Bible versions, like Ecclesiastical confessions, represent the conclusion of literary, grammatical, and syntactical deliberations. Rather than showing the aggregate steps in the process, the conclusion of the process is the reading selected for the version. Continuing to build a case for the antecedent of “keep them” being the “pure words” Reformation era versional testimony is presented. The first version for review is the 1535 Coverdale Bible. Of the Coverdale Bible, Ira Price in The Ancestry of Our English Bible writes,

“Miles Coverdale must be credited with having published the first complete Bible in the English language. In contrast with the work of Tyndale, it was not translated from the original Hebrew and Greek tests but was based on (1) the Zurich Bible of Zwingli and Leo Juda, completed in 1529; (2) Luther’s German; (3) the Vulgate; (4) the Latin text of Pagninus (1528); and (5) probably Tyndale’s work in the Pentateuch. In the New Testament Coverdale’s main sources were Tyndale’s latest (1534-35) Revision and Luther’s German (1522).Ira Maurice Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), 253.

At Psalm 12:6-7, the Coverdale Bible reads, “The words of the Lord are pure words: even as ye silver, which from earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire. Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever.”

The absence of the intervening words, “Thou shalt” to begin verse 7 accents the immediate antecedent of “keep them” being the “pure words” in verse 6. Also note the divided interpretive rendering. In the first clause, Coverdale intended the words to be kept; in the second clause people are in view, “preserve us.” “Them” and “us” are not the same words or the same people. “Them” points to the antecedent “pure words” while “us” refers to the “people.” Miles Coverdale, Coverdale Bible 1535, Facsimile (Kent: Wm. Dawson and Sons Ltd., 1975).

If one presupposes that there are no verses in the Bible that teach providential preservation based on their interpretation of the evidence, this passage cannot be considered additional historical evidence that argues for the preservation of God’s words, because the critic begins with the impossibility of providential preservation. This is a secular kind of scholarship. If, however, you believe God’s word is true, then there are verses that teach providential preservation, Psalm 12:6-7 being one of them, and the 1535 Coverdale Bible evidence of that truth. This is a Biblical kind of scholarship. It’s like saying, “There is no evidence for the resurrection of the dead, except for those who have risen from the dead.” Likewise, there are no verses that teach providential preservation except for those verses that teach providential preservation.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983), 1095: a few manuscripts of the Septuagint and Hieronyumus [Jerome] read ranu, “us” at titsrenu; the Syriac version of the OT reads, swzbjnj wpsnj, libera me at redime me, “free me and redeem me”; tishmram, תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם “keep them”; titsrenu, תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ “preserve him” or without the dogash, “preserve us.”

Celebrated non-Conformist scholar and Hebrew exegete Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622 or 1623) emphasized knowledge of the literal sense of the Hebrew as the prerequisite for determining the principal interpretation. After “the natural meaning of scripture being known, the mysteries of godliness therein applied may be better discerned.” He goes on to say that this discernment “may be achieved in a great measure, by the scriptures themselves, which being compared do open one another.”^[1] Later in the preface Ainsworth states why such serious investigation must be pursued by the grammarian. He says,

“For by a true and sound literal explication, the spiritual meaning may be better discerned…Our Savior hath confirmed the Law, unto every jot and tittle, Matt. 5.18. that we should think that any word or sentence to be used in vain.”^[2]

To illustrate the importance of a tittle, Jewish writers demonstrated in the text radical changes in theology that would be made with the change of the smallest part of a Hebrew letter, the tittle. The following citations were found in Whedon’s commentary, where he quotes from Clarke in the passage:

‘In Vayikra Rabba, s. 19, it is said: Should any person, in the words of Deut. vi. 4. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is אֶחָֽד achad, ONE Lord, change the ד daleth into a ר resh, he would ruin the world.’ [Because, in that case, the word  achar, would signify a strange or false God.]

‘Should any one, in the words of Exod. xxxiv, 14. Thou shalt worship no OTHER, achar, God change ר resh into ד daleth, he would ruin the world.’ [Because the command would then run, Thou shalt not worship the ONLY or true God.]

‘Should any one, in the words of Levit. xxii, 32, Neither shalt ye PROFANE, תְחַלְּלוּ֙ techalelu, my holy name, change ח cheth into ה he, he would ruin the world.’ [Because the sense of the commandment would then be, Neither shalt thou PRAISE my holy name.]”^[3]

This verse has come under scrutiny and denied its historic place of teaching providential preservation not because of textual critical problems but because of modern philosophical and interpretive intervention, see Mark Ward. The Greek reading here is not in question; the meaning of the promise is in question. The claim is that Jesus did not mean a literal jot and tittle would not pass away, he simply overstated the point for effect meaning in hyberbolic terms that the Law would not pass away.

