Charles H. Spurgeon And The Revised Version

[Saved-By-Grace]

The Revised Version of 1881-1885 distorted one of the strongest texts in the Holy Bible on the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul wrote "Θεός ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί" (1 Timothy 3:16), which was corrupted to read, "ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί" "God was manifested in the flesh", to "Who was manifested in the flesh". Regardless of the textual evidence of the Greek manuscripts, the early Church fathers of the Greek Church, had "Θεός ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί", in their copies on the New Testament, as early as Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108), who wrote, "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh ... God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life" (Letter to the Ephesians, 7.19)

 

[TCassidy]

Paul, or his amanuensis, may have written Θεός but copyists abbreviated Θεός to read Θς with a line (-) over the ς indicating a contraction/abbreviation. Over the years the cross mark in the Θ and the line (-) over the ς faded and the word appeared to read Ος. The vast majority of the manuscripts containing 1 Timothy 3:16 are still legible and can be seen to read Θς with a line (-) over the ς indicating a contraction/abbreviation.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Paul, or his amanuensis, may have written Θεός but copyists abbreviated Θεός to read Θς with a line (-) over the ς indicating a contraction/abbreviation. Over the years the cross mark in the Θ and the line (-) over the ς faded and the word appeared to read Ος. The vast majority of the manuscripts containing 1 Timothy 3:16 are still legible and can be seen to read Θς with a line (-) over the ς indicating a contraction/abbreviation.

Yes, as it is in the Codex Alexandrinus, which I managed to examine at the British Museum some 25 years ago. I think that the Patristic witness is far more weighty and important for this verse, especially of the Greek speaking Church.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

No, he certainly did not. He initially welcomed the RV, but afterwards spoke against it. He never at any time preached from it.
Did you not read the quotes I posted on the other thread?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Revised Version of 1881-1885 distorted one of the strongest texts in the Holy Bible on the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul wrote "Θεός ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί" (1 Timothy 3:16), which was corrupted to read, "ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί" "God was manifested in the flesh", to "Who was manifested in the flesh". Regardless of the textual evidence of the Greek manuscripts, the early Church fathers of the Greek Church, had "Θεός ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί", in their copies on the New Testament, as early as Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108), who wrote, "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh ... God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life" (Letter to the Ephesians, 7.19)

Exactly right! The Revised Version and its wretched brood have been of great comfort and support to Unitarians and JWs over the years.
Did you know that Dr G. Vance Smith, Minister of St. Saviour Gate Unitarian Church was on the revising committee responsible for the Revised Version?

 

[Rippon]

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

Maurice Robinson, has said that the Nestle-Aland edition is about 99.5% the same as the Westcott and Hort edition.

 

[Logos1560]

He initially welcomed the RV, but afterwards spoke against it. He never at any time preached from it.

According to the following source, Spurgeon did preach from the Revised Version in at least one sermon.

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).

 

[Rippon]

No, he certainly did not. He initially welcomed the RV, but afterwards spoke against it.

Smile. He certainly welcomed it. He noted in numerous places, as evidenced in my quotes, that the RV was an improvement over the TR-based TR.

All in all, while he appreciated the many improvements such as it being strong in Greek, he did not like its English style and preferred the KJV.

He never at any time preached from it.

Do I have to remind you --AGAIN, that he preached from 1 John 3:1 in the RV --not the KJV.

Did you not read the quotes I posted on the other thread?

Did you notice my many quotes from Spurgeon which run counter to what you and TC insisted upon?

 

[TCassidy]

Maurice Robinson, has said that the Nestle-Aland edition is about 99.5% the same as the Westcott and Hort edition.

That is not true. Dr. Robinson told me the number is 94%. And the similarities are not the issue. The variants are the issue.

 

[TCassidy]

the TR-based TR.

Well, that makes perfect sense! LOL!

Did you notice my many quotes from Spurgeon which run counter to what you and TC insisted upon?

Actually, they didn't. A translation choice is vastly different from a textual variant.

 

[Rippon]

That is not true. Dr. Robinson told me the number is 94%. And the similarities are not the issue. The variants are the issue.

What he told you is different from what he has in print then.

Go to Appendix: The Case for Byzantine Priority in Robinson and Pierpoint, New Testament in the Original Greek page 551.

 

[TCassidy]

What he told you is different from what he has in print then.

Go to Appendix: The Case for Byzantine Priority in Robinson and Pierpoint, New Testament in the Original Greek page 551.

What he said was: While modern eclectic advocates might argue that all readings beyond the shortest (that preferred by NA27) are "pious expansions," such an approach is too simplistic and ignores the transmissional and transcriptional probabilities that point clearly to the Byzantine Textform as the reading from which all the others derived. (Footnote 58)

(Footnote 58) The NA27 text is considered to reflect a consensus judgment of modern reasoned eclecticism. Its editors have stated that "this text is a working text ... [and] is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament" (Barbara and Kurt Aland et al., eds., Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993] 45*). Since the NA27 text remains approximately 99.5% identical to that of Westcott-Hort 1881, one may assume a nearly stable consensus regarding its final form.

