[Note: I originally wrote this post over a year ago during UK lockdown but didn't post it at the time.]
I decided to follow my note up and search his sermons for references to manuscripts again, and after sorting away all the references to sermon manuscripts, I came across something I had not seen before.
 |
| C. H. Spurgeon (1834–1892), looking amused |
Spurgeon has a whole sermon point on “that Peculiar Preservation which God has extended to the Scriptures which he has inspired” (somewhat ironically, in light of the fact that he was preaching this from an instance in Scripture in which God’s Word appears to have been lost to his people for a time). I have shown elsewhere that Spurgeon spoke out at times in favor of textual criticism and even occasionally mentioned textual variants from the pulpit. Once, he even preached from a phrase that is in the Revised Version but not the King James Version because homoioteluton/visual similarity caused a phrase to be omitted in the majority of manuscripts (κληθῶμεν καὶ ἐσμέν, but κλη/και and θ/ε would be very similar in some hands as well). Spurgeon drank deeply from the wells of the Puritans and carried their intense respect of Scripture with him his whole life. He vehemently defended the reliability, truthfulness, and infallibility of the Scriptures, but he also understood that our access to God’s Word is not the same as what God’s Word is ontologically. Here, I stumbled upon a section in which Spurgeon defends the preservation of Scripture, but he also affirms that copies of Scripture have errors and can be corrected by comparing them to other copies. I quote a few sections below:
Now look you along through all the ages, and if you are a reverent believer in the Word, you will be filled with grateful wonder that the Sacred Roll has been preserved to us. Through what perils it has passed, and yet, as I believe, there is not a chapter of it lost; nay, nor a verse of any chapter. The misreadings of the copies are really so inconsiderable, and are so happily corrected by other manuscripts, that our Bible is a marvel in literature for the comparative ease with which the correct text is discoverable. It seems to me that God’s divine care has extended itself to the whole text, so that, with far less care than would be needed by any classic author, the very words of the Holy Spirit may be known. As the wings of cherubim overshadowed the mercy-seat, so do the wings of providence protect the Book of the Lord. As Michael guarded the body of Moses, so does a divine care secure the Books of Moses. I invite lovers of history and of famous books to look into the interesting story of the immortality of Scripture. Let us think of that special preservation with reverent gratitude.
Quickly, note here that Spurgeon does imply that the “correct text” does need to be discovered, but God’s preservation is evident in the “comparative ease with which” that is done: “with far less care than would be needed by any classical author.” In apologetics terms, Spurgeon is giving an early version of the comparison of the Bible/New Testament with classical literature, perhaps most famously made by F.F. Bruce and recently discussed by James B. Prothro.
But, oh, how should we love the Book, and how should we stand up for it, and guard it jealously, since God has guarded it so well! Let every man of God be like Solomon’s valiant men of Israel, who watched about the bed of the king, each man with his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night; for there is much fear just now for the truth of God. I mean, of course, to us poor puny beings there is danger; there is no fear in the great heart of the Eternal. There is no fear as to the accomplishment of his purposes; for he is strong in power, and not one faileth. What our fathers preserved with their blood we will preserve with our lives. That which bore them to a martyr’s death, singing as they went, we will not consent to throw away. If any man has another gospel, let him keep it; I am satisfied with mine. If any man has found another Bible, let him read it; I am satisfied with my mother’s old Bible, and the Bible of my ancestors. If discoveries are to be made concerning a new way of the salvation of men, let them make them who care to do so; the old way has saved me, and the old way has saved multitudes of others; and therein shall I abide, God helping me, come what may; and so will you, my brethren, and together we will rejoice that God preserves his Book, and continues to give his Holy Spirit with it. God will uphold the truth that is in this Book; and the men that hold that truth shall be upheld. “For ever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven;” and similar eternal settlements are made for all whose hope is fixed upon that Word.
There’s a lot to linger over here. For one, Spurgeon says we should zealously guard God’s Word, but at the same time, we should take comfort knowing that God guards his word. “...each man with his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night; for there is much fear just now for the truth of God. I mean, of course, to us poor puny beings there is danger; there is no fear in the great heart of the Eternal.”
