Catena Bible

Here is an interesting Bible commentary that I ran across online:

• Catena Bible

Catena in connection with Christian Theology particularly means “a connected series of texts written by early Christian theologians.” This Bible/Commentary allows you to select a Book, Chapter, and Verse of the Bible, click on that verse and see comments on that verse by early Christian writers. This could be a helpful tool if you want to easily locate what was said by Tertullian, Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Jerome, Bede, etc., etc.

Caveats.

• All so-called church fathers are not sound Bible believers; some were heretics (some more and some less).
• This appears to be Roman-Catholic-oriented, since it includes the commentary of the very much later Catholic theologian George Leo Haydock (1849) alongside the “church fathers.”.
• With these caveats, wise use of the Catena Bible might allow it a useful study tool.

LXX: More John Owen

John Owen comments on Hebrews 11:6 and the LXX (Septuagint).

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

“Many of the antients, as Epiphanius, Theodoret, Euthymius, Procopius, and Anselm, conceive the words to be cited from Deut. 32. 42. where they expressly occur in the Translation of the LXX. Εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ· Rejoyce ye Heavens with him, and let all the Angels of God worship him. But there are two considerations that put it beyond all pretentions that the words are not taken from this place of the LXX. 

“1. Because indeed there are no such words in the Original Text; nor any thing spoken that might give occasion to the sense expressed in them; but the whole Verse is inserted in the Greek version quite besides the scope of the place. Now though it may perhaps be safely granted, that the Apostles in citing the Scripture of the Old Testament, did sometimes use the words of the Greek translation then in use, yea, though not exact according to the Original, whilst the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost was retained in them; yet to cite that from the Scripture as the word, and testimony of God, which indeed is not therein, nor was ever spoken by god, but by humane failure and corruption crept into the Greek Version, is not to be imputed unto them. And indeed I no way question, but that this addition to the Greek Text in that place, was made after the apostle had used this testimony. For it is not unlikely, but that some considering of it, and not considering from whence it was taken, because the words occur not absolutely and exactly in the Greek any where, inserted it into that place of Moses, amidst other words of an alike found, and somewhat an alike importance; such as immediately precede and follow the clause inserted.

“2. The Holy Ghost is not treating in that place about the Introduction of the Firstborn into the world, but quite another matter, as is evidently not taken from this place; nor would, nor could the Apostle make use of a testimony liable unto such just exceptions.

Later expositors generally agree, that the words are taken out of Psal. 97. v. 7. where the Original is rendred by the LXX, προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ; which with a very small variation in the words, and none at all in the sense, is here expressed by the Apostle, And let all the Angels of God worship him... 

“But the matter of the Psalm it self makes it manifest that the Holy Ghost treateth in it about God’s bringing in the first-born into the world, and the setting up of his Kingdom in him. A Kingdom is described, wherein God would reign, which should destroy Idolatry and false-worship; a Kingdom wherein the Isles of the Gentiles should rejoyce, being called to an interest therein; a Kingdom that was to be preached, proclaimed, to the encrease of Light and Holiness in the world, with the manifestation of the glory of God unto the ends of the earth. Every part whereof declareth the Kingdom of Christ to be intended in the Psalm, and consequently that it is a Prophesie of the bringing in of the first-begotten into the world.” Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, John Owen, 1668, pp. 94-95.

• And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
• ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην λέγει και προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ
• Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.
• Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels.
• αἰσχυνθήτωσαν πάντες οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τοῖς γλυπτοῖς, οἱ ἐγκαυχώμενοι ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν· προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ, πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ.

A modern revised and abridged version of the comments of Owen:

“Many of the ancients conceive the words to be cited from Deut. xxxii. 42. where they expressly occur in the Sept. translation: but there are no such words in the original text; nor any thing spoken that might give occasion to the sense expressed in them; but the whole verse is inserted in the Greek version quite besides the scope of the place. And indeed I no way question, but that this addition to the Greek text was made after the apostle had used this testimony. For some officious person, not considering from whence it was taken, because the words do not occur exactly in the Greek, it is not unlikely inserted it there amidst other words of an alike sound. But later expositors generally agree, that the words are taken out of Psalm xcvii. 7. where the original is rendered by the Sept. with a very small variation in the words, and none at all in the sense. And the matter of the Psalm makes it manifest, that the Holy Ghost treats in it about God’s ‘bringing in the first-begotten into the world,’ and the setting up of his kingdom by him. A kingdom is described wherein God would reign, which should destroy idolatry and false worship; a kingdom wherein the isles of the Gentiles should rejoice, being called to an interest therein; a kingdom that was to be preached, proclaimed, to the increase of light and holiness in the world, with the manifestation of the glory of God to the ends of the earth. Each part declares the kingdom of Christ to be intended in the Psalm, and consequently that it is a prophecy of the ‘bringing in of the first-begotten into the world.’”

Some teachers ought not be teachers

“For the time when ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God…” Hebrews 5:12

Is it any wonder that churches are unsettled? Any wonder that Christians lack confidence in their Bibles? Any wonder, when teachers of the Bible do not have a clear understanding of and belief in the inspiration of the Bible?

Commenting on Acts 25:13, Richard Longenecker (Acts, p. 343) writes, “Undoubtedly, Luke had no direct knowledge of what was said in private between a Roman governor and the king of a neighboring principality.” Were this an introduction to revealing that Luke would not know this, but knew this because God knew and inspired Luke to write it down – it would serve to strengthen believers. However, it was instead an introduction to how “the gist of what was discussed would certainly have been evident from their resultant actions.” This suggests not divine inspiration, but rather that Luke figured it out due to a logical deduction. Too many of our modern commentaries are filled with such implications, suggesting that the Scriptures are the work of human skill instead of divine revelation.

John Gill and his Exposition of the Whole Bible

John Gill was an English Particular Baptist pastor, theologian, and author. He was born November 23, 1697 in Kettering, Northamptonshire, to Edward and Elizabeth Gill. His father was a deacon in the local Baptist church. There in Kettering he attended grammar school. He also helped his father in the wool trade. He was a ready scholar, mastering the Latin classics and Greek by age 11 or 12. As a dissenter, he was excluded from the bigger and better higher learning institutions of England (such as Oxford & Cambridge). He continued on his own studies of everything from logic to Hebrew, becoming a well-known well-respected Hebraist.