Since the topic currently under discussion is Spurgeon's supposed preference for one textform over another, the Traditional Text and the Alexandrian text, the correct agreement is 94%.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Exactly right! The Revised Version and its wretched brood have been of great comfort and support to Unitarians and JWs over the years.
Did you know that Dr G. Vance Smith, Minister of St. Saviour Gate Unitarian Church was on the revising committee responsible for the Revised Version?

Yes, as was Joseph Henry Thayer of the famous Greek Lexicon, who was also a Unitarian, and part of the committee in the USA! How can any translating committee that is meant to be "Evangelical" include those who oppose Bible Truth? This should not surprise us though, as in modern times we have the likes of Bruce M Metzger, who denied that Moses wrote the Torah, even though Jesus Himself said so! He also denied that the flood was "world-wide", has the Book of Deuteronomy dating from about 700 years before Jesus' Birth. Denied the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, and that Peter wrote 2 Peter! Kurt Aland denied the verbal inspiration of the Holy Bible, etc, etc.

 

[TCassidy]

How can any translating committee that is meant to be "Evangelical" include those who oppose Bible Truth?

But the RV was not an Evangelical translation. The Anglican Communion (Church of England) is not Evangelical, it is Sacerdotalistic - Sacramentarian.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

But the RV was not an Evangelical translation. The Anglican Communion (Church of England) is not Evangelical, it is Sacerdotalistic - Sacramentarian.

Yes, that is true. But there are many who were and still are in the CoE who are very much Evangelical, like J C Ryle, John Stott, Dick Lucas, etc, etc. Both John and Charles Wesley remained in the CoE, even though they opposed much of what it stood for. I don't think there is any Bible translation that is completely "Evangelical". The RV was headed by the brilliant scholar, Dr Charles Ellicott, and had others like J B Lightfoot, whose commentaries are in a class of their own, on that committee, even though some of their "judgements" on the text might be questioned. Both I would say were "Evangelical" Others were, Edward Henry Bickersteth, Richard Chenevix Trench, Charles Wordsworth, Joseph Angus, David Brown, William Milligan, William F. Moulton, Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Henry Alford, John Eadie, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. I would say that all of these were "Evangelical" and "born-again", unless I have missed things on them?

 

[Rippon]

Since the NA27 text remains approximately 99.5% identical to that of Westcott-Hort 1881, one may assume a nearly stable consensus regarding its final form.

Indeed, that's what I said.

The last time I checked 99.5% is 5.5% more than 94%.

 

[Rippon]

When the "IF" Lies 10/14/83

"...it is exceeding probable that in exact words the Revised Version is nearer to the original."

The text for the above was Mark 9:23.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Smile. He certainly welcomed it. He noted in numerous places, as evidenced in my quotes, that the RV was an improvement over the TR-based TR.

All in all, while he appreciated the many improvements such as it being strong in Greek, he did not like its English style and preferred the KJV.

Do I have to remind you --AGAIN, that he preached from 1 John 3:1 in the RV --not the KJV.

Did you notice my many quotes from Spurgeon which run counter to what you and TC insisted upon?

Here are the Spurgeon quotes that I gave in the earlier thread:

"In the margin of our Testaments-- I mean of the Authorised Version, which will never be parted with for the so-called Revised Version-- in the margin of the Authorised Version, we read, 'Let us hold fast grace.'" (MTP vol. 28 'Acceptable Service').

"For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorised Version. It is a useful thing to have it for private reference, but I trust it will never be regarded as the standard English Translation" (MTP vol.32 Our own dear Shepherd).

[Referring to the R.V. Old Testament] "I am half afraid that it [the RV Old Testament] 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" (ibid).

In addition to those we have Spurgeon's comments on 1 Timothy 3:16. "'God was manifest in the flesh.' I believe that our version [KJV] is correct..........if the text does not say 'God was manifest in the flesh,' who does it say was manifested?"

You have proved that you are right that Spurgeon upheld the C.T. versions on more than one occasion. I apologize for getting that wrong. But when you consider the many hundreds of sermons Spurgeon gave, his criticisms of the KJV are a tiny proportion.

 

[Rippon]

The Revised Version and its wretched brood have been of great comfort and support to Unitarians and JWs over the years.

Man, you need to think things over before you type. "The Revised Standard and its wretched brood" is about as crass as can be.

You do realize by your remark that you are condemning with one broad stroke --the ASV of 1901, the NASB of the 60s, 70s and 1995. The RSV of the 40s, 50s and 70s also stand under your condemnation as well as the ESV.

 

[Rippon]

You have proved that you are right that Spurgeon upheld the C.T. versions on more than one occasion. I apologize for getting that wrong.

Thanks for the acknowledgement.