If I’m ever tempted to be worried by uncertainty (and I’ll be quick to point out that in many cases, textual uncertainty is an inability to determine which one of two readings is original when the choice would not even make a difference in translation—it is not a free-for-all in which we have no idea what the original authors wrote) I’ve always found it helpful to step back and look at what are functionally the widest possible differences between widely received textual traditions by comparing the KJV and the modern versions, and looking at how much they agree rather than how much they disagree. Baptist theologian John Dagg wrote in his Manual of Theology (1857), “Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if they seem in some points to widen that line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray” (Book 1, ch. 2). If uncertainty about where major translations of the Bible disagree is enough to shake my faith in all the places they agree, then am I trusting in God, or am I insisting that God give me something more than he already has? If I hang my faith on the idea that God preserved his word in a way that gives me as much access and/or understanding of it as to which I think I’m entitled, then it isn’t really God I’m trusting. It’s my own understanding of how God has preserved his Word. As Spurgeon points out, “to us poor puny beings there is danger; there is no fear in the great heart of the Eternal.”
Back to Spurgeon—What’s also noteworthy in particular is this statement: “If any man has found another Bible, let him read it; I am satisfied with my mother’s old Bible, and the Bible of my ancestors.” Obviously, Spurgeon cannot be limiting “Bible” to the particular translation or even the particular textual basis of a translation. The reason is that despite his criticism of the Revised Version, Spurgeon did occasionally refer to its readings and preach them as the text instead of the readings in the Authorised Version he customarily used. This remark about rejecting “another Bible” is mere moments after Spurgeon himself talks about establishing the original text by comparing manuscripts (“our Bible is a marvel in literature for the comparative ease with which the correct text is discoverable“). Spurgeon even elaborates about what he means when he talks about a “different Bible”—“If discoveries are to be made concerning a new way of the salvation of men, let them make them who care to do so; the old way has saved me....”
To Spurgeon, the thing that makes a new translation a different Bible is not that it is a different translation or even that it has a different textual basis, it’s that it teaches a different salvation. Textual criticism does not change the Bible, because what is ontologically God’s Word cannot be changed. To Spurgeon, textual criticism only gets us closer to every letter of God’s Word.
In 2020, we are unimaginably blessed to have such amazing access to God’s Word—to be able to go to a shop and buy a copy whenever we want (lockdown restrictions notwithstanding!) or to take out our phones and have immediate access to the whole of the Scriptures. But let’s not forget that this degree of access is relatively new. Historically, many Christians only had access to what they could hear read in church—assuming what they heard was a language they understood. It was as recent as 1800 that fifteen-year-old Mary Jones had to walk 26 miles after saving up for six years just to be able to get a Bible in Welsh—her own language. Let us not slip into the mindset that God’s promises to preserve his Word mean that we are entitled to a degree of access to God’s Word that God did not give to earlier Christians, many of whom probably could not have even imagined the access we have today.
 |
| Mary Jones’ Bible. Image credit/source. |
Just a few years later in 1889 (and this is remarkable because he said this after he withdrew from the Baptist Union because of the Downgrade Controversy and higher criticism), Spurgeon preached:
I always deprecate the spirit which tries to tamper with the Word of God. I admire them who have sufficient knowledge of the ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures to tell us, as nearly as they can ascertain them, what were the original Hebrew and Greek words, but I dearly deplore that kind of spirit which, after the style of a destructive parrot, seeks to tear the Scriptures to pieces, and to rob the children of God of their priceless possession. Why, even a solitary divine precept is so precious that, if all the saints in the world were burnt at one stake, for the defense of it, it would be well worth the holocaust. If the whole of us went to prison and to death for the preservation of a single sentence of Scripture, we should be fully justified in making such a sacrifice.Again, what we see is that Spurgeon appreciated the efforts of textual criticism and even admitted that some uncertainties remain (“to tell us, as nearly as they can ascertain them, what were the original Hebrew and Greek words”), but he hated the idea of someone tampering with the Word of God.