After relating his experience to the Baptist Church at Kettering, John Gill was baptized in November 1716. In March of 1720, he was ordained and became the pastor of the Goat Yard Church (Southwark, London). He served that church for about 51 years. Gill would be followed by John Rippon, and after a series of moves of location, Charles Haddon Spurgeon would become the pastor.[i] John Gill died October 14, 1771 and was buried at the dissenter’s burial ground, Bunhill Fields. He married Elizabeth Negus in 1718, and she preceded him in death in 1764.

Gill was an outstanding Bible scholar and doctrinal polemicist. He wrote not only in quality, but in quantity, earning the nickname “Dr. Voluminous.” He was a decided and vocal proponent of the five points commonly called Calvinism, but he has been somewhat misrepresented as a “hyper-Calvinist.” In By His Grace and For His Glory, chapter 2, Tom Nettles successfully refutes that charge.[ii]

Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible was produced over a period of almost 20 years, 1746-1763. When I was young, I heard that John Gill is the only man who ever wrote a commentary on every verse of the Bible.[iii] I know there are other “whole Bible” commentaries. Matthew Henry’s work would seem to compete with Gill’s claim to fame – except that Henry died having only gotten through the book of Acts; his commentary was finished by others. Matthew Poole’s Annotations is somewhat the same, finished by others. Some “whole Bible” commentaries cover all the books of the Bible, but unlike Gill’s, do not have comments on every verse. Some commentary sets may cover every verse, while not done by one person. Just a few years ago, Chip Thornton wrote:

“Gill is the only man who ever lived (to my knowledge) who commented on every single verse in the Bible (by age 66) and wrote a systematic theology (by age 72). Given his training in logic, the order is noteworthy: exposition, first; systematic theology, second.”

Ian Hugh Clary describes Gill as “the first person to complete a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole of Scripture in English.” I wonder whether John Gill still holds the “record” of being the only man to produce a commentary on every verse of the Bible.

---

[i] I have read that it was John Gill who recommended Morgan Edwards to the Baptist church in Philadelphia.
[ii] Gill believed, for example, “The ministry of the word is for the conversion of sinners; without which churches would not be increased nor supported, and must in course fail, and come to nothing; but the hand of the Lord being with his ministers, many in every age believe and turn to the Lord, and are added to the churches; by which means they are kept up and preserved: and hence it is necessary in the ministers of the word, to set forth the lost and miserable estate and condition of men by nature, the danger they are in, the necessity of regeneration and repentance, and of a better righteousness than their own, and of faith in Christ; which things are blessed for the turning of men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.” (Nettles, p. 106)
[iii] I must give the caveat that, though one who regularly checks the comments of Gill, I have not personally looked up every verse in the Bible exposition by Gill, so it might be possible he skipped over some verses. I have not had such an experience of finding nothing on any verse I have checked.

Matthew Poole’s Annotations

Matthew Poole (1624-1679) was an English Non-Conformist preacher, author, and theologian. He is best known for his commentary on the Bible. As with Matthew Henry, I most often shorthand Annotations Upon the Holy Bible simply as Matthew Poole’s commentary. However, also like Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole died before he completed his work. Poole finished the English Annotations from Genesis 1 through Isaiah 58 before his died in 1679. Friends and colleagues completed annotations on the rest of the books of the Bible . Editors Samuel Clark and Edward Veale later added chapter outlines. Poole’s “death prevented his going farther than the 58th Ch. of Is.” According to Edmund Calamy, the other authors completing the Annotations were:

• Isaiah 59-60 – Mr. [John] Jackson of Moulsey
• Isaiah 61-66, Jeremiah, Lamentations, the Gospels, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation – Dr. [John] Collinges
• Ezekiel, Minor Prophets – Mr. [Henry] Hurst
• Daniel – Mr. [William] Cooper
• Acts – Mr. [Peter] Vinke
• Romans – Mr. [Richard] Mayo
• Ephesians, James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude – Mr. [Edward] Veale
• Philippians, Colossians – Mr. [Richard] Adams
• 1 and 2 Thessalonians – Mr. [Matthew] Barker
• Hebrews – Mr. [Obadiah] Hughes
• 1, 2 and 3 John – Mr. [John] Howe

Edmund Calamy, The Nonconformist’s Memorial: Being An Account of the Ministers Who Were Ejected Or Silenced After the Restoration, etc., Volume 1, 1775, p. 135

In addition to print sets of the Annotations, it can be found online in various places:

• Bible Hub
• Bible Portal
• Hathi Trust
• Study Light

The Author of Judges

The Author of this Book [Judges] is not certainly known; whether it was Samuel, or Ezra, or some other Prophet: nor is it material to know. 1. It matters not who was the Kings Secretary, or with what Pen it was written, if it be once known that it was the King who made the Order or Decree: It is sufficient, that unto the Jews were committed the Oracles of God, Rom. 3. 2. i. e. the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, one part of which this was, by confession of all; and that the Jews did not falsify their trust therein, but kept those Holy Books themselves, and delivered them to the World entire, without addition or diminution: for neither Christ nor his Apostles, who severely rebuke them for their mistakes and misunderstandings of some passages of Scripture, ever charge them with any perfidiousness about the Canon or Books of the Scripture. This Book is called the Book of Judges, because it treats of the Judges, or of the state of the Commonwealth of Israel under all the Judges, except Eli and Samuel, who being the last of the Judges, and the occasions or instruments of the change of this Government, are omitted in this Book. The Judges were a sort of Magistrates inferior to Kings, and could neither make new Laws, nor impose any Tributes, but were the supreme Executors of Gods Laws and Commands, and the Generals of their Armies.

Matthew Poole (1624–1679), Annotations Upon the Holy Bible, Volume 1, 3rd Edition, 1696

Mark Ward, Waster of Words

Proverbs 18:9 He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster.

