# Spurgeon on Textual Criticism



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 23, 2013)

Interesting quote from Charles Spurgeon



> Believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and believe it in the most intense sense. You will not believe in a truer and fuller inspiration than really exists. No one is likely to err in that direction, even if error be possible. If you adopt theories which pare off a portion here, and deny authority to a passage there, you will at last have no inspiration left, worthy of the name.
> 
> If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? The old silver is to be depreciated; but the German silver, which is put in its place, is to be taken at the value of gold. Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character.
> 
> ...


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 23, 2013)

"This text receives great luster [great fame] from the fact that it was one of the passages which the Savior read when he entered into the synagogue at Nazareth and preached on the Sabbath day. It is as fresh as ever, and we may still say of it, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. It is no small privilege that we poor under-shepherds should be permitted to take the same text as that great Shepherd of the sheep. Our care must be to point to him in it. I intended to have preached these words in Luke 4:18, but when I looked at the Revised Version and found that the words were not there at all I was somewhat startled. I began to ask whether the omission was a correct one or not; and, without making pretence to scholarship, I feel convinced that the revisers are acting honestly in leaving it out. 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. Whatever the intention may have been, and however natural the added words may appear, it is a pity that the unknown brother ventured to improve that which was perfect from the beginning. After revolving in my mind the fact, which I accept, that the passage was not written by Luke in his record... 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. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner . . .. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version [KJV] 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..." "Heart Disease Curable"

“My subject has been suggested to me by the rendering of this passage [i.e., Luke 9:11] given in the Revised Version, where we read: ‘But the multitudes perceiving it, followed him; and he welcomed them.’ The difference lies, you see, between the words ‘he received them’ and ‘he welcomed them.’ The new version is an instructive improvement, of which we will at once make evangelical use.”
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit
Vol. 27 (1881), p. 581

““who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” You who have the Revised New Testament will kindly look at it. Do you see this
sentence there? To your surprise it is omitted and very rightly so. The most learned men assure us that it is no part of the original text. I cannot, just now, go into the reasons for this conclusion, but they are very good and solid. The oldest copies are without it—the versions do not sustain it and the fathers who quoted abundance of Scripture do not quote this sentence! We must admit that it is an opinion inserted in later copies by some penman who was wise enough, in his own conceit, to think that he could mend the Bible!
Do you ask me, “How did it get into the text?” Remember that there always have been many divines who have been afraid of the Doctrine of free Justification. They have been half afraid that sinners should get comfort by faith and should not see the necessity of a change of life. They have questioned the wisdom of ascribing salvation wholly to a man’s being in Christ and so they have guarded the more open passages whenever they have seen a chance of so doing. In so doing they stated Truth, but they stated it out of season and from motives which were unsound. Probably the sentence now before us was put in and allowed to remain, by general consent, in order that the great Truth of the non-condemnation of those who are in Christ Jesus might be guarded from that Antinomian tendency which would separate faith from good works. But the fear was groundless and the tampering with Scripture was unjustifiable. We are greatly obliged to our revisers for leaving out the sentence, since it should not be there and, without it, the Doctrine of Justification in Christ is made more clear than in the Authorized Version. In the last chapter of the Book of Revelation, service of the same kind is most properly rendered, for instead of, “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the Tree of Life,” the Revisers have given us a more accurate text—“Blessed are they that wash their robes.” In these two cases we have proof that the more nearly the text of Scripture is restored to its original purity, the more clearly will the doctrines of Grace be set forth in it. The more we get back to true Scripture, the more shall we escape all interference with the complete and perfect salvation which comes of our being in Christ. We are not justified by the manner of our walk, but by our being in Christ Jesus!” (sermon number 1917).

"And We Are - A Jewel from the Revised Version"

Agree with him or not, Spurgeon did NOT oppose textual criticism or modern version, but higher criticism.


----------



## MW (Sep 23, 2013)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Agree with him or not, Spurgeon did NOT oppose textual criticism or modern version, but higher criticism.



One would have to show that his writings consciously exhibit this distinction between higher and lower criticism.


----------



## KMK (Sep 23, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> PointyHaired Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Agree with him or not, Spurgeon did NOT oppose textual criticism or modern version, but higher criticism.
> ...