Soteriological and eschatological points not to overlook is that the words ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται, translated “not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law til all be fulfilled” were first on the lips of Jesus, the Son of God before being recorded by Matthew. It is easy to get caught up in a logical disconnect between talking about manuscripts and talking about the words of Jesus who is not only the God/man but King of Kings and Lord of Lords before whom every knee shall bow. Under the heading “That no canonical book has perished by the testimony of Christ, Turretin’s first proof is from the testimony of Jesus Christ, “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17; cf. Matt. 5:18). Turretin continues,

“But if not even one tittle (or the smallest letter) could fail, how could several canonical books perish? Although Christ speaks directly to the doctrine of the law and not of its books, yet it can be applied analogically to them, so as to imply their preservation and so much the more, Mention is made not only of the letters and points of which Scripture is made up, but also that God wished his doctrine to be preserved in written books.”^[4]

From Jesus’ use of the Old Testament, we too see how both directly and indirectly he substantiated the providential preservation of Scripture. The promise that not one jot or one title shall in shall in no wise pass from the Law in Matt. 5:18, in that it covers the time between Moses and Christ, implicitly describes past providential preservation up until the time of Christ and explicitly beyond the epoch of Christ into the eschaton.

Verses like this particularly and the Bible in general creates a crisis of authority for the reader. Who are we to believe? A renowned scholar or Jesus? This crisis does not arise between peers but between men and God, a God who can throw both body and soul into Hell. It is not too much to say that concluding men’s opinions are more binding than God’s Word is to places one’s soul in eternal jeopardy. Listening to Jesus, talking with Jesus, walking with Jesus during his earthly ministry was on one level the most human thing a man or woman could do. No one needed special theological training to learn from the Lord. Indeed, Galilean fishermen were members of his school. And it is within this ordinary context, Jesus points to the Hebrew text then available to the Jews and says, “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

---

[1]Ainsworth, Annotations, Preface.

[2]Ainsworth, Annotations, Preface.

[3] Wedon, Matthew, 78

[4] Turretin, Institutes, 96.

“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

אִֽמֲרֹ֣ות יְהוָה֮ אֲמָרֹ֪ות טְהֹ֫רֹ֥ות כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֭רוּף בַּעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֝זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם                            

אַתָּֽה־יְהוָ֥ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ׀ מִן־הַדֹּ֖ור ז֣ו לְעֹולָֽם                                                       

“words” אִֽמֲרֹ֣ות: plural, feminine, noun

“keep them” תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם: qal impf 2ms, 3mp pronominal suffix — ם

“preserve them”תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ :qal impf 2ms, 3ms pronominal suffix (him), with the nun energieum — נּוּ

In a recent podcast Dr. Mark Ward referred to Psalm 12:6-7 in a surprising manner. I do not know Dr. Ward personally, my first knowledge of him was his refusal to debate Dr. Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. after publicly offering to debate anyone. After watching his podcast, to help clear up some misunderstandings on his part relating to Hebrew grammar, the following post is submitted. To paraphrase, “he knows of no one that argues that the preservation spoken of in verse 7 refers to the word,” supporting that perspective by noting the antecedent “words” in verse 6 is feminine gender, and “them” is masculine, which is of course correct. He may have other objections, but as the podcast stands, his objections were anecdotal with one grammatical reference to gender distinctions. Gesenius on this gender combination writes, “Through a weakening in the distinction of gender, which is noticeable elsewhere…and which probably passed from the colloquial language into that of literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives.” Grammar, 440. Diehl objects to the credibility of this assessment arguing that “many of these cases may be set down to corruption of the traditional text, while the sudden (and sometimes repeated) change in gender in suffixes is mainly due to the influence exercised on the copyists by the Mishnic and popular Aramaic dialects, neither of which recognizes such [gender] distinctions.” To this charge, Gesenius counters, “Such influence, however, is insufficient to explain the large number of instances of this weakening, occurring even in the earlier documents.” Grammar, 440.

