No. 76 OFFICIAL NEWS ORGAN OF THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY April - June, 2006

"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)

• July 19-20 Meeting

• Get Hotel Room Now

• Meeting Tapes

In case you could not be at the annual conference, you can order audio tapes (9 audio cassettes @ $25 + $4 S&H) or video tapes (2 videos or DVD’s, 6 hours each, @ $25 + $5.00 S&H)

We have received news from Romania that the Cornilescu version has many errors and missionaries Pete Heisey and Brian Nibbe have completed a NT translation from the TR.

Pastor Nikola Vukov from Varazdin, Croatia is working on as new translation for the former republics of Yugoslavia using the TR and MT because the only one they have is corrupted with Catholic doctrine.

Dr. Humberto Gomez announced the publication of the Spanish Bible, which many persons have labored on for many years. It is the 1909 corrected to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie the KJB. Dr. D. A. Waite, President of the DBS, recommends this update. It may be purchased at www.BibleForToday.org. Articles may be found at the DBS Website about the Spanish Bible.

The new format for the DBS News will continue in this issue as answers to questions raised around the world by those who deny the preservation of the Words of Scripture are addressed. The fonts and spacings are "tight" in order to keep the total pages to 8 and the cost of publication down.

We would like to request that you take time to visit the DBS Website for many excellent articles about these issues. A newsletter cannot address all of the points.

The articles in this DBSN address three different but equally important issues. The first article by Dr. Strouse confronts acquiescence of many to evolution of the Hebrew language. Dr. Strouse is Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary. The second article by Dr. Strouse addresses questions raised about the proper translation and exegesis of Psalm 12, particularly vv. 6-7.

The third article is by Dr. And Mrs. Waite about Dean John William Burgon. You will enjoy this article, which is full of insights about Dean Burgon.

A Review of Peter Whitfield's "A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points"

Although some may surmise that the defense for the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points is a recent novelty, both Scripture and history argue in favor of their ab origine status. Scriptural arguments will be forthcoming whereas historical arguments will proceed immediately. The Yale Sterling Memorial Library in New Haven, CT, is one of eight libraries worldwide that holds the rare work of Peter Whitfield entitled A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points. Shewing that they are an Original and Essential Part of the Language (Liverpoole: Peter Whitfield, 1748), 288 pp. This is one of several volumes that show the trend in the post-Reformation era to defend the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points against the 16^th century speculation of the likes of Elias Levita and Jacque Cappel (Capellus).¹ Others in this trend defending the divinely-given vowel points were Johann Buxtorf² and John Owen (17^th century),³ John Gill⁴ as well as Whitfield (18^th century), and John Moncrieff (19^th century).⁵

Whitfield's lengthy volume of 288 pages includes an introduction, ten arguments and a conclusion. Throughout, he dialogues with the positions of Levita and Capellus, giving many Biblical examples to refute their notion of the novelty of vowel points. In Whitfield's introduction he stresses how the Roman Catholic Church favors Levita's position because it allows the priests to have the final say in interpretation. The lack of authoritative vowel points in the Hebrew Old Testament (OT) leaves the meaning of many Words to the interpreter. The following sections in Whitfield's volume are his arguments for the divine origin of the Hebrew vowel points of the OT.

I. The necessity of vowel-points in reading the Hebrew language (pp. 6-46).

Whitfield argues for the obvious necessity of vowels in teaching the Hebrew language. Without vowels, simple pronunciations so necessary in learning a language are impossible. He reproves Levita's naiveté in suggesting that the master could teach a child with a thrice-rehearsed effort (pp. 22-23). The author gives several biblical examples proving this necessity.

II. The necessity for forming different Hebrew conjugations, moods, tenses, as well as dual and plural endings on nouns (pp. 47-57).

That both Hebrew verbs, including the seven conjugations, the moods and tenses, and the Hebrew nouns, with singular, dual and plural endings, are based on vowel diagnostic indicators is without controversy. The tremendous complexity of the Hebrew language without vowels argues against any oral tradition preservation inscripturated through the recent invention of vowels. Whitfield poignantly argues "whoever will consider a great many instances of these differences, as they occur, will own, he must have been a person of very great sagacity, who could ever have observed them without the points" (p. 48).

III. The necessity of vowel-points in distinguishing a great number of Words with different significations which without vowel-points are the same (58-61).

Whitfield gives many examples of the same consonants with different points constituting different Words. The diacritical mark (dot) above the right tooth or the left tooth of the shin/sin letter makes a great difference in some Words. He argues that if he gave all the examples, Whitfield would need "to transcribe a good part of the Bible or lexicon" (p. 58).

