Hello to all friends here at Brethren Archive.

I would like to know how reliable (historically) is Roy Huebner's "J.N. Darby Precious Truths Revived and Defended", available at Present Truth Publishers.

Volume I "Revival of Truth 1826-1845" https://www.presenttruthpublishers.com/pdf/Darby_Precious_Truths_v1.pdf
Volume II "Defense of Truth 1845-1850" https://www.presenttruthpublishers.com/pdf/Darby_Precious_Truths_v2.pdf
Volume III "Defense of Truth 1858-1867" https://www.presenttruthpublishers.com/pdf/Darby_Precious_Truths_v3.pdf 

Obviously, the judgments he made regarding the events are according to his particular "TW" views. My question is more related to the historic events per se.

Andre 

I have these but it is quite some time since I last read them, possibly as long ago as the late 1990s. 

While I take it that Mr Huebner's historical research is generally factual based (at least in these three volumes), I find him rather caustic when he is in disagreement with others. Certainly, in his account of later divisions among the "exclusive brethren" he regarded his "TW" views the correct ones, his section of the "brethren" being the right one according to him, he having always been on the right side in every division. 

His view of the teachings of BWN in volume 2, which with RAH I deem seriously erroneous, having access to BWN's tracts as well as the Fry manuscripts at the CBA, and the account of events at Plymouth followed by the "Bethesda Question" so-called, I would in the main from my own researches have little quarrel with him, as similarly with the 1866 debacle in volume 3, but his sarcasm which comes in from time to time is not helpful, and this latter would show his "TW" bias. 

Mark 

Paul vigorously defended the truth in his writings to the churches or concerning individuals. Historically what he wrote was of course perfectly true. We know, for example, when, how and why he confronted Peter on his separation. More importantly, Paul expounded the truth which Peter could not deny. If what Huebner wrote is, or is not the truth, let it be proven.

But, historically, the “Brethren” will propose, hypothesise, defend, argue and divide as they’ve done for more than a century and a half. Some will agree with Huebner, others not. But what I’ve found and have a settled mind about, is to test everything that Mr Darby (and others) wrote in his writings (letters, commentaries, etc), and to test it against Scripture to the best of my knowledge. And, if there are credible witnesses (“that in the mouth of two or three witnesses”) to historical events, who am I to find fault? “Remember them which .... have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” (Heb 13:7).

Any view of a person, “exclusive” or “open” is by the way. Today, more than ever before, when the faith once delivered to the saints is assailed, we need to embed ourselves in the Scriptures.

"Today, more than ever before, when the faith once delivered to the saints is assailed, we need to embed ourselves in the Scriptures."

Amen!

As for Mr. Heubner (who I assume is long gone), while I don't know anything about the books mentioned, I think that his history has proven that he is not someone to trust for sound exposition of Scripture.  He demonstrated the truth of John's third epistle, and it's well to follow that which is good.

Mark Best wrote:

Certainly, in his account of later divisions among the "exclusive brethren" he regarded his "TW" views the correct ones, his section of the "brethren" being the right one according to him, he having always been on the right side in every division.

Ah, brother, but you see, it is necessary to be on the right side in every division!  How else does one prove oneself to be at The Lord's Table?   If one is on the WRONG side of a division, clearly THAT table cannot be The Lord's Table!  That would make the Lord divided!

Thus it is necessary to follow the lineage very carefully by knowing every detail of every division and to ensure one is truly At The Lord's Table, the One And Only True Ground Of Gathering!

Or.... maybe not. Maybe the Lord is not quite so limited in grace and mercy as we, and maybe He condescends to His people's failings a bit more than we sometimes give Him credit for.

IIRC, Huebner's 1st volume argued quite convincingly (to me) based on the historic documentation available to Huebner at the time that Darby had formed a baseline view of the imminence of the Lord's return by 1828 (ie Darby had formed this view by 1828, not that he expected the Lord's return by 1828 😊).

However, the notes from an early Powerscourt conference (1830?) which Tom procured in recent years seem to cast doubt on this, quoting Darby as being strongly against some of these theories - this conference being later than 1828.

I have to say the notes of Darby's views from that conference don't ring true to me - I presume the provenance of the notes is accurate but whether the notes themselves are accurate is another question.

JS

JS, alternatively, the problem may be with the Collected Writings. There are a number of instances in which Kelly edits early works to conform to later dogmas - eg editing out early statements as to the effect that Israel was the church in the Old Testament etc. Kelly is a very inconsistent editor.