On the last day of the year 2024, Mark Ward worked tirelessly to build up his “false friend” count to 150. Perhaps he was also tired, rushed, and not as attentive as he should have been. Here is an example of how the Berean must be on the lookout concerning Ward’s teaching and technique. One of countdown words was the word “waster” used in Proverbs 18:9, meaning one who lays waste, or destroys, a destroyer. Not content to merely ravage “King James Onlyists,” he also threw the old commentators Matthew Henry and John Gill under the bus as well. Pulled forward, then backed over them for good measure. After building a large front porch about wasting food and such like, Mark says:

“But false friend 108 in Proverbs 18:9 tripped up people of the stature of Matthew Henry, John Gill, and a random KJV-Only pastor I found on SermonAudio. I just have to share this. Gill, John Gill the great commentator, he thought that the ‘great waster’ was ‘a prodigal man, who spends his substance in riotous living.’ Henry thought ‘great wasters’ were ‘wasters of their estates, who live above what they have, spend and give more than they can afford, and so, in effect, throw away what they have, and suffer it to run to waste.’ I believe that this interpretation really is just impossible.”

I’ll not try to account for the modern pastor in Ohio. He is alive and can fend for himself. However, I will stand up for the dead guys. What Mark failed to consider is that M. Henry and J. Gill knew as much as he knows (and probably much more) and yet applied the idea of “laying waste” to one who destroys what he has through riotous living. (Note that both Henry & Gill reference the prodigal.) There is overlapping sense of waste and destroy that Mark seems to miss. He shouldn’t have. If he had looked carefully at John Gill’s comments on Proverbs 18:9, he should have read that Gill very specifically mentions the destroyer, as well as mentioning something very close to the reference Mark gives from Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians, of Paul as “a persecutor and waster of the church.”

v. 9. He also that is slothful in his work, &c.] Remiss in it; hangs down his hands, and does not care to make use of them, but neglects his business: Is brother to him that is a great waster: a prodigal man, who spends his substance in riotous living: the sluggard and the prodigal are brethren in iniquity; for, though they take different courses, they are both sinful, and issue in the same manner; both bring to poverty and want. Or, brother to a master that wastes p; a slothful servant and a wasteful master are near akin, and come into the same class and circumstances. Jarchi interprets it, “he that separateth from the law, though a disciple of a wise man, is a brother to Satan;” whose name is Apollyon, the waster and destroyer. A man that is slothful in spiritual things, though a professor of religion, and has a place in the house of God, is brother to him that is a waster and persecutor of it; see Matt. xii.30.

p לבעל משחית domino devaststionis, Gejerus; domino dissipanti, Mercerus.

Clearly John Gill was not “tripped up by a false friend.” He simply chose to interpret the manner of laying waste in a different way than Mark Ward. Regardless of what Mark believes about the word “waster” as a “false friend,” he did not apply honesty, clarity, and charity to what John Gill wrote. Bereans, always search to see whether what Mark says is so. Many of his listeners gobble up what he says because he is the first one to come along and say it is so. (Cf. Proverbs 18:17.)

By the way, always search to see whether what any of us say is so!

---

[i] Robert L. Alden, user of modern versions, professor of Old Testament, with a PhD from Hebrew Union College, says, “Shoddy workmanship in constructing something is tantamount to destroying it, says verse 9.” Proverbs: a Commentary on an Ancient Book of Timeless Advice. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983, page 139. If Alden missed the interpretation, it had nothing to do with Ward’s concept of “false friends.” Adam Clarke says, “A slothful man neglects his work, and the materials go to ruin: the waster, he destroys the materials. They are both destroyers.” The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary claims “waster” literally means “master of wasting, a prodigal.” The Septuagint interprets the “great waster” as one who ruins or plunders himself (λυμαινομένου ἑαυτόν). The Vulgate interprets similarly (sua opera dissipantis.). Though Mark knows words (just listen, he will tell you so), he often seems out of his league when it comes to careful hermeneutics. Maybe he is just trying too hard to find more false friends.

[ii] Some other resources from the 17th century.

Vers. 9. He also that is slothful in his work ] ...

Is brother to him that is a great waster] Est frater domini disperditionis, will as certainly come to poverty, as the greatest wast-good. A man dyes no lesse surely (though not so suddenly) of consumption, then of an apoplexy.

[Note: The beloved OED defines wast-good (waste-good) as “A spendthrift.”]

Page 215 of Solomonis Παναρετος, or A Commentary Upon the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, John Trapp. London: Printed for John Bellamie, 1650

𝖂𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗 ] Any person, or thing that doth destroy, Isa. 54.19. A Prodigall, Spendthrift, Prov. 18.19.

𝖂𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗 ] One that spends all, Prov. 18.9.

Page 710 of A Complete Christian Dictionary, Thomas Wilson, et al. London: E. Cotes, 1661

And a little on the Hebrew, in case someone thinks it will not bear the same connotation.

Hiphil.—

(2) [Prov. 28:24, and Prov. 18:9] a man of destruction, i.e. in chap. 28, act., a destroyer, a waster; but in chap. 18, pass., one who brings destruction on himself, one who wastes his own goods, a prodigal.

Page 816 of Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, Wilhelm Gesenius (translated to English and edited by Samuel Predeaux Tregelles). London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1846

A Plaine and Familiar Exposition of the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Chapters of the Proverbs of Salomon, by John Dod and Robert Cleaver.

London: Roger Jackson, 1611, pp. 9-10

Keveh and Linen Yarn

Notes or comments in commentaries and study Bibles can be really bad. Readers think they are being given competent instruction, but you just never know! Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. At times commentators apparently just write whatever is on their minds without doing the necessary research. Here is an example from the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald (Arthur L. Farstad, editor, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1995, p. 387), regarding the translation of 1 Kings 10:28.

“⁸ (10:26-29) Keveh (also transliterated Kue) was translated ‘linen yarn’ in KJV because they did not know in the seventeenth century that is was a place name.”

The barest of research would have refuted this statement. The King James translators were well aware that this had been considered the name of a place. They just did not agree that it was. Notice, for example, how verse 28 had been translated in the 1537 Matthew Bible:

And Salomons horses came out of Egipte from Keva: The marchauntes fett them from Keva at a pryce.

