the sect that the letter was written in a "kindly spirit," was it really?

At the 1919 closed-door conference of SDA leaders, General Conference President A.G. Daniells made a revealing statement:

Yes; and now take that Life of Paul, -- I suppose you all know about it and knew what claims were put up against her, charges made of plagiarism, even by the authors of the book, Conybeare and Howson, and were liable to make the denomination trouble because there was so much of their book put into The Life of Paul without any credit or quotation marks.

SDA apologists today dismiss this statement, claiming Daniells was confused or misinformed. That defense does not hold up to scrutiny. If anyone knew the confidential details of what happened behind the scenes, it was Daniells.

Daniells Was There—And, He Knew

The timeline matters. W.C. White admitted the letter from Crowell Publishing arrived in the 1890s. Where was Daniells during that critical period?

From 1891–1901, Daniells served as president of the Australian Union Conference. He was deeply involved in the SDA publishing enterprise in Australia and maintained regular communication with Battle Creek leadership—the headquarters of the Review and Herald Publishing Association.

And where was Ellen White during this same period? She was in Australia.

Daniells and Ellen White were not just in the same country. They worked closely together. According to SDA historian Milton R. Hook, they had an intimate working relationship. During their time in Australia, "they corresponded frequently, counselled together, confided in one another, established church institutions, and preached at the same conventions."¹¹ Daniells communicated "regularly" with Mrs. White to "keep her informed" of "news reports."¹²

W.C. White was also in Australia during the 1890s, serving as his mother's primary assistant and literary manager.

So we have: Ellen White in Australia. W.C. White in Australia. Daniells in Australia. All three working closely together. All three in regular communication with Battle Creek headquarters during the exact period when the Crowell Publishing letter arrived.

The Legal Context: Why the Letter Mattered

A letter from American publishers regarding unauthorized use of copyrighted material would not have been treated lightly. In 1891, the United States Congress had just passed the International Copyright Act, extending copyright protections to foreign works under certain conditions. The legal landscape had shifted.

While a lawsuit was improbable because Sketches was published before the new law come into effect, the reputational risk was real. If the extent of plagiarism in Sketches became widely known to the public, the damage to Ellen White's prophetic claims could be severe. The sect's leadership would have been acutely aware of this threat.

Such a letter would almost certainly have been discussed internally by administrators involved in the publishing work. If it posed any legal or reputational risk, it would have been forwarded to denominational leadership for consultation.

Given these facts, a critical question emerges: Did W.C. White or Daniells "confide" in Ellen White about the details of that letter before she made her decision to cancel the book's reprint?

Consider the facts:

• The letter arrived from Crowell Publishing in the 1890s
• Ellen White, W.C. White, and Daniells were all in Australia during this period
• They were in close, confidential communication with each other
• They were in regular contact with Battle Creek headquarters
• Ellen White suddenly decided not to reprint the book—despite ongoing demand, despite the potential royalties, and despite the fact that Acts of the Apostles was not on the production schedule and wouldn't be published for well over a decade (1911)
• Daniells later stated that "charges" of plagiarism were made "by the authors"
• The letter conveniently burned meaning that it can never be examined to substantiate Daniell's recollection

Ellen White's decision makes no business sense whatsoever—unless she had a compelling reason to kill the book immediately.

Think about it: There was still market demand. The book could generate ongoing royalties for years, and it is well documented how much those royalties meant to her. Her expanded replacement volume, which she had been contemplating, was nowhere near completion. It would not see print for another 15-20 years. Why would she voluntarily forfeit a revenue stream and leave that gap unfilled?

The only explanation that fits the facts: the letter forced her hand. Whatever Crowell Publishing said in that correspondence, it was serious enough to make the financial sacrifice worthwhile. The risk of continuing to sell a plagiarized book outweighed the profit potential.

W.C. White's timeline is questionable. He claims his mother decided not to reprint before the letter arrived. But he also admits she was "informed" about the letter. Daniells, who was in a position to know, states that actual charges were made.

The most reasonable explanation? Ellen White was informed about the letter's contents—most likely through W.C. White or Daniells or both—and made the strategic decision to shelve the plagiarized book before the situation escalated. The "kindly" letter may have been less kind than W.C. White later portrayed.