How is this not a contradiction? Because Spurgeon understood the difference between higher criticism and lower criticism. The stress of controversies over the reliability of Scripture likely sent him to an early death. If anyone understood the ramifications of higher criticism, it was the pastor of the world’s first megachurch and leader of a pastor’s college who lived through the problems that higher criticism caused in his own ministerial circles. Yet as much as he rejected higher criticism, Spurgeon appreciated textual criticism. Every letter of God’s Word is important, after all, and since God has not given us a particular manuscript like he gave Josiah in 2 Chron. 34, we can rely on his providence and trust that we aren’t powerful enough to mess up the Scriptures, and we can trust that our access to the Scriptures—whatever form that takes—is sufficient to give us what God wants us to have.
In conclusion, if you are reading the ESV or NIV and are tempted to despair when you read the Scriptures and see a “some manuscripts say” note because you think we are too uncertain or don’t have enough manuscripts to reconstruct the original text correctly, just ask yourself—Do I trust God or not? Has he let me down all these years when I read the ESV or preached from the NIV? Did God fail to give me his Word then? If God hasn’t failed me, I can continue to trust God and his providence that worked through the Reformation to give us the King James Version and continues to work now to give us the ESV, NIV, CSB, etc., and remember Spurgeon’s words: “to us poor puny beings there is danger; there is no fear in the great heart of the Eternal.”
This is a keeper. Thanks for posting it!
ReplyDeleteThanks for these great words of encouragement Elijah.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite line in that sermon is when Spurgeon says, “What God has written is to be received with the utmost reverence. It is a pity that so many treat this Sacred Volume as they would treat any ordinary book, they sit on the throne of judgment, and sway the scepter of criticism, as if they would call God Himself to their bar.”
ReplyDeleteIndeed! I completely agree with Spurgeon's clear stance against higher criticism that he displays here.
DeleteAs Elijah pointed out in the article, it is important to distinguish between so-called "Higher" and "Lower" criticism. What TR-only advocates often seem to miss is that men like Westcott and Hort, despite a few compromises (especially on the part of Hort), saw themselves as responding to the higher criticism coming from Germany and indeed played a huge role in keeping it from gaining the foothold that it did. One only need to consider the differing paths of Anglo Old Testament and New Testament scholarship to notice the striking impact that they in fact did make for the good. Though he didn't stand where Spurgeon stood, a man like Westcott was dramatically closer in his view of Scripture to Spurgeon than he was to the Tübingen school in Germany.
DeleteWhat I found interesting was how nearly his language of his “mother’s bible” matched his words “our grandfathers’ bible” when he was actually referring to the KJV.
Delete“But I am afraid when the new translation of the Bible comes out, it will be better to light our fires with it than to give up the old version, which is so dear to us and so interwoven into all our religious life. I trust our grandfather's Bible will maintain its hold on the mind of the English public against all comers, for it is so simple and yet so sublime, so homely and yet so heavenly in style.”
What I found interesting was how nearly his language of his “mother’s bible” matched his words “our grandfathers’ bible” when he was actually referring to the KJV.
Delete“But I am afraid when the new translation of the Bible comes out, it will be better to light our fires with it than to give up the old version, which is so dear to us and so interwoven into all our religious life. I trust our grandfather's Bible will maintain its hold on the mind of the English public against all comers, for it is so simple and yet so sublime, so homely and yet so heavenly in style.”
It's no secret that to Spurgeon, the quality of translation in the KJV was unquestionably superior to that of the RV, but the RV was at times translating a more accurate Greek text. Spurgeon was fine with textual criticism (as some of the things he said quoted above demonstrate) and rightly understood nuances about textual criticism as opposed to higher criticism that some modern TR/KJV advocates refuse to grant or fail to understand (I'm not sure which).
DeleteInteresting response Elijah, does this mean you think there is a meaningful distinction between "higher" and "lower" criticism with respect to theology. Can "lower criticism" be done in an a-theological manner?
DeletePeter J. Montoro IV
Delete"Westcott and Hort... saw themselves as responding to the higher criticism coming from Germany and indeed played a huge role in keeping it from gaining the foothold that it did."
Peter, please share any sources that support this claim. Thanks!