The 14th rule given to the translators even said they should check these prior Bibles. “These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishop’s Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.” Keva is found in the Coverdale, Matthew, and Taverner Bibles. The LXX gives it as a place name (Θεκουέ), as does the Vulgate (Coa). The translators were aware of these resources; the fact was not something “they did not know.”

No, the King James translators were not unaware of translating מִקְוֵה (miqvê) as a place. They did not agree that in this verse it was a place. They translated it accordingly. If you don’t agree with the King James translators in 1 Kings 10:28, just say so. Don’t act like they were ignorant.

---

Notes:

The translational issue is the same in 2 Chronicles 1:16.

I acknowledge that research in old Bible editions is easier in 2025 than it was in 1995. However, if we do not know what we are talking about, we should not talk; if we do not know what we are writing, we should not write.

“Fett” in the Matthew Bible appears to be or mean the same as “fetched,” which is what is in the Coverdale Bible before it. The word is a bit hard to make out in the copy I looked at.

1 Kings 10:28.

• AKJV: And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king’s merchants received the linen yarn at a price.
• NKJV: Also Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh; the king’s merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price.

Many weak children, many dull pupils

Commenting on John 20:24-31, J. C. Ryle wrote:

We should mark for another thing in this verse, how kind and merciful Christ is to dull and slow believers. Nowhere, perhaps, in all the four Gospels, do we find this part of our Lord’s character so beautifully illustrated as in the story before our eyes. It is hard to imagine anything more tiresome and provoking than the conduct of Thomas, when even the testimony of ten faithful brethren had no effect on him, and he doggedly declared, “Except I see with my own eyes and touch with my own hands, I will not believe.” But it is impossible to imagine anything more patient and compassionate, than our Lord’s treatment of this weak disciple. He does not reject him, or dismiss him, or excommunicate him. He comes again at the end of a week, and apparently for the special benefit of Thomas. He deals with him according to his weakness, like a gentle nurse dealing with a froward child:—“Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side.” If nothing but the grossest, coarsest, most material evidence could satisfy him, even that evidence was supplied. Surely this was a love that passeth knowledge, and a patience that passeth understanding.

A passage of Scripture like this, we need not doubt, was written for the special comfort of all true believers. The Holy Ghost knew well that the dull, and the slow, and the stupid, and the doubting, are by far the commonest type of disciples in this evil world. The Holy Ghost has taken care to supply abundant evidence that Jesus is rich in patience as well as compassion, and that He bears with the infirmities of all His people. Let us take care that we drink into our Lord’s spirit, and copy His example. Let us never set down men in a low place, as graceless and godless, because their faith is feeble and their love is cold. Let us remember the case of Thomas, and be very pitiful and of tender mercy. Our Lord has many weak children in His family, many dull pupils in His school, many raw soldiers in His army, many lame sheep in His flock. Yet He bears with them all, and casts none away. Happy is that Christian who has learned to deal likewise with his brethren. There are many in the Church, who, like Thomas, are dull and slow, but for all that, like Thomas, are real and true believers.

Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John, Volume III, John XX: 24–31, p. 406

King James Bible Marginal Notes

In the May 17, 2022 essay “Reading the 1611 Bible,” I included a brief paragraph on the marginal notes in this 1611 translation. On September 24, 2023, Bryan Ross published a good video lesson called “The AV 1611: Examining The Marginal Notes.” This encouraged me to expand and enlarge my comments on the marginal notes into something more comprehensive.

Early historical references to the marginal notes.

1603. King James on marginal notes, at the Hampton Court Conference

[Doctor Reinolds] moved his Majesty, that there might be a new Translation of the Bible…Whereupon his Highnesse wished, that some special paines should be taken in that behalf for one uniform ..And so this whole Church to be bound unto it, and none other…withall, he gave this caveat (upon a word cast out by my Lord of London) that no Marginal Notes should be added, having found in them which are annexed to the Geneva translation…some Notes very partial, untrue, seditious, and favouring too much of dangerous, and traitorous conceits.

The Summe and Substance of the Conference…at Hampton Court, Jan. 14. 1603 (William Barlow, Clerkenwell, UK: Bye and Law, Printers, 1804, pp. 34-35).

1604. Two of the King James’s Translation Rules that relate to marginal notes.

• 6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.
• 7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

The transcription of these rules is as they appear in In The Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, (Alister Edgar McGrath, New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2001, pp. 173-175). Three manuscript copies of the translators’ rules are extant.  According to David Norton in his A Textual History of the King James Bible, these are in the British Library: BL Add. 28721, fol. 24r; BL Harley 750; and BL Egerton 2884 fol. 6r. The first two contain 14 rules, and “BL Egerton” includes rule 15. This at least suggests that the first 14 were drawn up originally, and then rule 15 was added later.

1611. Miles Smith in “The Translators to the Reader”

Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

1618. Three comments on marginal notes from the “Report on the Making of the Version of 1611 Presented to the Synod of Dort.”

• …no notes were to be placed in the margin, but only parallel passages to be noted.
• …where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies.
• …the more difficult Hebraisms and Graecisms were consigned to the margin.

How many marginal notes, and other comments.

F. H. A. Scrivener supplies the following count of marginal notes in the original 1611 Bible newly translated by the order of King James.

• Old Testament 6,637 (“4111 express a more literal meaning…2156 give alternative readings…in 63 the meaning of Proper names is stated…in 240 necessary information is given by way of harmonizing the text with other passages of Scripture…the remaining 67 refer to various readings of the original text”)
• Apocrypha 1,018
• New Testament 765 (“35 relate to various readings…112 present us with a more literal rendering…582 are alternative translations, 35 are explanatory notes
• Total 8,418

“On the marginal notes and the original texts of the Authorized Version of the English Bible,” The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version (Frederick Henry Ambrose, Scrivener, Cambridge: University Press, 1873, pp. xxiv-xxxii)

Scrivener says that 494 marginal notes were added by editors of later editions (in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769). Timothy Berg points to a slightly different modern computer total: 6,565 marginal notes in the OT, and 777 in the NT, for a total of 7,342 marginal notes, not counting the Apocrypha. This seems to be taken from the count that Calvin George gives: “There are 6,565 marginal notes in the OT, and 777 in the NT, for a total of 7,342 marginal notes.” Berg also suggests dividing the marginal notes into five types rather than three.

