One of the fundamental queries of scholars is to ensure the best sources and the best history is understood and presented. Too often, older scholarship neglects being able to leverage recent finds and discussions.
For instance, Spurgeon might have been the best preacher of his day but his comments on the origin of Baptists have no bearing on contemporary Baptist history discussions other than a footnote of a view of historical persons. Why? Because Spurgeon doesn't benefit from recent discoveries and the best contemporary scholarship because he cannot.
Older scholarship, particularly that of the 19th century and prior, lacks several key matters:
1. A critical method for inquiry that was developed in the early parts of the 20th century.
2. Significant horizons due to unacknowledged predilections and intellectual horizons.
3. Any contact with major archeological discoveries and their resulting critical inquiry.
4. Major historical views that have developed after their time and are better views because of their benefitting from the above three points.
Older scholarship isn't bad scholarship, it just isn't the best.
I disagree. Here are some reasons why:
First, read again the quote by Spurgeon:
"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor; I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer; as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, the despot over the consciences of men."
He is not citing sources. He is stating his position. This is his stance, his position on Baptist history, very concisely stated. There are no inaccuracies, no false statements, no untruths, etc. He has stated a position, one to which many here ascribe, including myself.
Now that the position is stated it becomes the duty of Spurgeon (were he alive), or any other that agrees with him, to back up the position with historical fact. I am sure that Spurgeon would have been just as capable of doing that then, as many are today, in spite of so-called recently discovered historical finds. They were not ignorant men. They were very studied individuals and in many cases had more resources than we do. I find myself constantly quoting books where the citation states (1892, reprint), for example.
The newer books are often tainted with a more modern view to history. Spurgeon has stated his premise and will view history through that premise.
More modern historians will disregard Spurgeon's premise and will flatly affirm, inspite of all evidence that Baptists started in England around the time of the Reformation, or with Roger Williams. To say that Baptists existed in every century since the apostles, to the modern historian, is just a silly idea, a fantasy--and so Spurgeon is a write-off as far as history is concerned.
Modern scholarship isn't everything. It is "modern scholarship" that disproves the deity of Christ. They "know" better than to believe in that myth. It is the "scientific method" that disproves that Daniel and his three Hebrew friends couldn't do such things as walk in the fire heated seven times hotter, or be locked in a den of lions. And Peter walk on water?? You really believe that? Modern scholarship doesn't.
Modern scholarship isn't everything.