Unfortunately, no one will ever know for certain. But Daniells's 1919 statement, made in a closed-door meeting he thought would remain confidential, reveals what the official narrative tried to hide: the denomination was at risk of "trouble."

The "Fix"

At the 1919 conference, Daniells made another revealing statement about how the Sketches problem was resolved:

The book was set aside, and I have never learned who had a hand in fixing that up. It may be that some do know.

Two phrases in that statement warrant close examination.

"The book was set aside"

This is not the language of normal publishing decisions. Books are not "set aside." They go out of print, they are revised, they are replaced. "Set aside" implies a deliberate decision to shelve something problematic. It is the language used when something needs to be buried. Even more telling is that it was "set aside" while it was still generating revenue for the denomination.

"Fixing that up"

What exactly was "fixed up"? Daniells doesn't elaborate, but the phrase itself is damning. One does not "fix up" a book that simply needs editorial revision. A problem is fixed up.

The natural question: Was money paid to Conybeare's or Howson's estates or to Crowell Publishing to make the plagiarism problem go away? Or was a simple, "We will discontinue Sketches" good enough? Daniells's comment suggests damage control at the highest levels of the SDA Corporation—the kind of backroom deal that gets handled quietly and leaves no paper trail.

Daniells is not speaking like a man recalling a routine editorial process. He is speaking like someone describing a project that became radioactive. Listen to his words:

• "The book was set aside" — Not revised. Not updated. Set aside.
• "Fixed that up" — Not edited. Not improved. Fixed. Like you fix a problem.
• "I have never learned who had a hand in fixing that up" — Even decades later, he still doesn't know who did the fixing.
• "It may be that some do know" — Implying others were involved but never told him.

The language itself is revealing. This was not about routine revision. It was not about expanding the book. It was set aside because of a problem that needed to be "fixed." Combined with his earlier statement about "charges made of plagiarism, even by the authors," Daniells's words suggest this was damage control, not normal publishing business.

Daniells's statement raises a troubling question that extends far beyond Sketches from the Life of Paul:

If SDA corporate leaders were willing to "fix up" the plagiarism problem in Sketches through backroom deals and institutional secrecy, what else have they "fixed up" over the decades without telling anyone?

How many other problems with Ellen White's writings were quietly handled by a small inner circle? How many other instances of plagiarism were discovered and suppressed? How many other embarrassing facts about their prophet were buried to protect her reputation and the corporations's authority structure?

The historical pattern is clear: when confronted with evidence that threatens Ellen White's prophetic claims, SDA corporate leaders put in the fix.

That's not how truth operates. That's how cults operate.

Death and Resurrection of Sketches

Sketches was finally replaced by Acts of the Apostles in 1911—28 years after the original plagiarism scandal. By then, Ellen White was 84 years old, physically frail, and struggling with failing eyesight. The question of who actually wrote Acts of the Apostles remains officially unanswered, though the evidence points to a literary committee working in her name.

The Assembly Line

The book was produced through a well-documented editorial operation involving multiple assistants. The most likely contributors included W.C. White, C.C. Crisler, D.E. Robinson, F.M. Wilcox, and W.W. Prescott. These men were deeply involved in revising, expanding, and polishing her historical works.

D.E. Robinson later admitted that assistants routinely "filled in" historical material, improved style, and resolved narrative problems using external sources.¹³ W.W. Prescott, who was fully aware of the plagiarism issues that had plagued Sketches, helped guide the revisions. What emerged was not a freshly written book, but a carefully managed editorial product assembled from earlier manuscripts and articles—reshaped to avoid repeating the public embarrassment of 1883.

The Laundering Operation

The plagiarism problem was not eliminated in Acts of the Apostles. It was strategically disguised. The editorial team employed more sophisticated techniques:

• Instead of lifting long passages verbatim, they broke borrowed material into shorter paraphrases
• They rearranged sentence structure to obscure the source
• They swapped out distinctive words for synonyms
• They scattered borrowed ideas across multiple paragraphs
• They retained Ellen White's SDA doctrinal commentary while softening the telltale fingerprints of copying

Footnotes remained absent. Attribution was still nowhere to be found. But the borrowing became considerably harder to detect without detailed comparative analysis.