The types of marginal notes or references.

King James wanted “no Marginal Notes…added.” Considering the outcome, this restriction was not absolute, but referred to the types of marginal notes that filled the Geneva Bible – religious and theological commentary, similar to what we moderns might think of as a “Study Bible.” Though not often mentioned, the Bishop’s Bible also had study notes that included theological commentary.[i] By restricting these notes, the genius of the new translation avoided outwardly supporting the views of either the Puritans or the established Episcopacy.[ii] The rules set before the translators confirm this desire of the King – “No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only…” Rule 6 allows for necessary explanation of original language words that would not fit succinctly within the text itself. Rule 7 suggests cross references “of one Scripture to another.”

In “Translators to the Reader,” Miles Smith does not detail the extent of the use of marginal notes, but rather is defending their use with “Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin.” In doing so, he gives examples of some types of notes used.  Notes are found in places of difficulty – such as words used only once, rare names, etc. – and notes of these kinds will “admonish the Reader to seek further.”

Samuel Ward’s explanation before the Synod of Dort corresponds with the three symbols used in marking marginal notes. He indicates they were used for cross references, alternate readings, and difficult readings.

Illustration. Isaiah 53:5-6

This picture with information to the left of the two verses from Isaiah 53:5-6 illustrates the three different symbols used to lead to marginal notes: asterisk, dagger (or cross), and double bar (*, †, ||). The asterisk (*) denotes a cross reference to a related scripture or scriptures. The dagger, (†) indicates a more literal translation (prefaced by Heb., Chal., or Gr., followed by a word or words in italics). The double bar (||) points to an alternate reading (|| Or, followed by a word or words in italics).

Based on the three symbols used, as well as the period references to or explanations of the marginal notes, we can conclude there are three types of marginal references in the 1611 King James Bible. At least one type admits of sub-categories. These may possibly be confused at times by the printer using the wrong symbol.

• Cross reference
• More literal translation
• Alternate reading

The third category might be subdivided to explain what kinds of alternate readings are noticed, such as a simple alternate reading (e.g., Job 30:29 ), definitions or explanations of names (e.g., Genesis 22:14), and reference to a reading in another TR (e.g., 2 Peter 2:2).

• Job 30:29  owles || Or, ostriches.
• Genesis 22:14 Jehovah-jireh || That is, The LORD will see, or, provide.
• 2 Peter 2:2 || Or, lascivious wayes, as some copies reade.

Within the Apocrypha another type of system is also used, a small roman letter (a, b, c, d, etc.) in the text corresponding to a small roman letter in the margin. See example below from I Esdras 5:22-26.

Concluding thoughts.

Inspecting the marginal readings in the 1611 translation made by the order of King James provides evidence that the translators carefully followed rules 6 and 7. They provided notes of the kinds approved, and avoided partisan theological commentary. They were scrupulous or meticulous in ways that give insight into their thinking and choices (e.g., sometimes showing what they left out). It appears the printers made a few errors in their use of the symbols, For example, to me Genesis 22:14 and Genesis 28:19 seem to be the same type of note, yet one is marked with the double bar (||) and the other with the dagger (†). On the other hand, some argument could be made for why certain notes could be marked either way.

Over the years the original marginal notes have dropped out. The primary reason is that it saves the publishers time, space, and money. One can read the King James translation, learn from and be blessed by it, and live a Christian life according to it – without ever knowing the original contained these marginal notes. However, the notes can be instructive to all.  Especially one who intends to engage in King James Bible and modern version debates should become familiar with them.

---

[i] For example, this page shows commentary on Acts 13:34, 50-51; 14:4, 7, 19, 23. 

[ii] Paul V. M. Flesher, professor in University of Wyoming’s Department of Religious Studies, explains: “Archbishop Bancroft pioneered a new approach to Bible translation, one which helped the translation overcome the political and religious conflict in which the project was conceived...Archbishop Bancroft...was a partisan bulldog for the Church of England establishment. Yet, he guided the creation of a new Bible translation that lasted for more than four centuries and was accepted by most branches of Protestant Christianity.”

Acts Commentary

At our church I am conducting a weekly Bible study on the New Testament book The Acts of the Apostles. At present we have been studying Acts for over a two-and-a-half years, and are about halfway through the book (near the end of chapter 14 this week). In connection with the study I am preparing and printing comments on the text as a companion to the study of this New Testament book. My long term goal, Lord willing, is to compile, edit, and publish these notes as a commentary on the book of Acts.

I am under no illusions that there will be a high demand for a commentary by this preacher. However, I believe there is a great need for a modern commentary on the book of Acts that (1) proceeds from the belief that the Bible is inspired, infallible, accurate, trustworthy, sufficient, and providentially preserved; (2) is developed in harmony with biblical local church ecclesiology and practice; and (3) recognizes that New Testament apostolic practice is normative. Additionally, such a commentary for English readers is based on the King James Bible and supported by the Greek Textus Receptus.

I provide this explanation, because in preparing my post for today it occurred to me that I could (and perhaps should) post on my blog excerpts from my Acts commentary. The post that will follow today is not strictly an excerpt, but prepared specifically for the blog based on study and work I have done on Acts 15. If the Lord wills, going forward I will try to post material about the book of Acts from my comments on Acts on a weekly basis, perhaps on Thursdays or Fridays. It will not be all the material, and not necessarily in order. May it possibly be a blessing to someone.

More Matthew 27:9

Some comments of others on Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Tertullian (ca 155-ca 220). Against Marcion, Book IV:

“And without a price might He have been betrayed. For what need of a traitor was there in the case of one who offered Himself to the people openly, and might quite as easily have been captured by force as taken by treachery? This might no doubt have been well enough for another Christ, but would not have been suitable in One who was accomplishing prophecies. For it was written, ‘The righteous one did they sell for silver.’ The very amount and the destination of the money, which on Judas’ remorse was recalled from its first purpose of a fee, and appropriated to the purchase of a potter’s field, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah: ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued and gave them for the potter’s field.’”

