Featured Charles H. Spurgeon And The Revised Version

Spurgeon noted: "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).

Edmond Swem cited where Spurgeon wrote: “The Revised Version of the Old Testament is so excellent that I am half afraid that it may carry the Revised New Testament upon its shoulders into general use” (Spurgeon’s Gold, p. 106). In his review of J. H. Murray’s book entitled Mistranslated Passages in Our Bible, Spurgeon wrote: “We like this book very much. . . . 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).

Matthew 12:23
In his commentary on Matthew, Spurgeon wrote concerning verse 23 of chapter 12: "Our Revised Version very properly leaves out the 'not' ... as it is not in the original, we must not allow the 'not'" (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 89).

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
Taking his text from 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Spurgeon commented: “I think in this case the Revised New Testament gives a better translation than the Authorized Version, and I will therefore read it” (Williams, God’s Word, p. 63).

 

I don't think this is at issue. Surely no Christian would disagree with this?

The full quotation from Spurgeon reads, “The Revised Version of the Old Testament is so excellent that I am half afraid that it may carry the Revised New Testament upon its shoulders into general use. I sincerely hope that this may not be the case, for the result would be a decided loss." (MTP. Vol. 32). Spurgeon's dislike of the Revised Version of the N.T. is very plain here. The reason is that he did not like most of the Critical Text Readings.

This is not a textual issue. At least, my TBS New Testament and my UBS 4th Edn read identically. I don't quite understand the point Spurgeon is making.

Once again, this does not appear to be a textual issue. All you are proving is that Spurgeon was not KJV only, which no one has suggested. I have given enough examples on the previous thread to show that he was decidedly KJV preferred, on the New Testament at any rate.

 

Spurgeon seemed to be holding with the Kjv was a reliable translation for study and preaching, but there not being a perfect translation, there were times when it could be improved upon.

 

Spurgeon was just stating that he viewed the Kjv as being a reliable translation to use, but that even it needed to get corrected at times!
the KJV supporter Dean Burgeon also held similar ideas concerning the Kjv itself.

 

Huh?

The Revised Standard Version came out in the mid twentieth century, more than a half century after Spurgeon died.

 

1881 Revised version

 

The KJVO crowd use him as their best advocate though!

 

Who does not desire that? the question is whether the Critical Text is an improvement over the Traditional text, and the answer is no.

 

Luke 1:78, KJV. 'Through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us.'
Luke 1:78. R.V. 'Because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high shall visit us.'
The 'original word' here is the Greek which does indeed say 'the mercy of the heart of our God' except that the word is 'bowels' or 'kidneys' rather than heart.

The difference between the texts is the question of one word, epeskepsato (KJV), 'hath visited.' or episkepsetai (RV), 'shall visit.'
It is understandable that Spurgeon might think that the RV has the most logical reading, but what he might not have known is that the RV reading is supported clearly by the grand total of five ancient MSS, while the KJV reading is supported by over 900. In addition, if I'm reading the apparatus correctly, Codex Sinaiticus has the RV reading corrected by a later hand. Also the KJV reading is quoted by Irenaeus, Didymus, Cyril, Ambrose and Augustine.

 

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.).

What needed alterations, revisions, or corrections could be found in this 1877 edition of our English Bible? Here are some examples. This 1877 edition has “almond” for “hazel” (Gen. 30:37), “hot springs” for “mules” (Gen. 36:24), “hamstrung an ox” for “digged down a wall” (Gen. 49:6), “ask“ for “borrow“ (Exod. 3:22), “ostrich“ for “owl“ (Lev. 11:16), “crying lizard“ for “ferret“ (Lev. 11:30), “Far be it“ for “God forbid“ (1 Sam. 14:45), “javelin“ for “target“ (1 Sam. 17:6), “baggage“ for “carriage“ (1 Sam. 17:22), “bow of brass“ for “bow of steel“ (Job 20:24), “precious ores“ for “defence“ (Job 22:25), “ostriches“ for “owls” (Job 30:29), “pipe“ for “organ“ (Job 30:31), “falsehood“ for “leasing“ (Ps. 5:6), “salvation“ for “saving health“ (Ps. 67:2), “turtle-dove“ for “turtle“ (Song of Solomon 2:12), “terebinth“ for “teil tree“ (Isa. 6:13), “All workers for hire shall be sad of soul“ for “all that make sluices and ponds for fish“ (Isa. 19:10), “vats“ for “fats“ (Joel 2:24), “wormwood“ for “hemlock“ (Amos 6:12), “lay bare“ for “discover“ (Micah 1:6), and “pelican“ for “cormorant“ (Zeph. 2:14).

In its New Testament, some examples of revisions in this 1877 edition are the following: “strain out“ for “strain at“ (Matt. 23:24), “lampstand“ for “candlestick“ (Mark 4:21), “honour“ for “worship“ (Luke 14:10, “tithes of all my increase“ for “tithes of all that I possess“ (Luke 18:12), “one flock“ for “one fold“ (John 10:16), “office“ for “bishoprick“ (Acts 1:20), “Joshua“ for “Jesus“ (Acts 7:45), “Passover“ for “Easter“ (Acts 12:4), “temples” for “churches” (Acts 19:37), “bishops” for “overseers” (Acts 20:28), “Joshua” for “Jesus” (Heb. 4:8), “hope“ for “faith” (Heb. 10:23), “lead you astray“ for “seduce you“ (1 John 2:26), “bodies“ for “slaves“ (Rev. 18:13), and “tree of life“ for “book of life“ (Rev. 22:19).

 

Concerning the KJV’s rendering “my sore ran in the night, and ceased not” at Psalm 77:2, Spurgeon commented: “It appears that this sentence is wrongly translated, and should be, ’my hand was stretched out all night;’ this shews that his prayer ceased not, but with uplifted hand he continued to seek succour of his God” (Treasury of David, II, p. 312).

In his sermon entitled “The Carnal Mind Enmity against God,” Spurgeon stated: “That passage in the Psalms, ‘The fool hath said in his heart,’ is wrongly translated. It should be, ‘The fool hath said in his heart, no God. The fool does not say in his heart there is no God, for he knows there is a God; but he says, ‘No God—I don’t want any; I wish there were none” (Sermons of the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, p. 236).

Concerning a verse in the book of Exodus, Spurgeon asserted: “It was a very unfortunate mistake of our translators when they rendered the original by the word ‘borrowed,’ for it is not the correct word” (Metropolitian Tabernacle Pulpit, 1892, p. 54).

In his sermon on Isaiah 41:14 in 1857, Spurgeon stated: “You will notice that the word ‘LORD’ is in capitals, and should be translated ‘Jehovah’” (Sermons, fourth series, p. 290).

Concerning Luke 18:13, Spurgeon asserted: “The Greek explains more to us than the English does; and the original word here might be translated—‘God be propitiated to me a sinner’” (Sermons, fifth series, p. 157).

In his sermon on Hebrews 9:20 in 1880, Spurgeon commented: “We shall take the verse as it would most accurately be translated—the blood of Jesus Christ is the blood of the everlasting covenant. There cannot be much doubt that the word rendered ‘testament’ should be translated ‘covenant’” (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. XXVI, p. 628).