Theodore Letis (1952-2005) looked at these questions in some depth:
B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism (1991)
Theodore Peter Letis
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23332763?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
He connected the conjectural emendations (62 mentioned, likely from the primitive corruption section) from W&H and the Mark ending theories as both being springboards to the later inroads of higher criticism.
It is best to read the full article, although I have extracted some quotes here:
Westcott and Hort springboard higher criticism to USA
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/westcott-and-hort-springboard-higher-criticism-to-usa.1856/
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Hi Jeff—I can answer that later, but could we first please work out the Spurgeon quote you posted in the context of Spurgeon’s own beliefs? More specifically, do you think Spurgeon “think[s] there is a meaningful distinction between "higher" and "lower" criticism with respect to theology”?
DeleteIn light of what Spurgeon says elsewhere in the same sermon, the quote you gave simply cannot mean that Spurgeon thought there was no difference between higher and lower criticism at all or that Spurgeon had a fundamental problem with textual criticism as it was being done in his day. (Also, you neglected to mention the way that Spurgeon—in this same sermon—attributes to God's providence the concept of manuscripts being thrown away only to be discovered by later generations and used as part of God's providential preservation: "It may have been thrown away carelessly: then providence had made even that carelessness to be the means of preserving the treasure.”)
Do you truly think that the lines you quoted ("It is a pity that so many treat this Sacred Volume as they would treat any ordinary book, they sit on the throne of judgment, and sway the scepter of criticism, as if they would call God Himself to their bar") supports the position that modern textual criticism is guilty of "sit[ting] on the throne of judgment...call[ing] God Himself to the bar"? Even when Spurgeon said elsewhere in this sermon: "The misreadings of the copies are really so inconsiderable, and are so happily corrected by other manuscripts, that our Bible is a marvel in literature for the comparative ease with which the correct text is discoverable"? Later in his life he said, "I admire them who have sufficient knowledge of the ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures to tell us, as nearly as they can ascertain them, what were the original Hebrew and Greek words." And there were times when Spurgeon publicly rejected TR readings in favor of modern text-critical judgments (assuming my notes are correct, at Matt. 17:21 in 1886, Mark 2:17 in 1891, Mark 9:23 in 1883, Luke 1:78 in 1886, Luke 4:18 in 1881, etc.; I have a list of places where he dealt with variants in his public ministry at the end of my article which is linked in the post)?
Can you honestly say Spurgeon's remarks support your position in light of his own words and decisions?
Or is it possible that Spurgeon was simply opposing higher criticism, like he always did, and that his remarks that you quoted should be read together with and understood in light of what he said about textual criticism elsewhere?
Love this, Elijah. Excellent. Two of your loves—Spurgeon and NTTC—coming together.
ReplyDeleteIf this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? The old silver is to be depreciated; but the German silver, which is put in its place, is to be taken at the value of gold. Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character.
ReplyDeleteDoctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth are scouted as sheer folly. Nothing is so obnoxious to these creatures as that which has the smell of Puritanism upon it. Every little man's nose goes up celestially at the very sound of the word "Puritan"; though if the Puritans were here again, they would not dare to treat them thus cavalierly; for if Puritans did fight, they were soon known as Ironsides, and their leader could hardly be called a fool, even by those who stigmatized him as a "tyrant." Cromwell, and they that were with him, were not all weak-minded persons—surely?
Strange that these are lauded to the skies by the very men who deride their true successors, believers in the same faith. But where shall infallibility be found? "The depth saith, it is not in me"; yet those who have no depth at all would have us imagine that it is in them; or else by perpetual change they hope to hit upon it. Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the "two Obadiahs." All possibility of certainty is transferred from the spiritual man to a class of persons whose scholarship is pretentious, but who do not even pretend to spirituality.
We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism. "These be thy gods, O Israel!"
Source: Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Greatest Fight in the World”
Anonymous,
DeleteAs much as I admire, and perhaps even favour, the sentiments expressed, I must gently endorse the view that Spurgeon himself gently wished a revision of the AV/KJV.