            One would have to reasonably assume that Dr. Ward overlooked this one of many irregularities in the Hebrew language. In that he did not offer any other objections, except an anecdotal assessment, this material should be sufficient to say that “words” can properly be the antecedent of “keep them” even with the “weakening in the distinction of gender” in accordance with the practices of Hebrew grammar. If, however, Dr. Ward’s, polemic against “keep them” referring to “words” is in fact more robust, the following material is offered as aid to a fuller and more comprehensive comment on the passage.

            Beginning with the 1537 Matthews Bible microfilm, located at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, at Psalm 12:7, John Rodgers, aware of the scholarly discussion swirling around this passage, includes a marginal note at “them” stating, “that is often times, that is, such and such and such men, after Kimshi but after Ibn Ezra words.” In Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra’s, Commentary on the First Book of Psalms: Chapter 1-41, trans. & ann. by H. Norman Strickman (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2009), 103: “THOU WILT KEEP THEM. The mem [Heb. “them”] of tishmerem (Thou wilt keep them) most probably refers to The words of the Lord.” (v. 7 [Heb.]). With Rashi (1038-1105), Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) and David Kimshi (c. 1160-1235) are recognized to be the greatest Hebrew exegetes of the High Middle Ages. The significance of Rogers’ marginal note is that two renowned Hebrew scholars referred to by the Reformation writers differed on the interpretation of “them” in Psalm 12:7. Rogers was obviously conscious of this difference and informed the reader of the variation of interpretation.

            The weakness of the gender/grammatical distinction argument begins to dissolve when faced with the grammars of Kimshi and Ibn Ezra. Since the 11^th and 12^th c. the rendering of this passage has been divided between the people and the words for the first “them.” We have then answered Dr. Ward’s objections, both the grammatical objection and the anecdotal objection. By doing so, we have also established a grammatical grounding for “them” referring to the antecedent “words” and for the support of 11^th and 12^th c commentator Ibn Ezra agreement that the antecedent of “them” is the “words.”

            Perhaps these citations remain unconvincing or the research unfamiliar to Dr. Ward, requiring additional clarity. The next time Dr. Ward has the opportunity to speak on this passage, we want to provide a much help as necessary for him to give an informed presentation.

Take for instance the Medieval scholar Michael Ayguan (1340-1416), on Psalm 12:7 commented, “Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him—him, the needy, him the poor—from this generation. Thou shalt keep Thy word, — “Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall nourish thee; “Thy word, — “I will inform thee, and teach thee in the way wherein thou shalt go;” Thy word, — “Fear not, little flock; it is My Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom; and so, preserving him from this generation, shalt hereafter give him a portion with the happier generation, the assembly of the First-born which are written in heaven.” Neale, Commentary on the Psalms, 181. Moving from the 11^th and 12^th c into the 14^th c. Ayguan, again, familiar with the controversy, argues that the antecedent of “them” are the “words.”

            At this juncture, and risking the accusation of name dropping, I am indebted to Dr. Richard A. Muller, P. J. Zondervan Chair of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI, now retired, for his comments regarding my initial essay on this passage submitted to him for a Ph.D. course toward my Th.M. On my original paper, Dr. Muller noted, “Here we do have the use of one option determined by the Hebrew – i.e., the v. 6 antecedent—but the choice of the antecedent is what limits the exegesis, and in fact excludes the broader interpretation of the ‘them’ as a reference to Israel and God’s people generally that is far more frequently (I think) the path of interpretation.”

            Moving from the 14^th c. to the 20^th c. one of the most accomplished Church historians, especially on Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, states that the Hebrew antecedent,” “words” excludes “them” as a reference to God’s people.

So in addition to the grammar, personal testimony of a renowned 11^th c Hebrew scholar, we have added the 14^th c testimony of Ayguan, and the recent erudite observation of Church historian Dr. Richard Muller.

            Because at the core of this brief review was a polemic against the use of Psalm 12:7 as a passage that teaches providential preservation, a sometimes-volatile subject, for the sake of bridge-building additional information may be necessary to shore up any apologetic cracks that the debate may have created. Admitted, not everyone has access to Gesenius’ Grammar, University microfilm, books referring to 14^th c scholars or Calvin Seminary’s Ph.D. courses, but everyone has heard of Martin Luther.

