[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The debate on the preservation of God's words in Psalm 12 became sharper in modern times with the Doug Kutilek article (1983) mentioned upthread which aggressively attacked the "preservation of words of God" position.

We saw above that Kutilek was very deceptive on the significant interpretation of Rashi (post #119). And he misrepresented Patrick Symon and apparently had no idea who Symon actually was, missing his life and writings by two centuries ! (#142). And we briefly discussed the history of the discussions back and forth (#147) between Kutilek, Moorman, Lackey and others. Shortly we hope to place a "Top Resources - both sides" list in one post, with short reviews, showing the modern history of the debate.

Returning to the Doug Kutilek article, there are a total of about 10 factual errors in his own hand-picked resource list. Rather an astounding number for a short, published Journal article. Granted, most are minor, yet at least three are major. Generally the dates and names are garbled. Even 20+ years after first publication. This does not say much for the heart of Doug Kutilek towards actually trying to understand these commentaries and seek the depth of the writings and lives of these men. Nor for his AQ (Accuracy Quotient). These errors are on top of the usually abbreviated references. (Often lacking publication name, page numbers, etc.)

=====================================

NEW KUTILEK ERRATA

(in addition to Rashi misrepresentation and Symon misrepresentation and wrong century)

WRONG CENTURY

"George Horne" - dates were 1730 -1792 - not 19th century
"(Alexander) Maclaren" - Psalm publication is 19th century, not 20th
"(Thomas Kelley) Cheyne" - Psalm publication is 19th century, not 20th

SPELLING CORRECTIONS OF NAMES

"Joseph Excell in Biblical Illustrator"...Joseph Samuel Exell
"Arno Gabelein"................................Arno Clemens Gaebelein - Annotated Bible
"W. O. E. Oesterly" ..........................William Oscar Emil Oesterley
"W. Randolf Thompson" ............................. W. Ralph Thompson

STRANGE

"George Murphy" (?)
James Gracey Murphy - A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalm (1875) - if this is meant, the name is very wrong, if there is a George Murphy, who is it ?

====================================

ADDITIONAL NOTES

"W. E. Barnes" - William Emery Barnes

"C. B. Moll in Lange’s" - this is only a quote from Perowne without comment.
http://books.google.com/books?id=l4U...J&pg=RA1-PA107
A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures - Johann Peter Lange

Cohen is likely Abraham Cohen, the Soncino Press edition of Psalms.

It is a bit surprising that Mitchell Dahood is included, considering that he is the originator of many absurd cognate theories.

G. C. Morgan (1947) .. we showed above this is actually earlier (1906)

Two others, "F. B Meyer" and "J. M. Neale and F. R. Littledale" will receive individual study.

===============================

The Doug Kutilek list is far from complete (upthread I mention many commentaries and translations that he neglected) however it was generally a decent referencing .. other than 3 huge problems (Rashi and Symon above are two) and the bumbling on the most basic facts. It is definitely true that the majority of the interpreters work with "poor and needy" or some "persons" interp, at least for Psalm 12:7b, less so for Psalm 12:7a.

It is also true that "Counting scholarly noses does not constitute proof". (Kutilek). I would take that one step further. Counting noses, on any widely split interpretation, by itself is barely a minor evidence.

Remember, this list was chosen by Doug Kutilek, so you would think he would get the names and dates right ! (Doug Kutilek is notorious for harumphing at others on small issues, assuming his own projections.) Most, not all, of these above are qualitatively small errors. We show all these errors to help the scholarship along. And they indicate that Kutilek's apparent familiarity with these sources is a chimera, he simply tried to quickly extract from them for a one-dimensional and oft-distorted presentation. And his level of academic expertise and accuracy in submitting this to a journal and then to the public with a plethora of errors was grossly deficient.

