It’s 2025: Where is Dr. Ward on Psalm 12:6-7

Looking through the archived posts of Standard Sacred Text you will find several articles relating to Psalm 12:6-7, verbal preservation, historic churchly and academic exegetical support for the rendering and Dr. Mark Ward’s strong objection to the passage referring to the verbal preservation of Scripture. For Ward, the notion that any self-attesting witnesses to the Scripture’s providential preservation exist is alien to his theological construct. As we have pointed out previously, Ward is not a scholar in the traditional sense of doing academic research that contributes to existing scholarly literature. Instead, Ward serves as a willing propogandist for anyone who rejects precritical exegesis and theological formulation. He is most recognized for a feckless, negative attack of the English language utilized for the translation of the King James Bible. See the articles written by Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. on Ward’s conspicuously confused mind. Only the most arrogant would presume to speak for the Church at large, but Ward has taken it upon himself to be the post-critical prophet of doom not critical of all versions but of the only standard sacred text in English. There is nothing critical about a so-called scholar who is incapable of challenging the theological status quo with historic, philosophical, and exegetically grounded orthodoxy.

Ward prescribed his own timetable to refute the pre-critical argument for Psalm 12:6-7 and verbal preservation. His self-imposed deadline of 2024 has passed without any response. This is the second time Ward has failed to follow through with his public and grandiose claims. The first was when he made a public call to debate which Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. readily agreed to. After additional consultation Ward decided not to debate Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. Not providing a scholarly response, or any response for that matter, to the case presented for Psalm 12:6-7 after he agreed to do so is his second public failure. On a scholarly level, Ward’s inability to provide a defense of his a-historical position contributes to the mounting evidence that he is a propogandist not a scholar. From a theological perspective, allowing Psalm 12:6-7 to stand unrefuted comprehensively undermines his post-critical notion of the value of Scriptures’ recent secular reconstruction. The fact that Psalm 12:6-7 teaches verbal preservation continues to stand firm against a prominent spokesman of the critical position. The historic rendering of the passage by Ward’s failure is again vindicated for its historic and exegetical grounding and remains unscathed. Like so many before him, Ward is a theological bomb thrower, asserting a falsehood, hiding, and hoping that his assessment is never followed up on.

The kind of failure Ward embraces is heightened when his attack is upon the theologiae cognoscenti, the cognitive foundation of the Christian faith. It’s not that he has blundered by putting oil in the radiator, he has chosen instead to attack the very cognitive source of Christianity, God’s Word. The exegetical tradition is divided in Psalm 12:6-7 but the Holy Spirit intended only one interpretation. Without repeating the previously cited evidence, the better supported rendering, the rendering with the greatest explanatory scope is the preservation of the words.

So Happy New Year! I don’t think there is any surprise here. Blessings!