The Jews were zealous for their language, Whitfield observes, and they would not have been careless to let the inscripturated vocalization disappear through careless or indifferent oral tradition from the time of the captivity onward. He cites several ancient authorities describing the Jews' fanaticism about protecting the minuteness of their Scripture.

Whitfield argues that the advocates for the recent vowel system have a wide variety of suggestions. Concerning the authors, some maintain that the inventors were the Tiberian Jews while others suggest that it was Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh (cf. AD 230). Some say the points were invented after the Talmud (c. AD 200-500), by the Masoretes⁶ (AD 600), or in the 10^th century or the 11^th century. For the place some have posited Tiberias whereas others have suggested the "lesser Asia."

Whitfield cites both early rabbins and Jerome as neglecting to refer to the late (post-Mosaic) origin of vowel-points.

VII. The absolute necessity to ascertain Divine authority of the Scripture of the OT (89-119).

The author, Whitfield, affirms that Scripture is based on words and words are based on consonants and vowels. If there are no vowels in the Hebrew OT originals, then there is no Divine authority of the Hebrew OT Scriptures, he argues, citing II Tim. 3:16. Whitfield then gives a vast listing of passages that change meaning when points are lost, and thereby undermining divine authority.

VIII. The many anomalies or irregularities of punctuation in the Hebrew grammar (120-133).

Whitfield's objection to the novelty of vowel-points is the many exceptions to vowel-point rules, which these anomalies and irregularities demand a codified system for their exceptions to emphasize a particular point of grammar and truth.

IX. The importance of the Kethiv readings versus the Keri marginal renderings (134-221)

The existence of Kethiv (Aramaic for "write") readings in the Hebrew text and Keri (Aramaic for "call") readings in the margin of Hebrew manuscripts show that the rabbins were serious about preserving the original Words, including the vowel-points, when a questionable Word arose in a manuscript. The pre-Christian antiquity of the Keri readings in the margin demands the pre-Masoretic antiquity of the vowel points.

X. The answer to two material questions (222-282).

Whitfield responds to two of three significant questions in this section: 1) Why does the LXX and Jerome's version differ from the Hebrew text in corresponding vowels on proper names? 2) Why the silence of the Jewish writers on the pointing prior to the 6^th century of Christianity? and 3) Why were unpointed copies used in the Jewish synagogues? Briefly, he refutes the first questions by stating that the differences in the translations and the Hebrew pointed texts cannot be attributed to the vowels since the translators obviously did use the pointed copies, and that the Jewish commentators, coeval with the Masoretes, did in fact refer to the points. The third question, answered later in his book, is resolved by the fact that there is no historical proof that unpointed copies were used exclusively in the synagogues.

Whitfield concludes his biblical and linguistic defense of the antiquity of the vowels, saying: "[I]t is manifestly impossible the contrary should be a self evident, incontestible, truth; and all the writings which have been published, in favour of the novelty, cannot make it so; especially as, in them all, very imperfect answers have been given to any of these arguments for the antiquity; and the principal have not, so much as, been mentioned. And the character of the learned authors, who have asserted the novelty of the points, is, certainly at least, ballanced by those of the contrary opinion: for against Elias Levita, Capellus, Walton, etc., we need not blush to place the two Buxtorfs…Vander Hooght…Gagnier…Scultens (p. 288)."

The aforementioned writers, who have defended the divine origin of the Hebrew vowel points, including Whitfield, consistently give some basic Scriptural and linguistic arguments that are difficult if not impossible to overturn. This present author will revisit Whitfield's first three arguments and give fresh examples from the Hebrew text of Scripture to prove the Biblical necessity of the divinely inspired and preserved Hebrew vowel points.

When the Lord renewed His covenant with Israel, He used Moses to write the very same Words that were on the initial tablets (Ex. 34:1 ff.). The Lord said to Moses, "Write thou these Words: for after the tenor of these Words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel" (v. 27). The expression "after the tenor of these Words" (`al piy hadevariym ha'elleh) could be translated literally "on [the basis of] the mouth of these Words." The only way Moses could have written the Lord's spoken Words was to hear the vowels in the consonants and then to write the Words with the vowels intact. The Mosaic Law, then, constituted the very written Words of Jehovah, including the consonants and vowels. Furthermore, the Jews were to obey the Mosaic Law in minute detail, not adding to nor diminishing from it (Dt. 4:2). They were to keep or preserve (shamar) the Law and not forget the things they had seen and were written down in it, and then to teach their children the Mosaic Law (vv. 6, 9, 10; cf. 6:7; 32:46). These verses conclusively argue against any notion that the vowel sounds were merely given to Moses who passed on the oral tradition of the pronunciation until the Masoretes invented a system to approximate the vowels. Levitas' speculation that the Masoretes invented the points has nothing to commend it but has all Scriptural authority to condemn it.⁷