(1) “ Spurgeon recommended the 1877 Revised English Bible edited by Joseph Gurney, F. W. Gotch, Benjamin Davies, G. A. Jacob, and Samuel G. Green and published by Eyre and Spottiswoode. Gotch and Green were Baptists. This edition was entitled: The Holy Bible according to the Authorised Version, Compared with the Hebrew and Greek texts, and carefully revised" (Darlow, Historical Catalogue, p. 381). The heading “Revised English Bible” was above that title at the top of the page. Concerning this edition, William Chamberlin noted: “The design ‘is to correct what may be considered indisputable errors and inadequate renderings in our present English Bible’” (Catalogue, p. 29). That design is stated on the first page of its preface. Charles Spurgeon wrote the following in his review concerning this 1877 edition: "Here is our own English Bible with its mistranslations amended, and its obsolete words and coarse phrases removed" (Sword and the Trowel, Sept., 1877, p. 438). Spurgeon asserted: “Mr. Gurney has done great service to the church by employing learned men to make the needful corrections. Not one word is altered more than is needed to be, nor are the thoughts re-cast, it is our grandmother’s Bible, with many a blunder of the translator’s set to rights” (Ibid.). Spurgeon added: "We commend the work heartily" (Ibid.). “
[Note ; This REV was in favour with many Scottish Baptists, Christian Brethren and Presbyterians. In general, Scottish Bible teachers preferred to read the AV/KJV in public, but felt quite free to refer to the REV and/or the RV in preaching and teaching.]
(2) "...we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand." (June 19th,1881)
Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, XXVII, pp. 342-343).
Our authorized version of the Old Testament is often sadly inaccurate. Little errors abound at which skeptics sneer, and pious people are strongly puzzled. The text and the translation both need to be carefully revised” (Sword and the Trowel, September, 1882, p. 494). In a book of quotations from Spurgeon’s writings, Kerry James Allen cited where Spurgeon noted: “I do not say that either of our English versions is inspired, for there are mistakes in the translation” (Exploring the Mind, p. 43). “
The quote above is from 1891, very shortly before Spurgeons death. It is often referred to as his Final Manifesto. He appears to have become very concerned about the effects that textual criticism was having on the doctrine of scripture, as can be seen from his other comments in the address:
Deletehttps://archive.spurgeon.org/misc/gfw.php
There are other areas where Spurgeon. being a mere fallible human, initially failed to see the danger of a developing theory.
As a young man he preached "certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God ... we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it who might die and leave behind the marks of His handiwork and marvelous skill before He tried His hand on man."
Much later he preached: ‘In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.’
Anon,
DeleteIt would be great if in the future you could use your real name.
It really doesn't work to try to make Spurgeon a death-bed convert to anti-textual-criticism. Also in 1891 (preached on 22 Feb. 1891 and published as intended for reading on 15 November 1891), he preached a sermon in which he explicitly affirmed the Revised Version at Rev. 1:5b, "Once more this love of Christ is perpetual: he loves us still. Turning to the Revised Version we do not read "Unto him that loved us" but "Unto him that loveth us." I like that. Jesus loves me still. He did not finish his love by his death. He loves you still."
The problem there with your case that Spurgeon opposed textual criticism and not merely higher criticism is that the Revised Version here is not merely a different translation, but reflects a break from the textus receptus in the text being translated—something he affirmed less than a year before he died and published as intended to be read only 2 and a half months before he died. He also mentions the Revised Version's "Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord" (against the KJV's "Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts") in a sermon intended for reading on 29 Nov. 1891. I've also got a record in my notes that he rejected the TR reading at Mark 2:17 in 1891, but that one was published in the Sword and the Trowel (vol. 28, p. 51), but at the moment I don't have access to that volume in order to re-check that reference.
It is clear that throughout his life, Spurgeon consistently opposed higher criticism, and the content of what you quoted demonstrates that this is what he was referring to: "It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the 'two Obadiahs.'" That is how he elaborates on his comments, not remarks about manuscripts or translations. And indeed he always believed (and I don't think I know any text critics who would disagree with this statement though I can't speak for all of them—I certainly don't disagree with it though), "and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness." *Sufficient* is key there. He didn't say it couldn't be improved upon, and he was clear at times that he thought it could, but that didn't make it any less sufficient.
Also note that the phrase "German silver" would only really be apropos to higher criticism and not lower.