We can see this example where Doug Kutillek, who does not see God's word today as pure and perfect, not surprisingly had a low standard for his own words.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

One of the more interesting commentators mentioned is "F. B Meyer". This is a commentator who was not simply a technocrat, he looked at the Bible and the Psalms with a devotional heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Brotherton_Meyer
Frederick Brotherton Meyer

Meyer wrote many books on Psalm topics, most of which would take some effort to track down, so we do not know yet what he says that may place him on the "people" side of the table.

"The Christian" Bible readings: the Psalms (1891)
David : shepherd, psalmist, king - (1910)
Psalms, notes and readings - (1912)
Through the Bible Day by Day: (1918)

"Bible Commentary"
Published in 1984 by Tyndale House, and it is unclear what was the original source.

So it would be helpful to see what he wrote on the interpretation.

What is clear is that Meyer had a true heart for the basic theme of the Psalm, even in the time of the confusion caused by the decrepit Revision.

http://www.apibs.org/devotions/homily/hom.htm
Our Daily Homily by F B Meyer (1847-1929)

"A Homily," says an authority, "is distinct from mere exegesis or exposition; because the latter is addressed to the understanding, while the Homily is meant to affect the heart also, and to persuade those who hear to apply the lessons of Scripture for the reformation of their lives."

Our Daily Homily - 5 vols were first completed / published between 1898-1899.

http://www.gotothebible.com/Meyer/da...ilypsalms.html
http://www.soulwinning.info/books/fb_meyer/odh/19.htm
Our Daily Homily, Psalms by F.B. Meyer

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth - Psalm 12:6

What a contrast is presented in this Psalm between God's words and man's! "They speak vanity, with flattering lip and double heart." God never flatters; his words are absolutely pure because they have passed through the furnace of his holiness, but they are therefore absolutely reliable and trustworthy.

As silver enriches its owner, so does the Word of God enrich its lovers. Nothing so strengthens the intellect, clears the judgment, enlarges the views, purifies the taste, quickens the imagination, and educates the whole man. The humblest daylabourer who imbibes the Bible becomes rich in thought and speech, and able to dispense his riches to others.

As silver is beautiful to the eye, so fair is the Word of God. After a boy born blind had been suddenly possessed of sight through an operation by a skilful oculist, his mother led him out-of-doors, took off the bandages, and gave him his first view of sunshine, sky, and flowers. "Oh, mother," he cried, "why did you never tell me it was so beautiful?" With starting tears, she said, ""I tried to tell you, my dear, but you could not understand me." We need opened eyes, and then the Bible is more to be desired than fine gold.

As silver is pure, so is the Word of God; and it purifies. It has been the main purifying agent of the world. Though it deals with the corruptions of the human heart, it does so in such a delicate and holy manner as to excite within us something of the abhorrence of the Holy God. Like the passage of water through a sieve, it cleanses the heart and life.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The remaining blunderama scholarship reference from Doug Kutilek is a bit of a doozy.
Let us go to his article:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm_pr.htm
Why Psalm 12:6,7 is Not A Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture
- Doug Kutilek

J. M. Neale and F. R. Littledale are the most emphatic in insisting on this position: “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 so doing, shalt preserve him -- him, the needy, him, the poor -- Thou shalt keep thy work” (p. 181).

Much bold assertion, but not evidence! That Neale and Littledale sunder apart the synonymously parallel clauses of verse 7a, applying the “you will keep them” to the words and “you will preserve him” to the believer, shows a lack of understanding of the basic feature of Hebrew poetry -- parallelism of thought. Hebrew poetic structure demands that both clauses “you will keep them” and “you will preserve him” be applied to the same object. Note also that they acknowledge that the usual interpretation is that the reference is to preservation of God’s people.

The first problem is very simple, as we discussed in post #138, 139, 140.

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread....5248#post15248
Psalms: From Primitive and Mediaeval Writers - Neale & Littledale

Neale and Littledale, as the title of their book shows, are simply quoting the historical commentaries ! And they are quoting Michael Ayguan -- from 450 years earlier ! A rather amazing commentary in its own right. And the reference is 100% clear in their book.