            It is interesting what Luther has to say in his commentary on this passage. Still arguing for a divided rendering, Luther’s 1519 commentary on this passage contains not only his interpretation but also that of Jerome’s despite the Latin rendering, “keep us,” preserve us.” Luther’s commentary includes three possible interpretations of this passage: the words, the saints, and the ungodly. Beginning with the interpretation supported by Jerome’s Latin text (342-420), Luther’s translation agrees with the Hebrew, “them”: “And he prays God that his words (eloquia) may be guarded, after the manner of protection, that the ungodly might not pollute them. And instead of “thou shalt preserve us,” it is in the Hebrew “thou shall preserve them”; and it refers to the words of God, as Hieronymus (Jerome) translates it.” Noting that “them” is masculine, he includes the alternative reading in reference to the saints, “But it may also be referred to the saints, as it is in the masculine gender servabis eos.”

            Even Luther, with Jerome, at this passage allows antecedent “words” to govern the pronoun “them.” I am inserting the following notation in support of Jerome’s 4^th c. rendering: See Charles A. Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1906–1907), 99: אַתָּה] [Thou] emph.—תִּשְׁמְרֵם] [“shalt keep them”]…J, Aq., Θ [that is, the Latin Version of Jerome, the Greek Version of Aquila, and the Greek Version of Theodotian] agree with H [the Hebrew Masoretic text] and refer [the suffix] of the first [verb] [that is, “them”] to the divine words.

            But Luther did also argue for “people” based on the gender, which is true, but please note that none of these scholars, like Dr. Ward, have forcefully argued that the antecedent of “them” cannot be the “words.” “Words” are just as valid as “people” in the exegetical tradition, and it is this nuanced understanding that Dr. Ward has missed and this post hopes to illuminate. A common familiarity with Luther, but unfamiliarity with Luther’s comment on this passage may be sensed as stretching Luther’s interpretation of Psalm 12:7 further than he would. To ameliorate such fears, the following hymn penned by Luther on Psalm 12 :7 is offered. Note the first line of the second stanza.

Psalm 12

Title: The Word of God, and the Church

The Silver seven times tried is pure

From all adulteration;

So, through God’s Word, shall men endure

Each trial and temptation:

Its worth gleams brighter through the cross,

And, purified from human dross,

It shines through every nation.

Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord,

From this vile generation,

Make us to lean upon thy Word,

With calm anticipation.

The wicked walk on every side

When, ‘mid thy flock, the vile abide

In power and exaltation.

James Franklin Lambert, Luther’s Hymns (Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 52.

Luther’s hymn assures the reader that he accepted as valid the “words” to be the antecedent to “keep them.”

Moving into the 17^th c Matthew Poole’s 1685 commentary on this Psalm is quite helpful^. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1979). Poole’s 1685 commentary reflects the language of the King James Bible which united the historically divided rendering of the verbs between the words and people. Poole acknowledges the two renderings but responds with an unambiguous, united interpretation of the pronouns. Rather than the verse referring to words and people, Poole unites the two commenting that both verbs either apply to the people, or both verbs apply to the words. Poole concludes that the keeping of the words or the promises of God is primary, the basis upon which David’s life and posterity would be preserved. He writes: “Thou shalt keep them, either, 1. The poor and needy, Psalm 12:5, from the crafts and malice of this crooked and perverse generation of men, and for ever. Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, Psalm 12:6. These thou wilt observe and keep (as these two verbs commonly signify) both now, and from this generation for ever, i.e. Thou wilt not only keep thy promise to me in preserving me, and advancing me to the throne, but also to my posterity from generation to generation.” It is interesting to note that the united rendering in v. 7 referring to the antecedent words in 12:6 is, at the time of his commentary what “these two verbs commonly signify.” It is the v. 6 antecedent that governs both v. 7 pronouns while continuing with the larger theme of the care of Israel. The words or promises will be kept not only for David but for the generations of Israel forever. We see then a further refinement within the English translation tradition in the King James Bible at Psalm 12:7 accepted by Poole, in keeping with the historic effort to maintain a unified rendering and confirmed to be so by the ecclesiastical community of saints.

            Poole’s unified rendering is also taken up in John Wesley’s 18^th c. Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament where he comments, “Thou shalt keep them—Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.” For Wesley, the single rendering of both pronouns in v 7 refer to the words. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Bristol: William Pine, 1765), 1642

            It is understandable how Dr. Ward overemphasized the significance of irregularities in the Hebrew language that limited his understanding of Psalm 12:7. It is also understandable that without a concentrated study of this passage an elementary assessment and application would be made. For everyone reading this post, Dr. Ward’s bold claim that Psalm 12:7 does not teach the preservation of God’s words is completely without merit. Considering the wide scope of the churchly exegetical tradition that speaks to the preservation of words and against Dr. Ward’s assessment of this passage, one can only assume, considering Dr. Ward’s earned Ph.D., that he was just caught up in the moment, overstated the issue, and will, as every conscientious scholar, make the necessary course corrections for the sake of his ecclesiastical listeners. Blessings!