Did such a distinction exist in Spurgeon's day?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 23, 2013)

From the evidence here, and elsewhere in my reading of Spurgeon for forty years, Spurgeon made some use of textual criticism. He also made it clear that whatever use is made of it should never be done in a way that undermines the confidence in the man in the pew in his English Bible. Spurgeon knew that significant variants were few and warned students against an excessive correcting of the text that tended to undercut its authority (see _Lectures to My Students_).

On the other hand, in the citation in the original post, it's rather clear that his target here is quite explicitly higher criticism, as seen in this extended quote: "Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the "two Obadiahs." All possibility of certainty is transferred from the spiritual man to a class of persons whose scholarship is pretentious, but who do not even pretend to spirituality."

Textual criticism is not interested in duetero- and tritero-Isaiah, two Obadiahs, or seeking to determine what part of the Pentateuch is Priestly or Deuteronomist. It never asserts that the Pastorals are not Pauline. I know that this is disputed here on the PB (i.e., some would argue that higher and lower are all the same). But Mr. Tate is simply correct: Spurgeon rejected the Enlightenment project of biblical criticism that undermined God's Word--say, the Documentary hypothesis or the quest for the historical Jesus--but did not reject careful textual work in his attempt to ascertain the best reading of a passage. I do not mean to say that he would necessarily have seen himself bound to all the canons of textual criticism, but he did make use of the fruits of textual-critical work in his time. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2013)

KMK said:


> Did such a distinction exist in Spurgeon's day?



Prof. Strange has twenty years of reading Spurgeon on top of mine, and I haven't really read Spurgeon with a view to discerning his theological methodology. However, I don't think the mere presence of "alternate" readings and translations establishes a conscious distinction in an author's methodology, and I would imagine that as an apologetical distinction the "higher" and "lower" criticism did not formally appear on a popular level until later. So it is just a conjecture, but I don't think Spurgeon made this formal distinction. That said, any evidence to the contrary will be readily accepted.

To clarify the issue, the distinction between higher and lower criticism was brought in as an apologetical device on the part of evangelicals to explain why one method is used for the text and another method for the history. I personally don't think the distinction can be made, as should be obvious from the fact that most of the academic textual critics base their theories on issues to do with its history. Canon and text are intertwined to such a degree that it is impossible to treat the one without the other. 

The fact that Spurgeon may have used different readings does not establish this apologetical distinction. Why? Because he used historical or higher criticism as well. Any commentator who conjectures on the date of the writing of a piece of Scripture is engaging in historical criticism. The kind of criticism would be regarded as conservative as opposed to destructive, but it is historical criticism nonetheless. His exposition of the Psalms gives references to the time when they were thought to have been written. If he happily engaged in believing and pious criticism on both historical and textual levels, it is redundant to call in the higher and lower distinction in order to explain a different methodology in each.

Spurgeon was foremost a preacher. He used commentaries with great skill and sanctified common sense. He had a discriminating quality about him, but the fact is he was working with second-hand sources on these kinds of issues, and probably chose what seemed to him at the time to be the most sensible option to his sanctified reason. On this basis I don't think one should invoke the prince of preachers as if he had a well-developed critical methodology for dealing with the text.

Sorry to appear contradictory to Prof. Strange, who is far better qualified that I to speak to the question, but I think there is more to the issue than meets the eye.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 24, 2013)

I don't disagree, Matthew, with the sort of global pre-critical read that you give of Spurgeon here. I agree that he engages in both sorts of criticism, loosely-defined, before the categories of lower and higher are at issue as such. And he does so in an, arguably, constructive way, as a preacher and not as one having a well-developed critical methodology. I concur! 

But that's not the point of the original post, is it? The point of the original post, as I read it, is to imply that Spurgeon, rather across the board and without distinction, rejected all critical approaches, implying both any sort of textual as well as historical criticism. Jonathan responded that Spurgeon did not reject textual criticism, which is correct: he does not reject alternate readings necessarily, and I made it clear that this did not mean that by such Spurgeon was embracing all the canons of what we call textual criticism. 

The passage cited in the original post does mean that he is rejecting higher criticism--destructive historical criticism (to use your term)--while not addressing constructive uses in either historical or textual terms.