Augustine of Hippo (354-430). The Harmony of the Gospels, Book III: 

“How, then, is the matter to be explained, but by supposing that this has been done in accordance with the more secret counsel of that providence of God by which the minds of the evangelists were governed? For it may have been the case, that when Matthew was engaged in composing his Gospel, the word Jeremiah occurred to his mind, in accordance with a familiar experience, instead of Zechariah. Such an inaccuracy, however, he would most undoubtedly have corrected (having his attention called to it, as surely would have been the case, by some who might have read it while he was still alive in the flesh), had he not reflected that perhaps it was not without a purpose that the name of the one prophet had been suggested instead of the other in the process of recalling the circumstances (which process of recollection was also directed by the Holy Spirit), and that this might not have occurred to him had it not been the Lord’s purpose to have it so written. If it is asked, however, why the Lord should have so determined it, there is this first and most serviceable reason, which deserves our most immediate consideration, namely, that some idea was thus conveyed of the marvelous manner in which all the holy prophets, speaking in one spirit, continued in perfect unison with each other in their utterances,—a circumstance certainly much more calculated to impress the mind than would have been the case had all the words of all these prophets been spoken by the mouth of a single individual. The same consideration might also fitly suggest the duty of accepting unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given expression to through the agency of these prophets, and of looking upon their individual communications as also those of the whole body, and on their collective communications as also those of each separately. If, then, it is the case that words spoken by Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah’s as Jeremiah’s, and, on the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are really as much Jeremiah’s as they are Zechariah’s, what necessity was there for Matthew to correct his text when he read over what he had written, and found that the one name had occurred to him instead of the other? Was it not rather the proper course for him to bow to the authority of the Holy Spirit, under whose guidance he certainly felt his mind to be placed in a more decided sense than is the case with us, and consequently to leave untouched what he had thus written, in accordance with the Lord’s counsel and appointment, with the intent to give us to understand that the prophets maintain so complete a harmony with each other in the matter of their utterances that it becomes nothing absurd, but, in fact, a most consistent thing for us to credit Jeremiah with a sentence originally spoken by Zechariah? For if, in these days of ours, a person, desiring to bring under our notice the words of a certain individual, happens to mention the name of another by whom the words were not actually uttered, but who at the same time is the most intimate friend and associate of the man by whom they were really spoken; and if forthwith recollecting that he has given the one name instead of the other, he recovers himself and corrects the mistake, but does it nevertheless in some such way as this, ‘After all, what I said was not amiss;’ what would we take to be meant by this, but just that there subsists so perfect a unison of sentiment between the two parties—that is to say, the man whose words the individual in question intended to repeat, and the second person whose name occurred to him at the time instead of that of the other—that it comes much to the same thing to represent the words to have been spoken by the former as to say that they were uttered by the latter? How much more, then, is this a usage which might well be understood and most particularly commended to our attention in the case of the holy prophets, so that we might accept the books composed by the whole series of them, as if they formed but a single book written by one author, in which no discrepancy with regard to the subjects dealt with should be supposed to exist, as none would be found, and in which there would be a more remarkable example of consistency and veracity than would have been the case had a single individual, even the most learned, been the enunciator of all these sayings? Therefore, while there are those, whether unbelievers or merely ignorant men, who endeavor to find an argument here to help them in demonstrating a want of harmony between the holy evangelists, men of faith and learning, on the other hand, ought rather to bring this into the service of proving the unity which characterizes the holy prophets.”

Matthew Poole (1624-1679):

“spoken by Jeremy the prophet is a harder knot. It is observable that Zechariah hath many things found in Jeremiah, and it is not improbable that the very same thing was prophesied by Jeremiah, though afterward repeated by Zechariah, and only in the writings of Zechariah left upon sacred record.”

John Gill (1697-1771):

“But what seems best to solve this difficulty, is, that the order of the books of the Old Testament is not the same now, as it was formerly: the sacred writings were divided, by the Jews, into three parts: the first was called the law, which contains the five books of Moses; the second, the prophets, which contains the former and the latter prophets; the former prophets began at Joshua, and the latter at Jeremy; the third was called Cetubim, or the Hagiographa, the holy writings, which began with the book of Psalms: now, as this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, Luke 24:44, because it began with that book; so all that part which contained the latter prophets, for the same reason, beginning at Jeremy, might be called by his name; hence a passage, standing in the prophecy of Zechariah, who was one of the latter prophets, might be justly cited, under the name of Jeremy. That such was the order of the books of the Old Testament, is evident from the following passage:

“‘it is a tradition of our Rabbins, that the order of the prophets is, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and the Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve.’” (a) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 14. 2. Vid. Praefat. R. David Kimchici in Jer.

Adam Clarke (1760-1832):

“It was an ancient custom among the Jews, says Dr. Lightfoot, to divide the Old Testament into three parts: the first beginning with the law was called THE LAW; the second beginning with the Psalms was called THE PSALMS; the third beginning with the prophet in question was called JEREMIAH: thus, then, the writings of Zechariah and the other prophets being included in that division that began with Jeremiah, all quotations from it would go under the name of this prophet. If this be admitted, it solves the difficulty at once. Dr. Lightfoot quotes Baba Bathra, and Rabbi David Kimchi's preface to the prophet Jeremiah, as his authorities; and insists that the word Jeremiah is perfectly correct as standing at the head of that division from which the evangelist quoted, and which gave its denomination to all the rest.”

Albert Barnes (1798-1870):

“Much difficulty has been experienced in explaining this quotation. In ancient times, according to the Jewish writers, ‘Jeremiah’ was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed first in the ‘Book of the Prophets,’ thus: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. Some have thought that Matthew, quoting this place, quoted the Book of the Prophets under the name of that which had the ‘first’ place in the book, that is, Jeremiah; and though the words are those of Zechariah, yet they are quoted correctly as the words of the Book of the Prophets, the first of which was Jeremiah…Others have supposed that the words were ‘spoken by Jeremiah,’ and that ‘Zechariah’ recorded them, and that Matthew quoted them as they were – the words of Jeremiah.”