So Doug Kutilek somehow misses the most basic fact -- and then goes into a rant, totally weird and out-of-place, against Neale and Littledale ! Even if the quote had been theirs, the tirade was insipid. They were not involved in the Kutilek anti-preservation-of-words debate. And to write against them from your own misperceptions is a tawdry type of writing.

Yet this is made even far worse by not even noticing the simple and obvious aspect of the writing -- Neale and Littledale are simply referencing Michael Ayguan. Likely they even translated his Latin. Their purpose of the book is in the title of the book, in the long explanation called Dissertation II in the front of the book, and Ayguan's name is right on the page ! What more do you need ?

This was such insipid writing from Doug Kutilek that even I was amazed.

The irony is that Kutilek's Theorem about one object for Psalm 12 is actually a sensible consideration, as I discussed above. (And it actually undercuts a lot of his own position.) However not as an awkward, misplaced, stumbling rant. Surely not against Michael Ayguan. And just as bad when used to attack the wrong writers. Neale and Littledale, who wrote a fine, accomplished work many centuries later.

Many interpreters use the "split interpretation" idea, some mixing it with a "dual interpretation" -- if we want to point out a potential weakness in that position, fine. There is no reason to go haywire in rigged rant, as Doug Kutilek does above. Made even worse by his own scholarly incompetence. So incompetent that he could not even recognize that Michael Ayguan from the 1400s was the quote source. Kutilek was so quick to falsely accuse that he didn't even have the most basic facts straight.

Sound familiar ?

As for Neale and Littledale, they are not even taking a position. They quote all sorts of early church writers, the good, the bad, the excellent, and possibly some ugly. They were scholars who wrote a fine historical commentary, at a time when resources were far less easy to collate than today. They wrote an excellent book and are to be commended for giving us an excellent resource, even a century and more later. These men are not here to speak in their own behalf, yet they are owed an apology from Doug Kutilek.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

In summary, Doug Kutilek has three major blunders that effect the evidence evaluation in his short section on references. They are listed in terms of significance to his argument. And a fourth is included separately in this summary because it is so strange.

For more details on each one it is necessary to go back to the posts. Although I am not putting post numbers here, I plan to make up an index that can be bookmarked shortly.

=============================

SCHOLARSHIP PROBLEMS THAT AFFECT ARGUMENTATION

1) Rashi

PROBLEM
Doug Kutilek craftily misrepresented his position, and this gives every appearance of being a deliberate, conscious deception.

CONSEQUENCE
This was very significant since the only "commentator by numbers" argument of any real weight was the apparent agreement of Kimchi and Rashi against Ibn Ezra in terms of the ancient highly respected rabbinics, along with the related general "Hebraists" argument. (e.g. general Christian commentators often deal with the influence of the mistranslations of the Greek and Latin.) With Rashi seen to have been misrepresented, this ancient rabbinics evidence becomes essentially even. (With much modern religious Jewish interpretation emphasizing "words".) Thus the argument that "words" is somehow a strange or unusual or just a KJVO understanding must be seen as a fabrication of convenience.

Plus we learn that Doug Kutilek pulled a crafty deception / misrepresentation in one of the most vital commentators in the artic.


2) Neale and Littledale - (Michael Ayguan)

PROBLEM
This one shows that Doug Kutilek really cannot read without huge doctored glasses. To miss the 1400's writer, a solid Psalms commentator, who is very significant is rather amazing, especially as the information was right in front of Kutilek's eyes. This was combined with a puerile rant against -- the wrong people ! Amazing.

CONSEQUENCE
This was very significant to the argumentation since Michael Ayguan is an early "words" proponent for the first part of the verse. A highly respected commentator, who would be working largely with the Latin and Greek traditions of us-us.

Plus we learn a bit about the competence of Doug Kutilik.


3) Patrick Symon

PROBLEM
Misrepresented as simply a "persons" proponent. Placed in the the 1800s instead of 1600s.