I think that we are in significant agreement. It's just that I am eager to see that the original post is not misunderstood to mean, as you rightly understand, that Spurgeon thought that there was no constructive, believing use of criticism; he rejected the use of it in the service of unbelief, as should we all.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2013)

Prof. Strange, I am sorry to have misunderstood your post. As you note, Johnathan's post is coming between the OP and what follows, and it is his post which raises the higher-lower distinction in order to explain what Spurgeon was doing. Calling Spurgeon pre-critical sounds like the best solution. In his own words, "The answer to every objection against the Bible is the Bible." Blessings!


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 24, 2013)

The reason I shared the quotation is that I heard a few times that Spurgeon was favorable to Textual Criticism, I had seen quotes like the one Jonathan mentioned in post #2. I was surprised when I read the following sermon (The Greatest Fight in the World) which was apparently delivered in 1891. Most of the quotes mentioned in post # 2 seem to come from an earlier date. I'm not an expert on Spurgeon therefore I will not argue with those who are more familiar with his work. I understand that Higher Criticism is in view here since he refers to "German Silver" and does make references to debate over authorship of portion of scriptures, but unless I read this wrong he also seem to be criticizing aspects belonging to what is now known as "Lower Criticism". This being said I'm not saying he was against any sort of criticism but he certainly seemed to be warning his students against the philosophies surrounding the new emerging textual criticism of his time.



> It is sadly common among ministers to add a word or subtract a word from the passage, or in some way to debase the language of sacred writ. How often have I heard brethren speak about making "your calling and salvation" sure! Possibly they hardly enjoyed so much as we do the Calvinistic word "election", and therefore they allowed the meaning; nay, in some cases contradict it. Our reverence for the great Author of Scripture should forbid all mauling of his words. No alteration of Scripture can by any possibility be an improvement. *Believers in verbal inspiration should be studiously careful to be verbally correct*. The gentlemen who see errors in Scripture may think themselves competent to amend the language of the Lord of hosts; but we who believe God, and accept the very words he uses, may not make so presumptuous an attempt. Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it will be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense. How much mischief may arise out of an accidental alteration of the Word!





> We are resolved, then, to use more fully than ever what God has provided for us in this Book, for we are sure of its inspiration. Let me say that over again. WE ARE SURE OF ITS INSPIRATION. *You will notice that attacks are frequently made as against verbal inspiration*. The form chosen is a mere pretext. *Verbal inspiration is the verbal form of the assault, but the attack is really aimed at inspiration itself*. You will not read far in the essay before you will find that the gentleman who started with contesting a theory of inspiration which none of us ever held, winds up by showing his hand, and that hand wages war with inspiration itself. There is the true point. We care little for any theory of inspiration: in fact, we have none. *To us the plenary verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture is fact, and not hypothesis*. It is a pity to theorize upon a subject which is deeply mysterious, and makes a demand upon faith rather than fancy. Believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and believe it in the most intense sense. You will not believe in a truer and fuller inspiration than really exists. No one is likely to err in that direction, even if error be possible. *If you adopt theories which pare off a portion here, and deny authority to a passage there*, you will at last have no inspiration left, worthy of the name.



Unless I'm misreading the text he seem to be criticizing more that just the questioned historical authorship of certain book of the bible.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 24, 2013)

Etienne:

As you know, late in his ministry, within his Baptist communion, Spurgeon was involved in the "Down-grade controversy." Spurgeon's good friend Robert Shindler said this in answer to the question of "what is the first step in the down-grade?"--

"The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God's Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching. "To the law and to the testimony," is his appeal concerning every doctrine. He esteems that holy Book, concerning all things, to be right, and therefore he hates every false way. But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him.
In looking carefully over the history of the times, and the movement of the times, of which we have written briefly, this fact is apparent: that where ministers and Christian churches have held fast to the truth that the Holy Scriptures have been given by God as an authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice, they have never wandered very seriously out of the right way. But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result."