The initial Psalm addresses the blessed man and his responsibility to delight in and meditate on the law of the Lord, stating: "But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night" (Ps. 1:2). The word "meditate" comes from hagah that means "to mutter" and suggests the deliberate pronunciation of the Words of Scripture. It is impossible to recite consonants without vowels and it is impossible to delight (chaphatz) in consonants with non-authoritative vowels. Again, the fallacious view that man invented the Hebrew vowel points has nothing to commend it. Is there any reason that Bible believers must countenance the view that the Lord God, the Creator of language, disdains vowels, at least to the extent that He would preserve them in written form?⁸ After all, has not the Lord Jesus Christ referred to Himself as the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 21:6), the first and last vowels of the Greek language?⁹

Hebrew verbs are made up of seven stems, of which are the Qal stem and six derived stems, including the Niphal, Piel, Pual, Hithpael, Hiphil, and Hophal.¹⁰ These stems apply equally to both the strong and weak verbs. The differentiation of some of these stems is based on complex vowel pointing, without which tremendous confusion abounds. The Piel and Pual differ from each other and the Qal stem only by vowels and diacritical marks. The Niphal perfect 3ms (3^rd person, masculine, singular), Niphal imperfect 1cp (1^st person, common, plural), and Niphal participle ms differ by vowel points alone, and both may be confused with the Qal imperfect 1cp except for the points. The imperfect forms for all of the stems except the Hiphil and Hithpael are identical without points and consequent confusion would abound without the divinely preserved vowel points. If the stems are significant, which they must be, then their respective vowel differences are significant, and must be carefully maintained to make sense of any given passage.

For example, in Gen. 1:26, Scripture uses the first of several Qal imperfect 1cp verbs (na`eseh) for God to designate "let us make" man. However, without vowels this verb could be "he was made" (Niphal [passive] perfect 3ms) or "we will be made" (Niphal imperfect 1cp). Furthermore, the Niphal participle ms without the pointing would be the same consonants and mean "being made." Although some might say that the context would always show which conjugation and tense was divinely inspired, in this case the context would probably eliminate only the participle. Did Jehovah say "let us make" man, or man "he was made," or "we will be made" man?

Another example should suffice for this point. In response to Isaac's query about the animal sacrifice, Abraham answered "God will provide (yire'eh) himself a lamb" (Gen. 22:8). Is the verb Qal imperfect 3ms and therefore active ("God will provide for Himself a lamb") or Niphal imperfect 3ms and therefore reflexive ("God will provide Himself for a lamb")? The Masoretic text has the former reading and therefore the answer is that God, and no one else, including Abraham, will provide the lamb.¹¹ Without authoritative pointing, the precise theology required here and elsewhere is forfeited.

With respect to nouns, the endings on masculine nouns are necessary to determine number. In Hebrew nouns may be singular, dual or plural. Examples of dual masculine nouns include things that come in pairs such as hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc. The distinctive ending of a masculine dual noun is pathach, yodh, chirek, and mem, in contrast to the distinctive ending of a masculine plural noun: chirek, yodh, mem. The first verse of the OT Scriptures is instructive. Scripture says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth" (Gen. 1:1). Without authoritative vowels, one would not know that the word "God" ('elohim) is a masculine plural noun and that the word "heaven" (hashshamayim) is a masculine dual noun. The Masoretic text teaches that the plural Godhead created the two heavens (first and second).¹² Or was it that the dual Godhead (yin yang) created a plurality of heavens?

Regarding proper nouns, the consonantal text provides several interesting, but non-authoritative, alternatives to the Masoretic pointed text. In Proverbs 30:1, did Agur address Ithiel and Ucal? Kidner states, "The Hebrew consonants of this phrase can be revocalized to read: 'I have wearied myself, O God, I have wearied myself, O God, and come to an end', which introduces the opening theme well. The ancient versions likewise eliminate the proper names, but fail to agree in their translations. It remains an open question."¹³ If vowel points may be rearranged in proper nouns, what prevents the interpreter from the thorough rearrangement of major sections of the Hebrew text and thereby the creation of new and false doctrine?