[For an expanded comment on Psalm 12:6-7 and nine other passages teaching Scripture’s providential preservation see Dr. Peter Van Kleeck, Sr., An Exegetical Grounding For A Standard Sacred Text: Toward the Formulation of a Systematic Theology of Providential Preservation (Manassas, VA: Amazon, 2021)]

Himself an advocate of the historical critical approach, A. T. Robertson acknowledges the difficulty of reconciling “anti-supernatural scholarship” with “reverence for the Bible as God’s only revelation” in an 1892 article entitled “The Inerrancy of Scriptures.” Robertson observed,

“In Germany, Rationalism has so long held sway that no man has to apologize for any theory he advances, however anti-supernatural. But you cannot transplant those naturalistic tendencies to English and American soil without provoking conflict. And the conflict has come. The strange thing about it all is that here it is men considered evangelical who accept the results of anti-supernatural scholarship. It is certainly a grace question how long one can reconcile such results with his reverence for the Bible as God’s only revelation of grace to men.” A. T. Robertson, “The Inerrancy of Scriptures,” Western Recorder, June 30, 1892,

Something was very wrong in the hearts of those considered “evangelical” to accept the results of “anti-supernatural scholarship.” I doubt if these evangelicals said, “I believe in the resurrection and I don’t believe in the resurrection” or “I believe in the deity of Christ and I don’t believe in the deity of Christ.” But what they did say was “I believe the Bible is the word of God” and “I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God.” What transpired in the hearts of men over 100 years ago that they would reject the formal principium of the Christian faith? What Robertson calls a “strange thing” has now for long been accepted as normative, the reconciliation of anti-supernaturalism and reverence for the Bible now accomplished. What Robertson did not know in 1892 was that the historical critical path he and his fellow travelers decided to take would do away with reverence for the Bible altogether leaving only the contradiction of an anti-supernatural Christianity. While the impossibility of reconstructing the autographa is obvious to some members of the Academy, much of the Church seems to be unaware that the scholarship has reversed itself, the same scholarship the Church trusted to exchange the Authorized Version for a novel version.

What then, is the Church to do, coming to the realization that its faith in scholarship was sorely misplaced? 1. It can ignore the findings for an “initial text” and follow other mainstream critical scholars still hoping for the impossible. 2. It can accept the certain conclusion that a change of course is necessary, but apathetically coast along, waiting for something even more novel from which to derive its authority. 3. The Church can accept that the historical critical method is irreparably broken and have the heart and mind to return to a supernatural Christianity founded on a supernatural text no longer seeking reconciliation with the anti-supernatural. For the English-speaking Church the breaking of this contradictory reconciliation would be demonstrated in a return to the Reformation Bible, the Authorized Version.

            The Church is experiencing a spiritual weariness born out of generations of trying to assimilate what the Academy has passed down to them through malleable pastors and what the Bible says. Facing the social issues of today, the Church deserves a sure foundation. The Christian intuitively knows that reconciliation of the supernatural with the anti-supernatural is impossible, this contradiction like a persistent drip boring a hole through their conscience. Sheep need shepherds. The Church needs pastors and teachers to lead to green pastures and still waters, not to advocate failed academic methods, asking the congregants to trust in notes about “oldest and best manuscripts.” The words “oldest and best manuscripts” have done nothing to fortify the spiritual strength of the believer being at best distracting and at worst contributing to doubt rather than faith. As our academic backgrounds indicate, the Academy is a powerful tool and extremely useful, but not at the expense of the spiritual well-being of the people of God, or saints, as Paul calls them.

Accenting the accuracy of the scientific method, relying wholly on the assiduity of the rational subject, and with the omission of God from the scenario, it is argued with relative ease that Ludwig Feuerbach was in fact correct in his philosophical formulation. In 1843 Feuerbach wrote, The Essence of Christianity, an enchiridion for future theological thought if the Scriptures are not recovered by the Church from the historical critical advocating Academy. Following this methodology, what the Bible is does not come from God’s description and naming of Himself but from an idea generated in the mind of man. Feuerbach contends,

“Thus, between the divine revelation and the so-called human reason or nature, there is no other than an illusory distinction; — the contents of the divine revelation are of human origin, for they have proceeded not from God as God, but from God as determined by human reason, human wants, that is, directly from human reason and human wants. And so in revelation man goes out of himself, in order, by a circuitous path, to return to himself!” Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 207.

