• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Charles H. Spurgeon And The Revised Version

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Define Traditional text please.
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.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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).
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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).
 

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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).

Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability. Commenting and Commentaries, 1876, p. 31

A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading, but as an assistant to the student it deserves honorable mention, despite its faults. It exhibits here and there special beauties, and has, no doubt, in certain places brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out; we have a notable instance in my present text. “And We Are”: A Jewel from the Revised Version (July 19, 1885)
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Regarding the add-on at the end of Romans 8:1 in the KJV (TR)

"...this part of my text is not a true portion of Holy Scripture."

"The most learned men assure us that it is not a part of the original text.“

”The oldest copies are without it, the versions do not sustain it, and the fathers do not quote this sentence."
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Regarding Matthew 17:21:

"There seems to be little doubt that it was inserted in certain copies by persons who thought it ought to there because it was in Mark's narrative."
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Regarding Luke 4:18, when he preached on Is. 61:1 :Heart Disease Curable.

"It was not in the original manuscript of Luke, but probably some pious person added it with the intention of making the quotation more complete."

"I feel convinced that the revisers are acting honestly in leaving it out."
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Concerning Hebrews 11:13:

"You will find that, in the Revised Version, the words 'persuaded of them' are left out, and very properly so, for there is no doubt whatever that they were not in the original, but were added by somebody who wised to explain the meaning to us."
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Regarding the add-on at the end of Romans 8:1 in the KJV (TR)

"...this part of my text is not a true portion of Holy Scripture."

"The most learned men assure us that it is not a part of the original text.“

”The oldest copies are without it, the versions do not sustain it, and the fathers do not quote this sentence."
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.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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).
So Spurgeon did indeed see the RV as being an improvement over the Kjv?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
What about the so called Majority text than?
 
Top