WM 325: Review of Seven Significant & Curious Problems with Mark Ward's "Scholarly" Article on Psalm 12:6-7

Here are notes from my review of MW's "scholarly" article:

First: The article, beginning with its title, attacks a straw man.

Mark Ward suggests he is opposing those who hold that there are (or were in 1611) extant “Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible” and conflates this with those who hold to the perfect preservation of the Scriptures (as in WCF 1:8: “kept pure in all age”). He never demonstrates (through credentialed citations), beyond his own assertions, that those whom he lists as his opponents advocate for the existence of “Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible.”

Second: MW falsely blames the KJV’s use of the adjective “pure” (Psalm 12:6) and the verb “preserve” (Psalm 12:7), for causing confusion regarding the proper interpretation of Psalm 12 (see p. 30).

These terms in English were not invented by the KJV translators but are part of the classic Protestant English translation tradition. See the use of the same terms at Psalm 12 in Coverdale’s Psalter (1553).

Third, MW falsely suggests that interpretations of Psalm 12:6-7 as related to the preservation of Scripture are the result of “English-only exegesis” which “can give rise to falsehoods and unnecessary divisions within the body of Christ” (p. 30).

Those he lists as suggesting Psalm 12:6-7 as relating to the preservation of Scripture, however, clearly do not do so simply on the basis of English translations, but on the reading/interpretation of the Hebrew original (cf. Thomas Strouse and PVK2 on “gender discordance” as a stylistic feature of Hebrew) (p. 32).

Fourth, MW misrepresents my position in this article.

He lists myself, “Jeffrey Riddle,” as a “leading” proponent of the interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 which he opposes, but he does not accurately present my position. The best documentation he can provide for my views are two quotations (one not properly enclosed in quotation marks) taken out of context from a 2022 podcast [see pp. 32-33]).

I have done no formal, published writing on this passage. Oddly enough, MW makes no reference even to the only informal writing I have done on this text in the only blog post.

Fifth, in his “interpretive plebiscite” MW perpetuates his straw man presentation of his opponents, who supposedly read Psalm 12:6-7 as promising “perfect manuscript copies of the Bible” (p. 39).

Of course, the straw man view will not be found in the survey, because, as far as I know, no one hold it. The real question is whether there are interpreters of Psalm 12:6-7 which connect this passage to the preservation of the “pure words” of Scripture, prior to the rise of KJVO in the mid-20^th century.

Even MW’s survey is suspect as he overlooks historical figures who interpret Psalm 12:6-7 counter to his thesis (e.g., John Wesley, Ebenezer Ritchie, etc.).

MW’s false pretext, leads to false conclusions: “This writer could not find a single interpreter before the advent of KJV-Onlysim who interpreted Psalm 12:6-7 to promise perfect manuscript copies of the Bible” (p. 49).

Sixth, MW insists that the “purity” and “preservation” of Scripture in Psalm 12:7 can only apply to the content of Scripture and not to the words of Scripture (see p. 50).

He here denies the classic Protestant construal of the authoritas divina duplex.

He also completely rejects the classic Protestant approach which acknowledges the existence of textual variants in the transmission of manuscripts while also affirming the providential preservation and reception of Holy Scripture.

See Thomas Watson’s comments on the preservation of both the matter and form of Holy Scripture.

Seventh, MW thus wrongly concludes that Psalm 12:6-7 is completely irrelevant as an apologetic prooftext for both the purity of Scripture (in content and words) (v. 6) and the preservation of Scripture (v. 7), as well as the preservation of God’s people (v. 7), and suggests that anyone who holds such a view in like Athanasius standing along against the world.

He does not acknowledge that one might well hold a “both-and” perspective on Psalm 12:7. It refers both to God’s preservation of his needy people and the preservation of everyone of his promises (words) to them. This indeed is a distinct theme we see elsewhere in Scripture (see Isaiah 59:20-21).

Counter to MW’s conclusion, the view that Psalm 12:6-7 applies to the preservation of the purity of Scripture is hardly an “Athanasius” that must stand “against the world.” Even MW’s own article lists more than 20 historical figures who held such a position.

JTR