DeleteAnd although it's off topic to the website, similar points could be made about the quotes that allegedly showed Spurgeon changed his mind about evolution. The quotes don't really show that. The earlier quote only shows that he believed in an old earth with species that lived and went extinct before the creation of man, while the later one only shows that he rejected whatever it was that he meant by the phrase "the evolution theory." Notably, even in that very same 1891 pamphlet quoted in the first quote ("The Greatest Fight in the World") there's a section where Spurgeon still at that time opines that various old-earth views (specifically day-age and gap theory) were consistent with Genesis 1.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAs much as I admire, and perhaps even favour, the sentiments expressed, I must gently endorse the view that Spurgeon himself gently wished a revision of the AV/KJV.
(1) “ Spurgeon recommended the 1877 Revised English Bible edited by Joseph Gurney, F. W. Gotch, Benjamin Davies, G. A. Jacob, and Samuel G. Green and published by Eyre and Spottiswoode. Gotch and Green were Baptists. This edition was entitled: The Holy Bible according to the Authorised Version, Compared with the Hebrew and Greek texts, and carefully revised" (Darlow, Historical Catalogue, p. 381). The heading “Revised English Bible” was above that title at the top of the page. Concerning this edition, William Chamberlin noted: “The design ‘is to correct what may be considered indisputable errors and inadequate renderings in our present English Bible’” (Catalogue, p. 29). That design is stated on the first page of its preface. Charles Spurgeon wrote the following in his review concerning this 1877 edition: "Here is our own English Bible with its mistranslations amended, and its obsolete words and coarse phrases removed" (Sword and the Trowel, Sept., 1877, p. 438). Spurgeon asserted: “Mr. Gurney has done great service to the church by employing learned men to make the needful corrections. Not one word is altered more than is needed to be, nor are the thoughts re-cast, it is our grandmother’s Bible, with many a blunder of the translator’s set to rights” (Ibid.). Spurgeon added: "We commend the work heartily" (Ibid.). “
[Note ; This REV was in favour with many Scottish Baptists, Christian Brethren and Presbyterians. In general, Scottish Bible teachers preferred to read the AV/KJV in public, but felt quite free to refer to the REV and/or the RV in preaching and teaching.]
(2) "...we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand." (June 19th,1881)
Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, XXVII, pp. 342-343).
Our authorized version of the Old Testament is often sadly inaccurate. Little errors abound at which skeptics sneer, and pious people are strongly puzzled. The text and the translation both need to be carefully revised” (Sword and the Trowel, September, 1882, p. 494). In a book of quotations from Spurgeon’s writings, Kerry James Allen cited where Spurgeon noted: “I do not say that either of our English versions is inspired, for there are mistakes in the translation” (Exploring the Mind, p. 43). “
Isn’t it true though that he preferred the KJV over the RV for its literary beauty?
DeleteIsn’t it true though that he preferred the KJV over the RV for its literary beauty?
DeleteStephen, yes—unquestionably so. In my article, which I linked somewhere in the post, I included this line from a book review in the Sword and Trowel (and according to the Spurgeon scholars I've spoken to about this, the reviews were all either written by him or approved by him such that we can take them as things he would agree with and that accurately reflect his own views, but this one does sound like Spurgeon). From p. 545 of the 1882 volume of Sword and Trowel: "Is the [AV] better? We think it is in many respects; but the Revised Version has its advantages, and it is assuredly a great help to the English reader if he uses it by way of reference. We hope we shall never hear the New Version read from the pulpit in place of the old, for it has a foreign, un-English sound about it. Oh, that there had been on the committee one man of pure Saxon speech!"
DeleteSpurgeon's view on the RV ("strong on the Greek, weak on the English") was commonplace, in Scotland, from 1881 to around 1963, among preachers and teachers from Christian Brethren, Baptists and Presbyterians : they preferred - even insisted - on the reading of the AV in public, but happily quoted the RV in their speaking! Thus, the Christian public kept "our common version" (so-called, even insisted upon in England, by many who wished to see an enlarged or second margin in the AV): but the better readings and renderings of the RV were not denied to that public. Altogether, this was a better state of affairs than now obtains, when we have no common version!