“Kelly is a very inconsistent editor.” Mr Kelly edited hundreds of thousands of words, lines, phrases, etc, of some of the most profitable writings ever given since the apostles. I suppose being fallible, one would find some inconsistencies. Where these exist to the detriment of Scripture-loving Christians, I’m always so glad for the knowledgeable to point them out. Remember them who have spoken to you the Word of God, but also know them who have erred, not knowing the Scriptures.

I’m a bit concerned with, “the effect that Israel was the church in the Old Testament.” Does it suggest that by an early interpretation, Israel (the church in the wilderness), could have become the Church as with Replacement Theology, but that this dogma was later replaced? Or, is it Israel the figure of the church which then later with reconsideration fails in this typology? Or in what respect did the editing change early dogma? I’m not doubting there was editing. It would be helpful to know where and why.

Not taking up space with large quotes, this comment by Darby in his letter, Vol 3:194 (1844) to a question is most revealing—“But my answer to your question, Has the church any spiritual things which it has not received through Israel? is - ALL that is properly essential to it as the church. The church can be looked at as coming in under the promises and grafted in on the spiritual things of Israel, but it is only the lowest form in which those who compose the church can be considered (nor is it then ever called the church that I am aware of) and only in respect of its administration down here; and in this point of view it will terminate and be cut off to make place for something else. But is that all the idea we are to have of the church, and are those who believe in Christ, when He is not seen, in no different position from those who believe in Him when He is seen? Is union with Christ when He is hid in God the same thing as belonging to Him when He is seen in the exercise of judgment in the earth?” [writer’s italics]

Here is one example, from JN Darby and the Roots of Dispenationalism p. 121:

In other words, Kelly was editing to back-date later conclusions.

Kelly was editing a living author whose views had (let's say) developed. Why would I as an author not want to my paper updated to conform to my developing views, or at least allow an editor to do so? Has anyone's publication ever survived the editor's scalpel? If Darby was unhappy with what Kelly had done I think we can all at least agree he would have said so! Are we not imposing our modern day academic processes upon a different era? 

Maybe ... but even Wigram was unhappy with Kelly's work.

Your observation is quite valid, Jonathan—“Are we not imposing our modern day academic processes upon a different era?” About Kelly, someone remarked long ago: “Those who have been helped by reading Darby can thank God that there was ever a man named William Kelly to decipher the code.”

It is not about defending Kelly; he seemed to err and take liberties, perhaps. But what was his intention and his heart? Deception? What labour and devotion goes into hours of poring over “tangled grammar and messy manuscripts”? Today with our remarkable word processing technologies and applications, seated in ease and comfort, scrutinising and searching millions of words and phrases in seconds, we will find the fault, believe me! Should we find the flawed parts in the Collected Writings, at least we have Scripture to correct it for our learning and edification.

Now who was there at that time competent, able and willing to edit Darby’s works? That great pastor and preacher Spurgeon said Kelly was a man "who, born for the universe, narrowed his mind by Darbyism.” But most certainly, Kelly was his own man.

Syd, yes, but we want to distinguish the issue of whether these claims are true from the other issue of understanding how these claims were developed!

Dear Crawford

Thesr fine examinations of the CE for editing alterations by WK are very important to detect. We need, as I think Donald Harman Akenson pointed out in his final volume, a definitive scholarly edition of JND's writings. Such is the tsunami of hysterical obloquy against JND, including right wing revisionist historians who blame him for stoking up Zionism and Jewish supremacist ideology, that we really need a proper edition of Works to use for refuting the tendentious malice that seems to be gaining in prevalence and virulence. BTW, I'm not "blaming" Wm Kelly. 

Samko 

This is perhaps getting off topic but by way of a response to your comment. 

It might be left wing revisionists rather than right wing revisionist historians, since those against Israel tend to be on the left of political opinion, but never mind we know what is happening: we have the Bible. 

I once came across the mention of "a renegade Anglican (!?) John Nelson Darby" being so described and named as having supposedly influenced Christians in the "Bible Belt" of America which in turn became responsible for American policy in the Middle East. I think it rather like blaming a weather forecaster for a rainy day when we really wanted sunshine. JND and others read the Bible and saw what was coming. It is all there if only people would read the Bible and take it seriously. "Ignore it at your peril ! " I would say. As Mr Darby said, "God moves behind the scenes and He moves the scenes He is behind." 

As the old chorus says, "What the world needs in Jesus." "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4.12 KJV.) 

Mark Best