Scientific method confirms the object predicated by the subject. If science is the method and God is the object, then the scientist will locate the god he has been looking for — a “God determined by human reason” and human desires. If there is to be a credible and compelling response to Feuerbach’s serious and long-standing rebuttal to the fundamental nature of Christianity, the minimal answer must be: 1) divine revelation is of divine origin and divine superintendence, given by inspiration from God; 2) that the content of divine revelation is determined by the witness of the Holy Spirit to the reason through the impelling Word according to the “good pleasure” of God; and 3) in this manner, revelation goes forth from God to do what man cannot do himself — redeem mankind through Christ.

Rather than admitting the logical error of depending on science or reason to determine divine things and reinforcing the authoritas of Scripture, the academy continues to fall further into the theological and philosophical void created by rejecting formal principium, Scripture. Post-critical ideology has been allowed to gain the high ground in the current theological apologia of the faith once delivered unto the saints and has sought to make any discussion, which does not readily accept post-critical presuppositions as normative, irrelevant to a meaningful exchange of ideas. While claiming that dogmatics is all that remains to express man’s concepts of God, either evangelical, Eastern, feminist, etc., the Christian community has, with the highest scholarly research and the erudite insight, defined the Bible as the property of a scientific enterprise. The Bible is conceived of as if owned as would be a house; to be bought and sold, enlarged or reduced, renovated or razed at the deed holder’s discretion, because there is essentially no difference between the Bible and a house in their mutual limitations to the historic and mundane. The post-critical “this-worldly” bible is best defined as man’s reflection of himself, or mankind’s discourse of his own self-evaluation in religious terms. Ronald B. Mayers notes and exposes the unnoticed effects of post-critical thought observing that, “

“The current zeitgeist is not so much a philosophy as it is the cultural milieu, the background for all philosophies and perspectives in existence. Life is no longer understood as dependent on a transcendent ruler of time and history. There is no infinite reference point…. Personal destiny is seen is beginning at birth and ending at death. In such a totally naturalistic world, theology herself adopts an ontological foundation that is so thoroughly secular that it too finds meaningless and undiscoverable any category of the transcendent.” Mayer, Religious Ministry in a Transcendentless Culture, 1980, 13-14.

If the historicists’ venture of trying to recover the autographa scientifically is the principal point of convergence for evangelical confidence in the Bible, then a doubtful present and a nihilistic future awaits the Church. Every science, by its nature, is unable to address unique antecedent phenomena. Such phenomena cannot be observed, reproduced, or tested. Indeed, if it were not for God’s own providential oversight, Scripture would be irrevocably lost.

Given the scientific approach to Scripture, if confined exclusively to empirical data, e.g.,  manuscript evidence, the Church, as Calvin puts it, “will be beset by the instability of doubt.” Indeed, even if the original words of God were stumbled upon through scientific means, because of the evolutionary nature of science, neither the critic nor the Church could ever be certain of the value of the discovery. The contemporary problem is the seeming disregard for the both the churchly exegetical and theological tradition in the formulation of publications, which, from a traditional perspective, are only pretentiously called, Bibles.

By omitting God from the paradigm, man is left to his own devices for distinguishing a Book of transcendent origin, which testifies that it is the very words of God and therefore the expression of God’s authority over any and all other self-imposed criteria. In other words, if the parameters for what is and is not God’s word are academically codified based on scientific rules as a casual perusal of current literature will support, the scholar and his ideas become the relative and provincial standard for knowing who and what God is. Post-critical scholarship, by imposing their wills and reconstructing the Bible, are through their perceived scientific successes, making God in their own image. To this academic trajectory Feuerbach would undoubtedly give a hearty, Amen.

If, as has been shown in the earlier part of this discussion, Scripture is divine in its origin, character and authority, it must bear the marks of divinity.  If the heavens declare the glory of God and therefore bear witness to their divine Creator, the Scripture as God’s handiwork must also bear the imprints of his authorship.  This is just saying that Scripture evidences itself to be the Word of God; its divinity is self-evidencing and self-authenticating.  The ground of faith in Scripture as the Word of God is therefore the evidence it inherently contains of its divine authorship and quality. 

John Murray, “The Attestation of Scripture,” The Infallible Word (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1946), 46. (italics mine)