DeleteThanks Elijah and Alexander
DeleteHi Alexander!
DeleteA difficult quote to pin down, and it is helpful to have context.
Michael Marlowe has:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/erv.html
============
Charles Spurgeon:
"With regard to the Revised New Testament, in answer to many enquiries we are only able to go thus far. It is a valuable addition to our versions, but it will need much revision before it will be fit for public use. To translate well, the knowledge of two languages is needed: the men of the New Testament company are strong in Greek, but weak in English. Comparing the two, in our judgment the old version is the better. 3"
3. The Sword and the Trowel, 1881.
============
This leads to some questions.
1) Did Spurgeon ever discuss Revision Revised?
2) Did Charles Spurgeon comment on the fact that the Greek text of Westcott Hort claims the Pericope Adulterae and the ending of Mark are not authentic scripture?
3) Did he ever discuss the book by George Vance Smith. "Texts and margins of the revised New Testament affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed".
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Steven,
Delete1. I'm not sure. I don't have it in my notes, but I could have missed something. If you have access to a full set of Sword and Trowel, that would be great to know. I didn't find a reference to it when I searched what I could of Spurgeon's works.
2. I don't recall him interacting much with Westcott/Hort's text. Though he must have been familiar with it. I am not sure if he considered the PA to be Scripture though. He almost never preached from the passage and it's a pretty stark contrast with the way he treated the ending of Mark, which he unquestionably thought was Scripture. One thing I did find was a complimentary reference to Westcott in his Commenting and Commentaries. Seems Spurgeon liked him and also understood the difference between higher and lower criticism:
"979 WESTCOTT (BROOKE FOSS, M.A.) Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. Cr.8vo. 10/6. Lond.,Macmillan & Co. I86O. S. 6/-
Worthy of high commendation. The author knows the German writers, but is not defiled by their scepticism, He is a man of deep thought, but displays no pride of intellect. A man had need be a thorough student to value this introduction: it is not an introduction to the Gospels, or to the reading of them, but to their study."
3.Not that I know of, but feel free to find that if he did.
See also the article I linked in the post. It's free and discusses a lot of Spurgeon's references to variants as well as a list of all I could find at the time, whether he supported something I agree with or not (I have found a few more since then).
Spurgeon's reference to "the German writers" in that quote of his praising Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels sheds a lot of light on what he must have meant booth to include and not to include in the phrase "German silver" in that earlier quote that Anonymous mistakenly interpreted as being opposed to textual criticism.
DeleteThanks, Elijah!
DeleteHere is a reference to the Pericope Adulterae:
The True Lineage (No. 3018)
A Sermon Published on Thursday December 13, 1906
Delivered by C. H. Spurgeon
Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington,1864
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/spurgeon/sermons52.li.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=S7pcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT762
Did Christ ever cast away one sinner who came to Him? No. Did He ever reject one that was ever brought to Him? There was a woman taken in adultery and she did not come willingly, but they brought her to Him, thinking, "Surely, Christ will condemn her." What was the result? After driving all her adversaries away, He said to her, "Go, and sin no more,"
===================
My fav Spurgeon section:
The Gospel of the Kingdom: A Popular Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
https://archive.org/details/cu31924029340720/page/n17/mode/2up
http://www.godrules.net/library/spurgeon/45spurgeon4.htm
The evangelist girds himself up for his solemn duty, and writes: — “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. ” It is a deep, mysterious, and delicate subject, fitter for reverent faith than for speculative curiosity. The Holy (host wrought in the chosen virgin the body of our Lord. There was no other way of his being born; for had he been of a sinful father, how should he have possessed a sinless nature? He is born of a woman, that he might be human; but not by man, that he might not be sinful. See how the Holy Ghost co-operates in the work of our redemption by preparing the body of our Lord!
===========
This matches extremely well what was later taught by Arthur Custance (1910-1985) about the virgin birth and The Seed of the Woman. While short, it is a clear and powerful declaration of the connection of the spiritual imperative of the virgin birth with the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus Christ! Halleluyah!
URGENT TO ADMIN(S)
ReplyDeleteI have just had another warning that your site may be the subject of hacking, and advising me not to proceed! I persevered! But, is all well, please?