John Albert Broadus (1827-1895):

“Hengstenberg thinks that as the later prophets often reproduce earlier predictions, so Zech. was here really reproducing Jer. 18:2 and 19:2, and Matt. intentionally refers to the original source, though adopting mainly the later form…On the whole the last seems the most nearly satisfactory theory; but some of the other are possible, even plausible. If not quite content with any of these explanations, we had better leave the question as it stands, remembering how slight an unknown circumstance might solve it in a moment…”

 Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892):

“Even the disposal of the thirty pieces of silver fulfilled an ancient prophecy. The dark sayings of the prophets as well as their brighter utterances shall all be proved to be true as, one by one, they come to maturity.”

Herman Hanko:

“The truth of Scripture’s infallibility does not rest on our ability to solve problems created by this passage—and others like it. The proof of Scripture’s infallibility rests on the testimony of Scripture itself and the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers (John 10:35; 17:17)… we are not going to examine the text to find out whether Scripture is infallible or fallible. We are going to assume, before even beginning to examine the text, that Scripture is infallible and contains no mistakes. Whether we find a satisfactory answer or not makes no difference… There is an explanation offered by James Montgomery Boice, which seems to me to be the true solution. Boice writes, ‘The verses [in Zechariah] are not about a person who betrays the Messiah, and they say nothing about buying a field. On the other hand, Jeremiah 19 describes a symbolic action in which Jeremiah buys and then breaks a potter’s jar, symbolizing the destruction of the nation, and chapter 32 describes the purchase of a field ... The best explanation is probably that Matthew was putting together a number of passages that add significance to the death of Jesus’ false but well-known disciple Judas. The reference to Jeremiah 19 seemed appropriate because it refers to ‘innocent blood’ and because the place where the prophet broke the jar would eventually be used as a burial ground for those who were to die in the siege of Jerusalem. The reference to Zechariah and his role as a shepherd of the people adds the ideas of the rejection of Jesus as the true shepherd of the flock, his being valued at the price of a mere slave, and the betrayal money being cast into the temple.’”

Jeff Riddle:

“Matthew 27:9 was not considered a controversial matter in the days of early Christianity. As Metzger put it, the traditional text was ‘firmly established,’ and it raised no serious questions about the infallibility of Scripture.

“We can safely assume this same pre-critical posture in our generation.

“In the end, the most reasonable explanation as to why the reference is given in Matthew 27:9 to Jeremiah when the quotes which follows is taken from Zechariah, is the fact that Matthew and his hearers would have been accustomed to making reference to the whole of the prophets by use of the name Jeremiah as a reference to the whole corpus of prophetic writings.”

Assessing interpretations of Psalm 12:6-7

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. Psalm 12:6-7

In the third iteration of the Textual Confidence Collective, the four collectors took on “Textual Absolutism: Its Theology.” Mark Ward writes, “We treat the key biblical texts relating to preservation (like Ps. 12:6-7...” Their collected thoughts are that Psalm 12:6-7 does not teach the preservation of the scriptures.

 

Tim Berg mentions that Mark is writing or giving some kind of paper on this topic. Mark’s own statement indicates the paper is not finished. Without having seen the paper or knowing exactly what it is, I fire this warning shot across the bow of what Mark says about it on TCC. The work includes some kind of survey of beliefs about Psalm 12:6-7.[i] Around 7:44 Mark mentions checking about 60 something “interpreters” of Psalm 12:6-7 and the “overwhelming majority” of these interpreters believe that both “thems” in verse 7 refer to the poor and needy of verse 5 (i.e., the nouns poor & needy are the antecedent of the pronouns them). In his research, he found a minority that believed the first “them” referred to the words, and the second “them” to the poor – and he could not find anybody in the history of the church before King James Onlyism that used especially the last half of verse 7 in reference to textual preservation.

 

Three main views of Psalm 12:7

1. Protecting people

• “keep them” and “preserve them” refer to the poor and needy of verse 5, the collective “him” God will help.

2. Protecting precepts and people

• “keep them” refers to the pure words of the Lord of verse 6, and “preserve them” refers to the poor and needy of verse 5

3. Protecting precepts

• “keep them” and “preserve them” refer to the pure words of the Lord of verse 6.

Mark thinks that the majority in the history of the church should get something like this right, and so gives weight to the majority interpretation. He admits, “I’m willing to see that [the split view, precepts and people] as a legitimate interpretation,” and does acknowledge he cannot absolutely rule out the gender mismatch possibility in the Hebrew pointed out by some supporters of the preservation view. Nevertheless, he and the others are clear where they stand – Psalm 12:6-7 does not teach the preservation of the text of Scripture.

 

Around 2017, I started making notes of what commentators said about “keep them” and “preserve them” in Psalm 12:7. Initially I only tried to find older commentators (1800s backward). As I searched and found material, I added some that are more contemporary. I made a conscious effort to not add the views of anyone I would consider King James Only. (So my list does not include commenters who hold those views, so far as I know.) I also noticed times when a commenter mentioned someone whose view was different from his own – such as John Gill mentioning he did not agree with Abraham ben Ezra (who said it referred to “words”). John Calvin believed it was the poor while mentioning that “Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words…”

My Excel file contains views of 50 “interpreters.” Four on my list I consider neutral. For example, Matthew Poole wrote “either, the poor and needy; or, the words.” 26 interpreted both “thems” as people only. 17 split the interpretation between words (first “them”) and people (second “them”). Three spoke of “words” only in regard to both “thems.” Therefore, in my research, nearly half (4+17+3; 48%) held a view other than both “thems” meaning only people (However, I expect this is just a random result and the percentage in favor of a “protecting people” interpretation is generally higher.) Additionally, I list separately 18 religious authors who wrote about and made application to the Scriptures in reference to Psalm 12:6-7.

The folks on my list are primarily in the Baptist, Evangelical, Protestant, Reformed realm. Two exceptions are one Roman Catholic (Robert Bellarmine) and one Greek Orthodox (Apostolos Makrakēs), both of whom took the “protecting people” view. I excluded groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Spiritualists, and Unitarians (unless I failed to realize the commenters affiliation). While searching, I noticed Emanuel Swedenborg had a Psalms commentary. He seemed to hold the “protecting people” view, writing that the Lord would “deliver the good against the evil.” (Nevertheless, he is not included in the 26.)