As you can see, the burden of this answer is that liberalism/modernism is replacing a high view of the Scripture and its doctrine, leading to down-grade. This is the same thing that was going on in the PCUSA with the Portland Deliverance (affirming inerrancy) in 1892 and the appeal and conviction of Charles Briggs in 1893. This paragraph by Shindler could have been written by A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, Briggs's Princeton opponents. J. G. Machen wrote similarly, giving most articulate voice to this concern in _Christianity and Liberalism _decades later. All of these Princeton men were fierce opponents of an unbelieving, Bible-denying historical criticism. They ardently opposed all such destructive criticism. They did not oppose all textual criticism, but were practioners of it. I do not equate Spurgeon's position with theirs, as he was not a textual scholar and had no worked-out position as did Hodge, Warfield, and Machen. 

What's the point? The evidence here, late in his ministry, is that Spurgeon is opposing the liberalizing tendencies of his day that are clearly connected with destructive criticism. All the references, Etienne, that you cite, having to do with plenary inspiration especially, are a part of that controversy--what Spurgeon is affirming is the very thing that liberals in his day are denying: that the Bible is inspired, infallible, and inerrant. Nothing that he says in your quote in #9 above would in any way militate against the several citations of Jonathan in #2 above.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 24, 2013)

My point was only that from my understanding the division between higher and lower criticism were not as defined in his days as it is today. Therefore to say that Spurgeon solely rejected Higher criticism (as Jonathan assumed) and would be in full agreement with nowaday's "lower" criticism seem a bit of a stretch especially when you consider his following statement:



Fogetaboutit said:


> If you adopt theories which pare off a portion here, and deny authority to a passage there, you will at last have no inspiration left, worthy of the name.



He seems to be criticizing the theories which deny the inspiration of a single verses or passages of scriptures. From my understanding this falls under "lower criticism". 

I know that he was involved in the down grade controversy and that he was againt many of the liberal tendencies of his time, I understood this to include textual criticism. Maybe I'm wrong but this is how I understood his arguments. I know that you have a much better understanding of his life and positions and my goal is not to argue with you, but that was what I understood from the text. I might be wrong.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 24, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> He seems to be criticizing the theories which deny the inspiration of a single verses or passages of scriptures. From my understanding this falls under "lower criticism".



Etienne:

No, lower criticism, is not about whether what is the Bible is the Word of God. It's about establishing the proper text. There are variant readings: what are we, who all believe in the Bible's inspiration, to do with such? Good men may differ on this but it's not the same question as whether the text enjoys plenary, verbal inspiration. That's the question Spurgeon is dealing with here. 

It muddies the water and is not historically accurate to paint Spurgeon's opposition against all destructive historical criticism as an argument against any variety of seeking to establish the correct text in any given passage. One may argue that lower and higher are really all the same, just a matter of degree. I don't agree with that, but I do understand it and even appreciate it. But to attribute this across the board rejection of any sort of criticism whatsoever, albeit positive and believingly contextualized, is not to be accurate to Spurgeon, whatever one's own position is and whether one thinks Spurgeon is right or wrong with respect to this. 

Your citation in the original post, particularly as it is put under the heading of "Spurgeon on Textual Criticism," is simply misleading. Nothing that Spurgeon says in anything that you've quoted of him points to textual criticism but rather, to put it as Matthew did, "destructive...historical criticism."

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 24, 2013)

Maybe I just don't understand, but from my understanding higher or historical criticism deals with the historic authenticity of the books of the bible (ie: did Moses really wrote the Pentateuch, or is Mark really the author of the Gospel according to Mark etc.). It doesn't necessarily deal with variant reading within the accepted cannon. Lower criticism on the other hand does not necessarily question the accepted authors of the books of the bible or their chronology but focuses on trying to determine the content of these canonical books.

If lower textual critics adopt the conflation theory proposed by Hort are they not saying that the "conflated" verses are not inspired? When they put in doubt the ending of the Gospel of Mark (Ch16v9-20) are they not in effect saying we do not believe these verses are inspired? How can this not be putting doubt on "verbal plenary inspiration". They might say that the original were fully inspired but if they are not preserved anywhere (or at least we can't accurately determine what these original mss contained completely) is not the result the same?

Maybe it's my view of Lower Criticism that made me believe that this is what Spurgeon was addressing, but I'm not sure I'm ready to say that modern lower criticism does not put any doubt on the inspiration of the scriptures. (I'm not trying to get a debate going on this issue, just trying to explain why I interpreted the text quoted above the way I did).

Thanks for you input, it certainly give me something to ponder.


----------