It seems that Google flagged two of our posts for malware before quickly reinstating them without much detail. Who knows why.
DeleteThe ways of gods and machines! di ex machinis! Many thanks!
DeleteETC Blog does occasionally have it's viral infections. Though they can usually be found in the comments section. For whatever reason (; Elijah is very good at bringing out these viral infections.
DeleteWell . . . a moment, please, to consider one facet of Spurgeon's position, which he himself expresses thusly:
ReplyDelete"Through what perils it has passed, and yet, as I believe, there is not a chapter of it lost; nay, nor a verse of any chapter."
Not a verse of any chapter! Thus Spurgeon explicitly affirmed that every verse in the KJV belongs in the text. How remote, how strange, is that affirmation compared to the views of those who produced the Nestle-Aland compilation (and the various English versions dependent upon it), and those who produced the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.
In real life, isn't Spurgeon's view -- at least this aspect of it -- regarded as merely a historical curiosity? Does anyone involved in the Tyndale House GNT believe what Spurgeon believed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that line affirm something like the inverse of what you described? Namely, that there isn't a chapter or even a verse that belongs in the text but is missing—we haven't lost anything that we need (ironic though given the passage in which something was indeed lost but found again). That doesn't necessarily equate to the position that every verse that is present in the KJV belongs in the text.
DeleteThough Spurgeon's "And We Are" sermon does indicate that he thought that partial verses that belonged in the text could be missing from the KJV.
DeleteWell if we look at both the prior and following sentences from Spurgeon, I believe Spurgeon may just be talking about something specific, rather than anything to do with the KJV:
Delete"Now look you along through all the ages, and if you are a reverent believer in the Word, you will be filled with grateful wonder that the Sacred Roll has been preserved to us. Through what perils it has passed, and yet, as I believe, there is not a chapter of it lost; nay, nor a verse of any chapter. The misreadings of the copies are really so inconsiderable, and are so happily corrected by other manuscripts, that our Bible is a marvel in literature for the comparative ease with which the correct text is discoverable."
https://tinyurl.com/spurgeon-sacred (Google Books)
This all comes after he's talked about Hilkiah's "re-discovery" of the Book of the Torah (2 Chron 34:15-19), and I'm wondering whether his mentioning of "Sacred Roll" here is a direct reference to Book of the Torah and not the entirety of Scripture, and it is this "Sacred Roll" to which Spurgeon says "no chapter or verse" has been lost, despite is supposed misplacement for generations. I haven't checked all of his recorded sermons, but I was unable to find anywhere else where Spurgeon referred to the Bible as the "Sacred Roll." Notwithstanding, as Spurgeon then goes on to say that any misreadings are "happily" corrected by other manuscripts, what Spurgeon thought about textual-criticism is demonstrated here. Thus I agree with Elijah that he's not affirming anything about the entirety of the KJV and its readings.
Edit:
Further on Spurgeon does say "As Michael guarded the body of Moses, so does a divine care secure the Books of Moses", which I would say would give credence to it possibly being the "Sacred Roll" to which Spurgeon is specifically saying no verse or chapter has not been preserved.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFolks, I have a newborn at home so I’ve not been paying much attention to comments. Let’s keep it on topic and avoid anonymous accusations, please. And perhaps Steven Avery can cease his copy-and-paste commenting. Thanks.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting. But the post by Anonymous merits a sharper rebuke from you. And what is the down on Steve Avery? Also, I think it nears censorship to delete responses -I made a comment in good faith, to defend an individual; and I am not very happy about its removal!
Congrats to Peter on the newborn joy!
Delete(Jab hesitancy recommended.)
And thanks to Alexander for really caring about the integrity issues.
===========
"copy-and-paste commenting"
Peter seems to be upset that my questions are salient and my documentation is done with careful referencing.
Look at the posts on this thread as a good example.
===========
The mods therefore kabosh some posts that might really be edifying.
And allow one-sided jockeying, as in the Sinaiticus authenticity issues, and any robust Reformation Bible defense.
Grace and peace in Jesus!
Steven Avery, Dutchess County, NY, USA