 

I find such a survey intriguing, though perhaps not worth a great deal beyond the historical insight it provides.

 

1. Might does not make right. We don’t take a vote to decide the interpretation of Scripture. Mark acknowledged that we do not decide our theology or biblical interpretation “by plebiscite or referendum.”[ii] If so, we might be Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox, for it may appear there are more with them than with us![iii] No doubt painfully novel interpretations might be set aside. On the other hand, we should take care not to follow a majority into error. I have read that Charles Spurgeon once quipped, “Commentators are like sheep; they follow one another and they all go astray.” I could not document that quote, but G. Campbell Morgan most certainly wrote, “Expositors have a habit, like sheep, of going in flocks, and sometimes it may be said of them, ‘All we like sheep have gone astray.’” (Morgan, Hosea: The Heart and Holiness of God, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998, p. 31).

 

2. The sampling is skewed. Mine was random searches on Psalm 12 and includes 50 interpretations of Psalm 12:6-7. I assume Mark’s would be random as well (he mentions searching in Logos), and he says he found about 60-something. So, I think that part is good, in that we were not just mining quotes just to come up with support of our positions. Nevertheless, I still think the results will be somewhat skewed.

 

The views will be skewed in whose views they represent. In searching works published and preserved in print, the comments will be primarily from those with sufficient importance to be in print. Elder Joe Doe at Sleepytown Baptist Church, who has spent 50 serious years toiling in the word and trusting in God in order to faithfully preach to his congregation each week will not be represented. Nevertheless, he is as much a representative of the thought of the churches on the subject as Keil and Delitzsch.[iv] This, as I have documented it, is also skewed by completely excluding those who hold a specific KJV textual preservation view, though they are also representatives of the thoughts of the churches of God.[v]

 

The views will be skewed in how many views they represent. My 50 “interpreters” range from Diodore of Tarsus (in the 300s) to Jim Hamilton (mentioned by Mark Ward in the video) in 2021. Mark’s list has over 60, though I do not know the time frame or people represented. Our lists likely are not exactly the same people; perhaps they could represent 70 or 75 interpreters, which is likely a good representation of what is available. However, that is still only 70 or 75 people out of the millions of Christians who have lived and believed something about Psalm 12:6-7. Perhaps not as dire as it could seem, since those counted obviously will hold views representing those not counted. But how well? There is a lot of room for error.

 

3. The method is misses the mark, disallowing a full-orbed view of the topic. I do not believe it can deliver what it promises. Mark parses the “interpretation” too closely and therefore misses some of the whole story. He wants the support to be exact in mentioning perfect preservation regarding verse 7. Some may hold “the people view,” “the precepts view,” or “the precepts & people view” and yet also believe that the verses have application to the idea of textual preservation – that is, preservation of the text of the Bible from the time the words were inspired to the present. In my Excel file I compiled 18 statements in which non-KJVO writers comment on the preservation of Scripture in the context of Psalm 12:6-7, even though they may not interpret both “thems” in verse 7 as the words of Scripture.

 

Notice for examples S. H. Cox (Presbyterian), Louis Gaussen (Swiss Protestant), and W. A. Jarrel (Baptist).

“3. The scriptures have been providentially preserved from all substantial corruptions of the text, so that they answer the original design of their author in remaining a volume (or rather many volumes) of divine inspiration, virtually and wonderfully pure. Psalm 12:6,7.” (Quakerism Not Christianity: Or Reasons for Renouncing the Doctrine of Friends, Samuel Hanson Cox, Boston, MA: D. Fanshaw, 1833, p. 269)

“But, thanks to God, it is not so in our sacred books. They contain no errors; all their writings are inspired of God. ‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;’ so that none of these words ought to be neglected, and we are called to respect them and to study them even to their least iota and to their least tittle, for these ‘words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, they are perfect.’ These assertions, themselves testimonies of the word of God, contain precisely our last definition of Theopneusty, and lead us to characterize it finally as ‘that inexplicable power which the Divine Spirit formerly exercised over the authors of the Holy Scriptures, to guide them even in the employment of the words they were to use, and to preserve them from all error, as well as from every omission.’” Theopneusty; Or, The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen, translated by Edward Norris Kirk, original in French circa 1840).

“Of all the inspired writings, the Psalmist says: ‘The words of the Lord are pure words ... Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation’ (Ps. xii. 6)…” (ellipsis original; “The Bible Verbally Inspired,” W. A. Jarrel, Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 64, 1907, p. 125).

Conclusion

A mathematical count of the Psalm 12:6-7 views of commentators, expositors, or interpreters, is useful and interesting, yet falls short of completely demonstrating their providential preservation views, or giving a true representation of the views of the churches on this subject. An expositor might say “them” is words, but apply it only to the specific words of Psalm 12 and not to the text of Scripture. Another commentator might say “them” is people, then change course and make application of the text to the Scriptures. We will not solve or settle the meaning and application of Psalm 12:6-7 by taking a poll.

Psalm 12:6-7 praises the nature of God’s words and his promises. The 7th verse may not be first of all directly about the preservation of the text of scripture. Nevertheless, this text, the nature and purity of God’s words, and the reliability of God’s promises, have tremendous implications on the idea of the preservation of God’s words in Scripture. Unless one possesses a low view of Scripture, there is no reason to suppose what God said (by inspiration) that has been written down is somehow less true and less dependable! We know Psalm 12, not because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to us personally and individually, but because he has preserved his word. Consequently, is it really necessary here to choose between God speaking of either preserving the poor and needy or preserving his words? This verily can be a promise to preserve both the words and the poor and needy. The poor and needy are secure because God’s words are sure.

---

[i] Since this was recorded in May 2022, the paper may be out there somewhere in the electronic air.

[ii] plebiscite, noun. a direct vote of the qualified voters of a state in regard to some important public question.
[iii] Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. 2 Kings 6:16.
[iv] And as we progress closer to contemporary times, it may be that commentaries are more representative of the academy than the churches.
[v] I nevertheless, for my part, chose to do that on purpose. I am not trying to see how many people hold my view of preservation, but what views are held by those who do not hold my view.