The Pauline narrative from Sketches became the backbone of the new book. Large sections covering Paul’s journeys, trials, and imprisonments are reworked, expanded, and reframed, but they are not conceptually new. The plagiarism was diluted, redistributed, and cosmetically altered to pass casual inspection. Acts of the Apostles does not replace Sketches; it absorbs it.

Evidence of Intent

This was not accidental improvement. This was a calculated response to the earlier scandal.

The fact that the editorial team knew to employ these specific obfuscation techniques demonstrates they understood the problem to be "fixed" in Sketches. They were not trying to stop plagiarizing. They were trying to plagiarize more skillfully.

The lesson learned from 1883 wasn't "give proper attribution." The lesson learned was: make the plagiarism harder to detect.

That's the ultimate proof that SDA leadership knew they had an ethical problem. If the borrowing from Conybeare and Howson had been legitimate scholarly usage, there would have been no reason to obscure it in the revision. They would have simply added proper citations and moved on.

Instead, they went to considerable effort to preserve the borrowed content while making it less obviously plagiarized. That's not the behavior of people correcting an innocent oversight. That's the behavior of people engaged in deliberate concealment.

They knew what they were doing was wrong. And they did it anyway—just more carefully this time.

Ongoing Source of Denominational Embarrassment

Sketches has been a continual source of discussion—and irritation—for the SDA sect:

• 1907 — The Battle Creek Moon produced an embarrassing investigative report on the plagiarism (evidence presented below).
• 1919 — D.M. Canright mentioned it in chapter ten of his exposé of Ellen White, writing: "So plainly and fully was Mrs. White's book copied from the older book, that the publishers of Conybeare and Howson's work threatened prosecution if her work was not suppressed."
• 1951 — F.D. Nichol, in his lengthy 60-page defense of Sketches argued that the plagiarism was minimal: "Direct quotations of words, phrases, and clauses, plus any accompanying close paraphrase, constitute about 7 per cent of Sketches From the Life of Paul."¹⁴
• 1982 — Walter Rea discussed Sketches in chapter seven of his popular book White Lie, calling it "a monument to the Adventist folly of the white lie."
• 1984 — Arthur White, in his biography of Ellen White, offers the rather absurd explanation that Ellen White was only "was doing much as did the British authors," whom he claimed copied from other authors.¹⁵
• 1999? — Denis Fortin of Andrews University published additional examples of Ellen White's plagiarism, casting doubt on Nichol's 7% figure. See example section below.
• 20?? — David J. Conklin analyzed one chapter with computer software and determined 16% derived from Conybeare and Howson, 6% from Farrar, and 3% from Melville (a total of 25%).¹⁶
• 2026 — Brother Anderson illuminates Ellen White's dependency on Conybeare and Howson by showing how she turned their extra-biblical speculation into prophet-approved "truth" and how she incorporated not only historical information, but moral lessons from other authors (evidence presented below).

Failure to Give Credit Admitted by SDA Corporate Leader

At the 1919 Conference on the Spirit of Prophecy, A.G. Daniells—then president of the SDA General Conference—discussed the plagiarism problem candidly with other sect leaders:

Now you know something about that little book, Life of Paul. You know the difficulty we got into about that. We could never claim inspiration in the whole thought and make up of the book, because it has been thrown aside because it was badly put together. Credits were not given to the proper authorities...

I read it with Brother Palmer when he found it, and we got Conybeare and Howson, and we got Wylie's History of the Reformation, and we read word for word, page after page, and no quotations, no credit, and really I did not know the difference until I began to compare them. I supposed it was Sister White's own work. ...

There I saw the manifestation of the human in these writings."

What Daniells Admitted

Here is what the General Conference president is acknowledging in this closed-door meeting:

1. "Credits were not given to the proper authorities" — He admits Ellen White failed to attribute her sources
2. "Word for word, page after page, and no quotations, no credit" — He confirms extensive verbatim copying without citation
3. "I supposed it was Sister White's own work" — Even the denomination's top leader was fooled by the deception
4. "There I saw the manifestation of the human in these writings" — He recognized this wasn't divine inspiration; it was human plagiarism

This is not an outside critic making accusations. This is the president of the General Conference, speaking confidentially to other sect leaders, admitting that Ellen White's supposedly inspired work was plagiarized so extensively that "we could never claim inspiration" for it.

