Featured Charles H. Spurgeon And The Revised Version

Certainly.
I believe that the T.R. is correct in many more places than the Critical Text, , but by 'Traditional Text,' which is the term Burgon used, I mean the text that appears in the vast majority of the Greek MSS and is associated with the Byzantine Text.

 

Charles Spurgeon declared: "Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it would be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense" (The Greatest Fight, p. 23).

Spurgeon asserted: “I became a Baptist through reading the New Testament,--especially in the Greek” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. I, p. 150).

Spurgeon stated: “Our fullest revelation of God’s will is in that tongue [Greek], and so are our noblest names for Jesus. The standard of our faith is Greek. . . . Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes; but in the Greek, never” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. II, p. 327)

In his publication The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon commented: “The more reading of the Scriptures the better, and it is best of all when that reading occupies itself with the original. Every member of our churches, who has a fair English education, should aim to acquire sufficient Greek to read the New Testament” (August, 1885, p. 431).

 

In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible: History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Charles Spurgeon noted: "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi).

Spurgeon continued: “It is of course an arduous labour to persuade men of this, although in the light of common sense the matter is plain enough. But there is a kind of Popery in our midst which makes us cling fast to our errors, and hinders the growth of thorough reformation; otherwise, the Church would just ask the question, ‘Is this King James’ Bible the nearest approach to the original?‘ The answer would be, ‘No; it is exceedingly good, but it has many glaring faults’” (p. xi).

In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote: "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii).

Again in this preface, Spurgeon asserted: “It was a holy thing to translate the Scriptures into the mother tongue; he that shall effect a thorough revision of the present translation will deserve as high a meed of honour as the first translators. Despite the outcry of reverend doctors against any attempt at revision, it ought to be done, and must be done. The present version is not to be despised, but no candid person can be blind to its faults“ (pp. vii-viii). Spurgeon maintained: “Multitudes of eminent divines and critics have borne their testimony to the faulty character of King James’s version: there must therefore be some need for a little correction” (pp. viii-ix).

Spurgeon then gave several example quotations from several authors as evidence that supported his statement. In one example, Spurgeon favorably quoted Anthony Blackwall as saying concerning King James’s version: “Innumerable instances might be given of faulty translation of the divine original” (p. ix). Spurgeon also favorably quoted Richard Fuller as writing in 1850: “That our present English version has some defects is admitted on all hands, and by every denomination. That the Word of God ought to be purged of all defects in the translation which the people read,--this is also admitted” (p. x).

 

From reading here and a little research online, my personal conclusion is that C. H. Spurgeon loved the King James Bible but was not KJV Only, and not always KJV Preferred. He respected the Revised Version but was disappointed with its English and utility for general reading (at least the NT).

 

That's what Martin Luther was told. And the Particular Baptists. I can live with it.

 

It just goes to show that Spurgeon, like all of us could make mistakes. Chrysostom, Victorinus-Rome (who?), Jerome and FWIW Pelagius all quote at least part of the disputed section. Also, because others do not quote it, but only quote the beginning of the verse, that does not mean that they didn't know it is there. It suited their purpose only to quote the first part.

 

The W-H text used by the 1881 group was not, but the CT used for more modern versions was!

 

So Spurgeon did indeed see the RV as being an improvement over the Kjv?

 

What about the so called Majority text than?

 

Basically all except for those holding to KJVO!

 

I think that one can be either CT/Bzt/Majority preferred, but have doubts on the TR!