Another example of the alleged need to revocalize the Masoretic text brings consternation to those who maintain the integrity and originality of the Hebrew vowel points. In the passage that deals with "the great wall" of Aphek, the Scripture states "there a wall fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left" (I Ki. 20:30).

Kulus, in citing Donald Wiseman's statement: "The 'thousand' ('eleph) might be revocalized without change of consonants to 'officer' ('alluph)…the number might represent twenty-seven officers killed," charges some who "will not hear this number because it is too large!"¹⁴ In this context one would not know if 27,000 men were killed or twenty-seven officers were killed.

In Psalm 119, the sin/shin stanza (vv. 161-168), displays an illustration of the necessity for diacritical markings (i.e., tittles [Mt. 5:18]). The sibilant or "s" letter designated sin looks like a three-pronged comb with a dot over the left tooth (f). The shin has the same consonantal form but has the diacritical dot over the right tooth (v) and produces the "sh" consonant. The psalmist declared in v. 164 "Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments." Without the diacritical dot over the right tooth of the first consonant in the noun sheva` ("seven"), the Word could be the perfect verb sava` ("he is satisfied"). Therefore the Hebrew text could read "He is satisfied in the day I do praise thee because of thy righteous judgments." The context cannot render an authoritative solution and hence the text becomes as wax ready to be twisted by every interpreter.

Moses puns on the nakedness of Adam and Eve and the subtlety of the serpent, using two Words with the same consonants, `arom and `arum, respectively. The only difference between these two adjectives, other than the first is plural¹⁵ and the second is singular, is the vowel pointing. What did Moses intend to say: " the couple was naked and the serpent was subtle," "the couple was subtle and the serpent was subtle," "the couple was subtle and the serpent was naked," or "the couple was naked and the serpent was naked"? At this stage in the development of Moses' narrative, it would be impossible to know absolutely without pointing.

Finally, a cursory glance at any elementary Hebrew glossary would show basic Words differentiated only by pointing. For example, one should consider the following: 'l ("God" or "to" or "no"), 'm ("mother" or "if"), 'ph ("nose" or "also"), 'th ("with" or "you"), bn ("to perceive" or "between"), bqr ("cows" or "morning"), gll ("to roll" or "on account of"), hw' ("he" or "she"), hnh ("they" or "market "), zcr ("male" or "to remember"), chwh ("to bow" or "Eve"), lchm ("to fight" or "bread"), mn ("from" or "manna"), ngs/ngsh ("to beat" or "to draw near"), `d ("witness" or "unto"), `wr ("to arouse" or "skin"), `m ("people" or "with"), prs/prsh ("to spread out" or "horseman"), r` ("friend" or "evil"), and shm ("name" or "there"). With these Words, some verbs, some nouns, some adjectives, some adverbs, and some pronouns, making up thousands of contextual possibilities, it would ludicrous to suggest vowels were not originally inscripturated.

Whitfield's volume draws attention to the ongoing attack upon the authority of Scripture. He argues succinctly for the Scriptural and linguistic necessities of the inspiration and preservation of the vowel points of the OT Hebrew text. He is in the list of defenders of the preservation of the Hebrew vowels. Those that would attempt to overthrow the biblical and linguistic arguments marshaled by these scholars must do so on the basis of several presuppositions. They must presuppose that the Scripture does not teach the preservation of the Words of the Lord, that Hebrew may be learned precisely and preserved without authoritative vowels, and that the Lord God, for some unknown reason, disdains the preservation of vowels along with His inspired and preserved consonants. This essay has refuted all three fallacious presuppositions. The real issue is the one of final authority. Who has the last say about the Old Testament, and consequently about all of the Scripture--the Roman Catholic Church, the Masoretes, modern scholars, or the Lord Jesus Christ? Will professed Bible believers allow the Lord to speak authoritatively through His Old Testament Words?

1. The Reformation (AD 1517) set the stage for the Biblical Criticism movement which challenged all biblical authority, including the inspiration and preservation of the Hebrew vowel points of the OT Scriptures.

2. Johann Buxtorf, Tractatus de punctorum vocalium, et accentuum, in libris Veteris Testamenti hebraicis, origine, antiquitate, & authoritate: oppositus Arcano punctationis revelato, Ludovici Cappelli (Basileae: Sumptibus haeredum L. Konig, 1648), 437 pp.

3. John Owen, Biblical Theology (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996 reprint of the 1661 edition), pp. 495-533.