The Real Problem: Getting Caught

But then Daniells reveals what truly troubled sect leaders. After describing how many members lost faith when they discovered the plagiarism, he laments:

I wished a different course had been taken in the compilation of the books. If proper care had been exercised, it would have saved a lot of people from being thrown off the track.

What does "a different course" and "proper care" mean? One could give Daniells the benefit of the doubt and say that his intention was that the book should have been properly footnoted. But consider how foolish that would look! In many chapters, Mrs. White would have to cite Conybeare and Howson on almost every single page. It would be obvious to all that she was getting "especial help" from Conybeare and Howson. It would be obvious that her "great flood of light" came from Apostate Protestantism.

It is doubtful SDA leaders, including Daniells, would have wanted that. It would undermine confidence in their Spirit of Prophecy, especially considering the extent of the plagiarism. That would call into question their self-proclaimed identity as the remnant church of Revelation. It would diminish Ellen White's authority and weaken the claims of the sect.

Therefore, what Daniells likely meant is that he wished they had hidden the plagiarism better! If they had been more sophisticated in obscuring their sources, then members wouldn't have been "thrown off the track."

This explains the editorial strategy employed in Acts of the Apostles decades later. The sect didn't stop plagiarizing. They just learned to do it more carefully.

A Stunning Admission

Think about what Daniells has revealed in this confidential meeting:

• The General Conference president confirms extensive plagiarism
• He admits they could never claim inspiration for the plagiarized work
• He acknowledges that even he was fooled until he compared the sources side by side
• He recognizes this as "the manifestation of the human," not the divine
• His regret isn't about the dishonesty—it's about getting caught

Too Hard to Give Credit?

In full damage-control mode, W.C. White attempted to explain away his mother's failure to properly cite sources in Sketches:

Mrs. White made no effort to conceal the fact that she had copied from other writers statements that exactly suited her purpose. And in her handwritten manuscripts, most of the passages that she had copied word for word, were enclosed in quotation marks. But there were also many passages that were paraphrased. These paraphrased passages were usually shortened by the use in part of her own words. This brought the descriptive passages into briefer form.

The question arose, How shall these passages be handled? Much time would be required to study each passage and mark it consistently. The printers were waiting for copy, and the public were waiting for the book.

Then it was decided to leave out quotation marks entirely. And in that way the book was printed.¹⁷

The Absurdity of Willie's Excuse

Willie says his mother had quotations "enclosed in quotation marks" in her handwritten manuscripts. If that were true, it should have been trivial to preserve those quotation marks in the printed book. Both Sketches and Conybeare & Howson follow the same sequential narrative through Paul's life, making source verification straightforward.

Yet Willie claims it would have required "much time" to "study each passage and mark it consistently." Why? If the quotes were already marked in the manuscripts, what's there to study? Just copy the quotation marks along with the text!

Willie's excuse is preposterous—unless the plagiarism was far more extensive than he was willing to admit.

What "Much Time" Really Reveals

Think about what Willie is actually saying: Adding proper citations would take too much time. The printers were waiting. The public was waiting. So they made an editorial decision: strip out all quotation marks and publish the plagiarized content as if it were original work.

But why would proper attribution take "much time" if, as Willie claims, the quotes were already clearly marked? The answer becomes clear when the scope of the borrowing is considered.

The Scope Admission

While discussing how Sketches was developed, Willie revealed that about one-third of the material (115 pages) came from the earlier Spirit of Prophecy volume. Then he made a startling admission about that earlier work:

In her former writings, she had used Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul, as a help in the description of Paul's movements, and in her new chapters she continued to use passages from this book that were in perfect harmony with those things that had been revealed to her.¹⁸

Translation: She was already plagiarizing from Conybeare & Howson when she wrote Spirit of Prophecy.