CONSEQUENCE
The Christian Hebraist movement was very strong in the late 1500s and 1600s. Thus the handful of commentators from that period are of special interest, also as a window to the King James Bible understanding.

Plus we learn more about the superficial source management from Doug Kutilek.

=============================

4) George Murphy

PROBLEM
Did Doug Kutilek actually get a commentator's name completely wrong ?
If so, that tells us a lot about his competence and understanding of the works and men he is referencing. If not, we would like to know who is this commentator.


Bonus Scholarship Issue #5

Omissions.

Samson Hirsch and other rabbinics and Jewish translations shown on this thread indicate, especially after the Rashi adjustment, that the claim that top Hebraics supports "people" over "words" is simply not true. Historic Jewish exegesis tends to support the words of Torah being kept (Psalm 12:7a) with the split occurring more in the preservation for ever (Psalm 12:7b). While Historic Christian exegesis from the Hebraists tends more toward "people", yet also with the split.

There are also omissions throughout the thread of others who support the words for part or all of the verse. A list is planned shortly. Generally Doug Kutilek is not faulted on this account (fully comprehensive lists are very difficult) -- i.e. beyond the misrepresentations above and a lack of familiarity with the Hebraics.

=============================

Then we have seven other problems in spelling and dates and including a reference that simply quotes another reference without comment. Although these are minor they are rather an astounding number of errors in a short article for publication, However, like #4 above, these do not effect the overall argumentation. They should definitely be remembered whenever Doug Kutilek takes another writer to task on claimed minor scholarship problems. Ten errors in a short summary on a Journal paper still being presented to the public after 20 years is a bit mind-boggling.

This takes care of the scholarship problems that were shown by my research, now we can discuss more the actual debate and do some overall summary and reference posts as well. While always seeking to dig out more fascinating material, especially from the stronger Christian commentators.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

One other point needs to be highlighted. The aggressive, belligerent attack stance of Doug Kutilek in his paper. This was rebutted with grace and pizazz by Bruce Lackey and belongs here, after the many Kutilek misrepresentations and scholarship difficulties have been highlighted.

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm_pr.htm
Why Psalm 12:6,7 Is not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture - Doug Kutilek

Conclusion

Based on clear evidence from grammar and context and confirmed by the best Bible expositors, it can only be concluded that Psalm 12:6, 7 has nothing at all to do with the preservation of God’s Word. It says nothing for or against it. It does not speak to the issue at all. It is, therefore, wholly irrelevant to the discussion and must not be appealed to as a proof text regarding Bible preservation. We can understand how some through ignorance have misapplied this text, but with the above evidence in hand, to continue to apply these verses to any doctrine of Bible preservation is to handle the Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God. Let the Scriptures speak, and let us follow them wherever they lead us.

Bruce Lackey responds. No need to add anything, I will place one highlight.

http://web.archive.org/web/200802121...ervationis.htm
Fundamentalists Following Textual Critics In Denying/Questioning Biblical Preservation

4. In the last paragraph, he [Kutilek] says that those who apply these verses ‘to any doctrine of Bible preservation’ are guilty of handling ‘the Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God.’ But earlier, he admitted that such illustrious interpreters as John Wesley, Henry Martyn, G. Campbell Morgan, and Kidner, agreed with the preservation interpretation. Sounds like a mouse attacking elephants! They might have been wrong on some points, but they were certainly not deceitful and dishonest.

Now granted, Kutilek tried to cover his attack-tracks some by claiming that he had conclusively proven his position and acting as if he was only chastising unnamed future writers (rather a tawdry writing style, trying to cut off rebuttal from those who know the Hebrew and the heart of the Psalm with more skill and understanding than Doug Kutilek has demonstrated).