4. John Gill, A Dissertation concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, LETTERS, VOWEL POINTS, and ACCENTS (London: n. p., 1767), 72 pp. 5. John Moncrieff, An Essay on the Antiquity and Utility of the Hebrew Vowel-Points (Glasgow: John Reid & Co., 1833), 107 pp.

6. This word comes from masar and means "to hand down." It is variously spelled and any reference to the Masoretes in this essay refers to their popularization of the pointed Hebrew text. Reference to the Masoretic Hebrew text is similar to reference to the King James Bible. In neither case do advocates promote the Masoretes or King James of England as spiritual worthies.

7. Owens questions the very existence of a 5^th or 6^th century school of Masoretes, stating "It is said to have been the common work of the school of Massoretes in Tiberias. At least Elias Levita says so...What then if someone should suggest that these Tiberian Massoretes perhaps never did exist at all, and that those who would persuade us that the Massoretes dreamed up the points first dreamed up the Massoretes themselves?" p. 508-509.

8. Cf. Ps. 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," and Mt. 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away."

9. In fact, would not the questioning of the inspired and preserved vowels of the Scripture, Old Testament or New Testament, be constituted as an attack upon the person of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn. 5:46-47)?

10. For the non-Hebraist, these stems are derived from the consonants of the Qal (simple) verb and represent the simple passive voice, the intensive active voice, the intensive passive voice, the intensive reflexive voice, the causative active voice, and the causative passive voice, respectively.

11. The issue of whether the divine Lord Jesus Christ is the Lamb or not is not the question here since the NT clearly states that He is the Lamb of God (cf. Jn. 1:29, 36; I Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:6; et al).

12. The Lord created the third heaven (II Cor. 12:3) during the creation week (Job 38:7; Col. 1:16) but its creation is not alluded to in first chapter of Genesis.

13. Derek Kidner, Proverbs, An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 178.

14. Chester Kulus, Those So-Called Errors (Newington, CT: Emmanuel Baptist Theological Press, 2003), p. 304.

15. Moses uses the plural `arummiym (naked) in Gen. 2:25 and Solomon uses the plural `arumiym (prudent) in Prov. 14:18. In this case, the only difference is the dagesh forte (dot) in the mem ("m") of the former word "naked."

Psalm 12 is a psalm of contrasts. It contrasts the godly with the ungodly and the Words of the Lord with the words of men. The latter contrast gives the backdrop to one of the clearest promises in the OT for the preservation of God’s Words. Although some dismiss or deny the promise of the Lord that He will preserve His Words forever, a Hebrew exegesis of this Psalm will demonstrate unambiguously this proper understanding of verses 6-7 (vv. 7-8 in Heb.):¹ The KJB, in contradistinction to some modern versions,² gives this aforementioned sense: "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."

The title³ of this psalm reveals several important facts.  The psalm was for the choirmaster (jX@n~m=l^)[)))⁴ to be chanted with the eight stringed harps (tyn]ym!V=h^).⁵ It was a psalm ((romz=m!) that David authored (dw]d*l=).⁶ David obviously lamented the evil words of his enemies, but the specific occasion is not revealed in the psalm.

The Structure of the psalm is asymmetric. This structure causes the focus to be on C., God’s Promises. David’s lament carries the reader from the need for Divine help, because of the words of the ungodly, focusing on the promises of God for deliverance, which include the permanent preservation of His Words which is the antidote to the words of the wicked, who are ever present.

TITLE

A. The Recognition of the Need for Divine Help (v. 1)

David appealed to the Lord for help (hu*yv!oh),⁷ fearing that the godly man (dys!j*)⁸ would come to an end (rm^g`) and faithful men (<yn]Wma$) would vanish (WSp^)⁹ from mankind.  The reference to the individual godly man no doubt refers to David and the faithful men refers to the larger community of believers, all of whom were on the brink of annihilation, or so the psalmist thought.¹⁰ This apparent obliteration of the righteous was in contradistinction to the Lord’s covenant promise for the remnant (cf. Gen. 12:1-3; Isa. 10:20).

B. The Threat of the Words of the Ungodly (vv. 2-4)

David acutely sensed the threat of the words of the ungodly around him.  Using two different verbs WrB=d^y= (3x)¹¹ and Wrm=a*, the wicked told empty lies (aw+v*)¹² with flattering lips (2x), a double heart, and a flattering tongue (2x).  The psalmist recorded the claim of the wicked, stating “With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own:  who is lord over us?” (v. 4). These wicked men asserted that they would prevail (rb^G¹³ and that they were autonomous.  “Who is lord (/oda*) over us?” suggests the rebellious attitude of those who said “There is no God” (Psm. 14:1).  The “atheists” in this latter instance are those who rejected God’s lordship (vv. 2, 4).  David asserted or prayed that the Lord would cut off (tr@k=y~) these braggarts.  This Hiphil imperfect verb could be understood as an assertion “the Lord will cut off” or a prayer “may the Lord cut off.”