Now the publishing nightmare becomes clear:

1. Ellen White paraphrased from Conybeare & Howson in Spirit of Prophecy (1878)
2. Marian Davis copied and re-paraphrased that material for Sketches (1883)
3. Davis also added fresh plagiarism directly from Conybeare & Howson
4. Additional borrowing came from Farrar, Melvill, and other sources
5. Willie admits "many passages were paraphrased" (not just a few)

The result? A multi-layered plagiarism problem where material had been:

• Copied verbatim from Conybeare (some passages)
• Paraphrased from Conybeare in earlier works, then paraphrased again (double-filtered plagiarism)
• Borrowed from multiple additional sources (Farrar, Melvill)
• Mixed together so thoroughly that proper attribution would expose the entire fraud

Why It Would Take "Much Time"

Now Willie's excuse makes sense. It is an unintentional confession. Properly citing sources would have taken "much time" because:

• The plagiarism was far more extensive than they wanted to acknowledge
• Multiple sources were involved, not just Conybeare & Howson
• Some material was paraphrased from earlier paraphrases, making attribution complex
• Honest citation would reveal that most of the "historical" content wasn't original
• The book would be exposed as a compilation, not a prophetic work

A small amount of borrowing could have been annotated quickly. The fact that they deemed it too time-consuming to add proper citations is definitive proof that the plagiarism was massive and systematic.

The Calculated Decision

So they made a business decision, not an ethical decision. Rather than:

• Delay publication to add proper citations, or
• Scrap the project and start with honest, original work, or
• Acknowledge the extensive borrowing publicly

They chose a fourth option: Strip out all attribution, publish the plagiarized content as original work, and market it as divinely inspired revelation written with "especial help from the Spirit of God."

That was a calculated decision to commit fraud.

They knew what they were publishing was extensively plagiarized. They knew proper attribution was required. They knew attribution would take time because the borrowing was so extensive. And they decided to publish it anyway—without quotation marks, without citations, without attribution—while explicitly claiming divine inspiration for the author. This is premeditated fraud.

In the end, rather than toss the project into the trash-bin, as should have been done, they simply went forward with no citations whatsoever, and then claimed the author had "especial help" in producing the book.

The Plagiarism Saga Continues: Acts of the Apostles (1911)

After the embarrassing suppression of Sketches in the 1880s, one might expect Ellen White to have learned her lesson about unattributed borrowing. She didn't. In 1911, she published The Acts of the Apostles—essentially a revised and expanded version of the plagiarism-riddled Sketches. As Walter Rea noted, "In some cases the original material was rearranged, a few more authors were added, and some of the more obvious copying was toned down with more Bible texts."²⁰ The plagiarism didn't stop—it just got camouflaged.

Mrs. White and her staff pulled in new sources: Farrar (again), John Harris's 1836 work The Great Teacher, plus authors like March and McDuff.²¹ The book presented the same problem as before: extensive unattributed copying from scholarly works, now with even more victims. And once again, not a single honest citation. No footnotes acknowledging Conybeare, Howson, Farrar, Harris, or any of the others whose research formed the backbone of her "inspired" narrative.

Conclusion

Ellen White built her career on the claim that God revealed biblical events to her in visions. She supposedly witnessed Paul's trials, saw into the hearts of ancient figures, and received divine insight into the moral and spiritual meaning of biblical events. For over a century, SDAs have defended this claim, insisting that her writings bear the marks of supernatural revelation.

The evidence destroys that claim completely. Ellen White didn't receive visions of Paul's life—she read Conybeare and Howson's scholarship and copied it. She didn't witness the jailer's inner turmoil at Philippi—she lifted Conybeare's cultural analysis and presented it as prophetic insight. She didn't receive divine instruction on pastoral ministry or character transformation—she plagiarized moral teachings from Conybeare, Farrar, and Melvill, passing off their wisdom as her own inspired counsel. Page after page, example after example, the pattern is undeniable: where her sources go, she follows. Where they speculate, she speculates. Where they provide detail, she provides the same detail. And where they cite their sources honestly, she remains silent, letting her readers believe it all came from God.

This isn't minor literary borrowing. This isn't acceptable 19th-century practice. This is systematic fraud. Ellen White claimed divine authority for content she stole from human authors, and when confronted, her defenders offered evasions, technicalities, and half-truths instead of honest answers.