Yet of course many of the commentators supporting words knew all about the other commentators, the Hebraics and the grammatical issues -- so Kutilek is accusing them as well. Bruce Lackey is right as Kutilek really adds nothing new other than a distorted historical summary. (Along with what I will fondly call - Kutilek's Theorem of One Object - which actually works against his position.) In fact, we may summarize the Kutilek position in one or two paragraphs, easier now that the fluff is gone.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
From this perspective of arrogance it is no surprise that Doug Kutilek thinks very highly of his performance, and then quotes himself (!) as the main authority in writing against others.

Wilkinson ... misapplies Psalm 12:6-7, incorrectly presuming the verses are a promise of Divine preservation of the Scriptures, when in fact they are a promise of Divine protection for persecuted saints of v. 5. (I established this latter interpretation as certainly correct ...) Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors - Doug Kutilek [Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. I, No. 3; Fall, 1990]

Not surprisingly, the Doug Kutilek article that had that quote was itself rife with more errors and misrepresentations (as is his Johannine Comma article, reviewing the Michael Maynard book, which is especially needing of review of the review).

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Here is a quick summary of those supportive of the words understanding, either of the whole verse or for Psalm 12:7a, God keeping his words. Dates are not exact, yet always close, And other historical important folks are added, such as comments about others that had the words view. This is part 1 -- up to a bit after 1800.

Rashi.......................1090 keep (Torah) in their hearts (split)
Ibn Ezra...................1150 words
Michael Ayguan.........1415 Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words (split)
Coverdale.................1535 words are kept, 'us' perserved
John Rogers..............1535 recognizes Ibn Ezra, prefers Kimchi
(Matthew Bible) ............... similar to Coverdale, words are kept
John Calvin...............1540 some give thy words (Calvin is pro-persons)
Luther.....................1540 hymn 'thy truth thy will preserve'
Becke......................1550 'some understand here certain men, some others word."
King James Bible........1611
Francis Bacon...........1624 thou wilt not first thy word forsake (split)
Henry Hammond........1650 Thou, О Lord, shalt keep, or perform those words (split)
Symon Patrick...........1675 I am confident, O Lord, thou wilt perform them (split)
Matthew Poole..........1685 poor and needy .. or thy words or promises
John Wesley.............1775 keep them - Thy words or promises .. this generation for ever.
Herny Martyn............1805 words
Alexander Geddes......1807 Jehovah, then, will be their guardian (split)

To research more:

Midrash on Psalms
Gilbert Ironside - sermon on Psalm 12 (1691)

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

From the list above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hammond
Henry Hammond (1605 - 1660) ... His writings, published in 4 volumes. fol. (1674 - 1684), consist mostly of controversial sermons and tracts ... four volumes of his Miscellaneous Theological Works (1847 - 1850) ..his Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament ... He read widely, and was a diligent scholar.

Henry Hammond is usually mentioned indirectly in this discussion. Referenced in Studies in the Book of Psalms - William Swan Plumer (1867). The John Calvin editor, James Anderson, mentions his view in the 1845 edition of Calvin's writings.

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comme...m/xviii.iv.htm
John Calvin - Psalm 12:7-8

Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words **

** This is the view adopted by Hammond. He refers the them to the words of the Lord mentioned in the preceding verse, and the him following to the godly, or just man, and explains the verse thus: ”Thou, O Lord, shalt keep, or perform, those words, thou shalt preserve the just man from this generation for ever.” The Chaldee version reads, “Thou wilt keep the just;” the Septuagint, Vulgate, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, “Thou wilt keep us;”:

The actual note is quite interesting and more complete. It includes the Hebrew, Greek and Syriac fonts as well. Note that the 1850 editor (Thomas Brancker) offers a disagreement. Looking at the Hammond learned commentary, we see that he, along with many, see an awkwardness in the "persons" interpretation. I will only include a smidgen here, the link is available for the full read. First Henry Hammond emphasizes the wide diversity of conflicting translations and interpretations on "persons" (the just, them, us.. I would add the poor and needy of v.5 rather than the just of v.1).

http://books.google.com/books?id=VYANAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA53
A paraphrase and annotations upon the Books of the psalms, by Henry Hammond (1850 edition)

"that which removes all difficulty is, to understand the them of the words of the Lord .. the him following will certainly be the godly or just man... Thou, O Lord, shalt keep, or perform these words, thou shalt preserve the just man from ---"

Original edition.

http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/top3mset/12226539
The works of the reverend and learned Henry Hammond, D.D. The fourth volume containing A paraphrase & annotations upon the Psalms : as also upon the (ten first chapters of the) Proverbs : together with XXXI sermons : also an Appendix to Vol. II. (1684)

Thus Hammond gives us a learned split interpretation.