C. God’s Promises (v. 5)

The structure of the psalm focuses on the promises of God.¹⁴ The Lord promised that, because “of the oppression of the poor,” and “of the sighing of the needy,” He would “arise and set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.”  Since the poor (<yY]n]u&) were despoiled and the needy (<yn]oyb=a#) were groaning, the Lord made significant promises.  “Now will I arise (<Wqa*; cf. Isa. 33:10),” the Lord promised, and set the psalmist in safety (uv^y}B=).¹⁵ The Lord promised to arise (cf. Psm. 9:19) and intervene on the part of the faithful.  His promise was to place him in safety, the very help for which the psalmist David asked (v. 1). The safety was deliverance from those that puff at (j^yp!y`)¹⁶ the author with flattering but empty words.

B’. The Antidote of God’s Words (vv. 6-7)

The content of God’s help was the promise of His ever-present Words as an antidote to the words of the wicked. The psalmist reflects on the quality and endurance of the only tangible help that the Lord desires to give man – His perfect Words. The quality of the Lord’s Words is likened unto purified silver from a refining furnace. The result of the seven-fold refining process produced 100% perfect silver in the ancient world, and this gave an apt illustration for the quality of the perfect Words of the Lord.  Furthermore, David revealed the endurance of God’s Words, indicating that they would be preserved from that generation forever.

A’. The Recognition of the Need for Divine Help (v. 8)

David concluded the psalm recognizing his need for the Lord’s help because the wicked were all around (byb!s*) him. Their vile (tL%z%) nature was not only prevalent but exalted (<Wr)¹⁷ among the sons of man (<d*a* yn}b=l!).  David recognized that the proud words of the wicked flatterers would always be around, but so would the perfect Words of God to counter man’s lies.  Jeremiah expressed succinctly this tension between God’s Words and man’s words, stating “all the remnant of Judah…shall know whose Words shall stand, mine, or theirs” (Jer. 44:28).

Exegesis of vv. 6-7

This summary of Psalm 12 should prepare for the careful exegesis of Psalm 12:6-7.  The Masoretic text is exegeted as follows.

The psalmist recognized that the only tangible help God gives for the believer in the midst of the threats and claims of the wicked are His Words (torm=a! [f.p.]). He likened the pure Words torm*a& [f.p.] torh{f= (“pure Words”) of the Lord unto [s#K# (“silver”).  The verbs and pronominal suffixes of verse seven are critical.  The LORD is addressed as the subject of the verbs <r@m=v=T! [Qal imperfect 2m.s. with 3m.p. suffix] (“shall keep them”) and WNr#X=T! [Qal imperfect 2m.s. with 3m.s. suffix] (“shall preserve them”).  The object of the first verb <r@m=v=T!  (“shall keep them”) must be the closest antecedent torm*a& (“Words”).¹⁸ Although torm*a& is f.p. and the suffix on the verb is <X@ and m.p., this gender discordance is not unusual in other psalms dealing with God’s Words.  For instance, several examples are found in Psalm 119,¹⁹ showing the psalmist’s deliberate emphasis on masculinizing this extension (i.e., pure Words) of the patriarchal God of Scripture.  In Psalm 119:111 the Psalmist used the personal pronoun hM*h@ [m.p] (“they’) to refer to the Lord’s everlasting ;yt#odu@ [f.p.] (“testimonies”).  Clearly the Lord’s testimonies are what made the psalmist rejoice, and not the <yu!v*r= [m.p.] (“wicked”) of the previous verse (v. 110).  Again, in Psalm 119:129, the Psalmist exalted the Lord’s ;yt#odu@ [f.p.] and referred to them with the verb <t^r*x*n= [m.p. suffix] (“keep them”).  Psalm 119:152 continues to demonstrate the accepted gender discordance between the  m.p. suffix and the f.p. antecedent.  The psalmist knew of God’s ;yt#odu@ [f.p.] and that He <T*d=s^y+ [m.p.suffix] (“founded them”).  Another example of accepted gender discordance is found in Psalm 119:167.  The psalmist stated “I have guarded” the Lord’s ;yt#odu@ [f.p.] and that <b@h&a)w` [m.p. suffix] (“[and] I love them”). These examples show the importance of maintaining the accepted Hebrew grammar of closest antecedent and accepted gender discordance in exceptional cases for theological reasons.