The woman who claimed to see what no historian could know needed historians to write her books. She just refused to give them credit. That's not prophecy. That's plagiarism. And no amount of apologetic maneuvering can change it.

Evidence Part III: Plagiarism Comparisons

Examples published by Denis Fortin¹⁹

Examples provided by Dirk Anderson

Note: Some SDA apologists claim Mrs. White was not copying "page after page" as suggested by Daniells. Granted, parts of the book are her own works, and parts were plagiarized from other authors. So, I picked a few pages and found Mrs. White did indeed follow Conybeare and Howson page-by-page, sometimes paraphrasing, sometimes inserting her own thought, and sometimes using the very same words.

Another example...

Here is an example of how the same quote passed through all the evolutions of Mrs. White's writings on Paul:

Example from Sydney Cleveland

In the image below, on the left side is page 57 of Ellen White's Sketches From the Life of Paul (1883). Beneath that and on the right side are portions of pages 168-170 of Conybeare and Howson's The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (1852). The color pinkish-red color indicates words that Ellen White copied exactly, and yellow indicates thoughts that she copied.

Source: Sydney Cleveland, "A Visual Sample of Ellen White's Plagiarism"

1907 Newspaper Account

SDA Defense Examined

When confronted with evidence of plagiarism in Sketches, SDA defenders point to correspondence from 1924 between church employee Claude E. Holmes and the Thomas Y. Crowell Company—one of the publishers of Conybeare and Howson's work. The publisher's response stated they had "never raised any objection or made any claim" against Ellen White's book. Does this close the case?

No. And here is why...

What the 1924 Letters Actually Say

On January 15, 1924, Claude E. Holmes (an employee of the Review and Herald Publishing Association) wrote to T.Y. Crowell Company in New York as follows:

Some years ago you published a book entitled 'Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul.' In 1883 a book was printed by the Review and Herald Publishing Co., of Battle Creek, Mich., entitled 'Sketches from the Life of Paul.' For a long time it has been claimed that because of a similarity of ideas and words in several instances in this book, you at one time threatened prosecution unless the book was withdrawn from circulation.

This report is now being scattered about in printed form and I should be pleased to know if there is any truth in it. Any information that you can give me regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated.²²

Crowell's reply came three days later:

We publish Conybeare's LIFE AND EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL but this is not a copyrighted book and we would have no legal grounds for action against your book and we do not think that we have ever raised any objection or made any claim such as you speak of.²³

SDA apologists claim this as the ultimate vindication. But the letter proves far less than they claim.

The Multiple Publishers Problem

Conybeare and Howson's The Life and Epistles of St. Paul was published by multiple houses. The original London publisher was Longmans, Green, and Co. In America, Charles Scribner's Sons held rights to various editions. T.Y. Crowell was another American publisher. There were also various smaller reprints and editions.

Holmes wrote to one publisher out of several. Getting a "we don't think we raised objections" response from Crowell doesn't account for what Scribner, Longmans, or other publishers may have known or done. Unless Holmes contacted all the publishers and received similar replies from each, the inquiry proved nothing.

We Do Not "Think"...

Holmes was asking in 1924 about events from the 1880s or 1890s. Notice the careful language in Crowell's response: "we do not think that we have ever raised any objection." This is not a definitive statement. The word "think" is hedging language—the kind of qualifier people use when they are uncertain, when they are guessing based on incomplete information, or when they are being careful not to make claims they cannot substantiate. If Crowell had definitively checked their records and found nothing, they would have written "we have no record of ever raising any objection" or "our files contain no evidence of such a complaint." Instead, they wrote "we do not think"—which is functionally equivalent to "as far as we know" or "we don't believe so."

This phrasing suggests the respondent either checked incomplete records, consulted with colleagues who had no memory of the incident, or simply made an educated guess based on the absence of easily accessible documentation. None of these scenarios constitute exoneration. When someone says "I don't think I ever did that" about events from 30 or 40 years ago, they are not providing testimony—they are acknowledging that their memory or records are insufficient to give a definitive answer. This is the predictable result of asking about decades-old disputes.