(Note: this was totally unmentioned by Doug Kutilek, despite Henry Hammond being clearly referenced by others, including the same John Calvin commentary.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The next is an addition to the list above. This next Psalm book utilizes the respected scholarship of Henry Hammond (#156) and Symon Patrick (#142) (as discussed in the preface).

http://www.trinity.utoronto.ca/Libra...hors/part2.htm
John Johnson (1662-1725)
Johnson was vicar of St. John’s, Margate, then Cranbrook, Kent ...His major theological work was The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unvailed and Supported. (1714-18)

http://books.google.com/books?id=LP6WLewwax8C&pg=PA8
John Johnson .. a paraphrase, with notes, on the Book of Psalms

http://books.google.com/books?id=nBZWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA984
John Johnson ..His works display the highest scholarship, a mastery both of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and a deep research into the Holy Scriptures

And this is from the book, which actually is defending the Great Bible translation. And especially the Book of Common Prayer, which maintained the historic Great Bible reading rather than updating to the Authorised Version.

http://books.google.com/books?id=TIAOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA19
Holy David and His Old English Translators Clear'd: Containing,
I. Directions for the More Devout Use of Psalms, and a Short Historical Account of the Translation and Translators. :
II. The Psalter Or Psalms of David, After the Translation of the Great Bible; Pointed as They are to be Sung Or Said in Churches; with large Explanatory Notes
III. A General Defence of this Old Translation, in answer to all the Objections and Cavils that have been rais'd against it.

By John Johnson (1706)

8 Thou fhalt keep [them,] O Lord: thou shalt preserve * him from this generation for ever.
8 [Thy Promises}
* Him: that is, the upright Man, against whom the enemy swells ver. 6

Thus John Johnson's book (quite an interesting book) is added to our split interpreters above.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The next is another addition to the list above.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JwsVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA13 (1754)
http://books.google.com/books?id=CSAp5tj-2PUC&pg=PA20 (1839)
http://www.archive.org/details/newversionofpsa00brad (1751)
A New version of the Psalms of David : fitted to the tunes used in churches

Brady, Nicholas (1659-1726) and Tate, Nahum (1652-1715)

http://www.cgmusic.com/workshop/newver_frame.htm
This psalter was first published in England in 1696. It was the work of two men, Nahum Tate and Nicholas Brady. Tate was poet laureate of England, as well as being a playwright and an adapter of other's plays. Brady was an Anglican clergyman, poet and author.

You will also find this directly given in the Book of Common Prayer, in many editions.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0e0OAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA311
The Book of Common Prayer (1822)

6 The word of God shall still abide,
and void of falsehood be,
As is the silver, seven times tried,
from drossy mixture free.

7 The promise of his aiding grace
shall reach the purposed end;
His servants from this faithless race
he ever shall defend.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Also from above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Geddes
Alexander Geddes (14 September 1737 – 26 February 1802) was a Scottish theologian and scholar...A translation of Psalms was published in 1807.

http://books.google.com/books?id=iX0VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16
A New Translation of the Book of Psalms By Alexander Geddes (1807)

The words of Jehovah are words sincere, silver tried in an earthen crucible; seven-times refined!
Jehovah, then, will be their guardian; will preserve them for ever from this race of men;

* In ver.8 (our 7) are some various readings, which I notice not here; as I think the common readings are preferable.

The various readings would mainly be the "us-us" attempts.

Shalom,
Steven