The second verb WNr#X=T! has the pronominal suffix WNX# [3m.s.] (“him”)²⁰ which refers to the individual Words.   The pronominal suffix is not WnX# [1c.p.] “us”²¹ and could not be since the first verb does not have WnX# as its suffix.  The first verb refers to all the Words the Lord preserved and the second to the very individual Words He preserved.  The Lord promised to preserve every one and all of His Words for every generation, because every generation will be judged by the canonical Words (i.e., OT and NT) of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Lord stated this very truth, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my Words, hath one that judgeth him:  the Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48).

Conclusion

The structure, context and exegesis of the Masoretic Hebrew Text of Psalm 12 all argue forcefully and irrefragably for the promise of the everlasting preservation of the perfect Words of the Lord.  This is one of several clear passages in which the Lord promised to preserve His canonical Words for every generation.  Man’s ever-present words are lies; God’s ever-present Words are Truth.  This is the tangible help from the Lord that the righteous man has in every generation.

Footnotes

1 Because of the inclusion of the title in the Masoretic text, these verses are numbered seven and eight in the Hebrew text, respectively.

2 The title of this psalm as well as others is part of the Masoretic text and should be considered part of the autographa. 

3 This word is found in the titles of fifty-five psalms as well as in Hab. 3:19.

4 It may refer to the octave (cf. Psm. 6:1 [Heb.]).

5 David is the predominant writer of the Psalter, having written at least seventy-three psalms (cf. Lk. 20:42).

6 The verbal root uv^y` is behind the names Joshua, Jesus, and Hosanna.

7 The consonants of this word relate to ds#j# that refers to covenant love [of the Lord].

8 This hapax legomena verb comes from ss^P* and means to disappear.

9 Elijah manifested this attitude of “solipsism” and was rebuked by the Lord (I Kings 19:14-18).

10 This verb is translated “they speak”(2x) and “speaketh.”

11 This m.s. noun means worthless, empty speech.

12 The stem of this 1cp imperfect verb is Hiphil, suggesting the force of  “we will cause to prevail.”  The root consonants are related to rb#G#, “strong man.”

13 Paul emphasized the importance of the promises of God to the believer, saying “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us” (II Cor. 1:20).

14 This noun comes from uv^y* which is the same root for help (v.1).

15 The root of this Hiphil imperfect verb is j^WP meaning to blow or breathe. The antidote to the man-breathed words are the God-breathed Words of the inspired and preserved scripture (II Tim. 3:16).

16 The exaltation of the wicked parallels vanishing of the godly in verse one.

17 The m.p. nouns <yY]n]u& (“poor”) and <yn]oyb=a# (“needy”) cannot be the antecedents of the pronominal suffix <X@ because they are not the closest antecedents and they violate the accepted gender discordance examples.

18 Psalm 119 is the locus classicus on the complete and perfect Word of God.

19 “Him” not “us” is the translation of the Hebrew in numerous passages including Psm. 5:12; 8:4; 21:3; 28:7; 34:19; 43:5, et al.

20 The support for you shall keep “us” and preserve “us” is found in the penultimate authorities of 11 Hebrew Mss. and the LXX (h(ma=V…h(ma=V).

21 The support for you shall keep “us” and preserve “us” (cf. the NIV) is found in the penultimate authorities of 11 Hebrew Mss. and the LXX (hμaV…hμaV).

Defense of the Scriptures. Over a hundred years ago there was a warrior and fighter for the Scriptures. His name was John William Burgon. This champion was from a different time and century from you and me; nevertheless, he was a staunch defender of Bibliology. As you know, this discipline is the bedrock of all theology. [Bibliology refers to the doctrine of the Bible.] It is interesting to note that Burgon not only pointed out what the Words of God said, but also defended the Words of God against all errors within his own church.

Lack of Promotion. John William Burgon was a battler. He applied what he knew, and it cost him something. He did not get promoted. He was not on the English Revised Version committee of 1881. He was not made a professor, canon, or Bishop of his church. Neither was he made the head of a college. Why? Because he "rocked too many boats"! He loved God’s Book!

Birth and Early Life. John William Burgon, the Dean of Chichester, was born on August 21, 1813, in Smyrna, a province of Greece. He has been called "the champion of the impossible." His mother, Catherine Marguerite de Cramer, of French descent, was the daughter of an Austrian consul. Thomas Burgon, his British-born father, was a successful London merchant connected with the commerce of the city of London, a collector and connoisseur of ancient art. John, one of six children, was a product of the "home school." For the first eleven years of his life, his mother was his teacher. His siblings were Sarah Caroline, Thomas Charles, Emily Mary, Helen Eliza, and Catherine Margaret.