The Copyright Red Herring

Crowell's response focuses on a technical point: their edition was "not a copyrighted book" and therefore they would have "no legal grounds for action." This statement is misleading in two ways:

1. The absence of copyright protection in Crowell's specific edition doesn't mean other editions weren't protected. British copyright law and various American state laws offered protections that didn't require federal registration.
2. More critically, literary plagiarism is an ethical and professional violation regardless of whether it is legally actionable. Crowell's claim that they had "no legal grounds" simply means they personally could not sue. It is not an admission that plagiarism didn't occur.

The Authors vs. Publishers Distinction

The most critical flaw in the Holmes inquiry is that he asked the wrong people. Publishers are not the owners of intellectual property—authors are. Even if every publisher on earth said "we never objected," that wouldn't address whether the authors or their estates raised concerns. Daniells' testimony in 1919 was that it was "the authors" who made the complaint. Holmes needed to contact the Conybeare and Howson estates to address this—but he didn't. He wrote to a publisher instead, got a non-committal response about that publisher's particular edition, and SDAs declared the matter settled.

The Suspicious Timing

It is worth noting when this inquiry happened: January 1924—just five years after the 1919 Bible Conference where Daniells admitted the book was suppressed due to Conybeare and Howson objections. That testimony, if it ever were to become public, would create a serious credibility problem for the sect. The Holmes letter appears to be damage control—an attempt to generate something that could be waved around as "proof" that the plagiarism accusations were false.

The Absence of a Lawsuit Proves Nothing

The Holmes-Crowell exchange conflates two separate questions:

1. Did Ellen White plagiarize Conybeare and Howson?
2. Did any publisher threaten legal action?

These are not the same question. Plagiarism is the act of using another's work without proper attribution. Whether publishers chose to pursue legal remedies is a separate matter. In 19th-century publishing, many copyright disputes were handled quietly—objections would be raised, a book would be suppressed, and the matter would end there with no public lawsuit.

This is precisely what happened to Sketches. According to Daniells, objections were raised by the Conybeare and Howson camp. The SDA publishers responded by pulling the book from circulation. It remained out of print for nearly three decades. This pattern—complaint, suppression, decades of silence—is consistent with a quiet resolution of a plagiarism problem, not with innocence.

The Unanswered Request

The Crowell letter ends with a curious request: "We shall be very glad to see the printed matter to which you refer."²³ Holmes had mentioned that accusations of plagiarism were "now being scattered about in printed form"—presumably referring to Stewart, Canright and others. Crowell wanted to see these documents. It is a reasonable request: if someone is accusing you of threatening legal action, you would want to see the actual accusations and documentation before making definitive statements. But there is no record that Holmes ever responded. He got the letter he wanted—one that could be used defensively—and apparently saw no reason to provide Crowell with the evidence that prompted his inquiry in the first place. This silence is telling. If Holmes truly believed the plagiarism accusations were baseless slander, why not send Crowell the materials and let them investigate? The fact that he dropped the correspondence the moment he had a usable quote suggests he wasn't interested in truth—he was interested in ammunition.

Why This Defense Is Inadequate

The Holmes-Crowell correspondence fails as exoneration because:

1. It contacted only one publisher. Multiple publishers handled Conybeare and Howson's work. One publisher's "we don't think so" doesn't account for what others knew or did.
2. It came 30 years too late. Inquiring in 1924 about events from the 1880s or 1890s yielded a predictably vague response ("we do not think").
3. It focused on copyright technicalities. Crowell's claim that they had "no legal grounds" because their edition wasn't copyrighted doesn't address whether plagiarism occurred—only whether they personally could sue.
4. It asked the wrong parties. The authors owned the intellectual property, not the publishers. The Conybeare and Howson estates would have been the proper parties to contact.
5. It contradicts Daniells' testimony. Daniells explicitly stated in 1919 that the book was suppressed because of objections from the Conybeare and Howson camp. Holmes' 1924 letter doesn't address this—it attempts to circumvent it.

When weighed against Daniells' insider testimony that the book was killed specifically because of Conybeare and Howson objections, the Holmes-Crowell exchange appears to be exactly what it is: a belated, incomplete attempt to manufacture a defense where none existed.