Young Scholarship. Young John had an inborn propensity to use pen and pencil. Before he was two, he could speak only a few words, but two of these words were in Greek. As he imitated writing on a page, he called out, grafw, grafw [graphO, graphO--"I am writing, I am writing!"]

John had always wanted to be educated and to be a minister, but he had to remain with his father in the family business. When that business failed, John was free to follow his desire to study at Oxford University. While many of his contemporaries had finished their formal education, thirty-year-old Burgon was just beginning his university studies.

Latin and Greek Studies. Besides memorizing Latin, Burgon did exercises in Latin and Greek history daily. He was a master of classical Greek, studying Thucydides, Aeschylus, and the Agamemnon. He also grappled with such classical Greek writers as Aristotle, Aeschylus, and Herodotus. He has been quoted as saying, "Old Aristotle I like better as I understand him more."

Needless to say, John William Burgon was a well-trained man! Besides all this advanced philosophical study, Dean Burgon read two chapters of the Old Testament daily, and often said, "I cannot feel satisfied."

Sweet Temper and Strong Heart. During a theological upheaval within his seminary, John Burgon wrote a fellow seminarian the following: "Our course is clear in good and evil report to stick to our colors, praying for sweet tempers and strong hearts; and, if need be advancing nothing that one does not feel sure of, and when once advanced, dying rather than recalling."

Burgon stood for what God stood for, for what Christ stood for, and for what the Apostle Paul stood for.

Grandfather's Stand. In 1799, John Burgon's grandfather took an interesting stand in a French Church of St. Polycarp at Smyrna. The church was going to be overrun by the Turks. His grandfather, who was in the Austrian army, heard of this take-over. He did not want that church to be desecrated by the heathen Turks.

Upon learning the news, he quickly put on his uniform, pulled on his boots, grabbed the Austrian flag, and rushed to the church, taking his post by the door. Straightway his determined grandfather removed the two guards that were stationed there and said: "Nobody is going to enter here because I'm not going to let you Turks desecrate this church!"

The Turks' superior officer came quickly. He remonstrated with John Burgon's grandfather and stated flatly that the Turkish soldiers were not moving from their posts.

With haste the brave grandfather drew his sword and vowed, "No one will enter this church without pulling down the Austrian flag first." [his eyes blazing and his head held high] "And if you do, it will be over my dead body!"

Grandfather's Determination. The Grandfather's determination was the same kind found in the fiber of John William Burgon's life. As his brave ancestor, Dean Burgon was also a stalwart for right, truth, and the Faith.

Years later, just as his grandfather had done, Dean Burgon grasped the banner of God’s Divine Words and planted himself resolutely in the doorway of the Faith. He vowed that the rationalists' desecrating feet should never enter, except by pulling down the banner, nor cross the threshold, except over his own dead body.

Concern for Students. When Burgon was a pastor, he not only preached two or three times on Sunday, but also had Bible Study at seven o'clock in the early morning with the Oxford students. They came in the evening to study also.

Eight times in a term, Pastor Burgon met with young men. For four years he taught them the book of Genesis without completing the book during that time. Ninety-six nights of teaching! Not a word, a sentence, or a chapter was skipped. His plan was to make the Bible its own commentary. He was a teacher of minute details. The result was that his students came to know other books of the Bible at the same time.

Watchdog's Bark. On all the great theological and textual questions that arose, Burgon's trumpet gave no uncertain sound. On every question, and there were many, he delivered himself with courage as one who was convinced himself, and sought to convince others also. Someone remarked: "What a splendid watchdog he is. How loud and furiously he barks when the smallest danger threatens the church or the Faith which is entrusted to the church's keeping. It is the business of a watchdog to bark furiously and to even flay at the throat of thieves."

Without a doubt, Burgon, was not only a student of the Scriptures, but also a defender of the Scriptures.

Protest of Apostasy Within His Own Church. His defenses against apostasy within his own church were remarkable and very brave. As far as the record is concerned, Westcott and Hort were silent in all the eleven church controversies in which Burgon found himself.

1. Burgon defended the Bible against rationalism. He stood for the integrity of the Words of God as the church had received it.

2. Burgon stood fast against Dr. Temple, a bishop in his Anglican Church. Temple was a writer of apostate ideas for Essays and Reviews. When Burgon was fifty-seven years of age, he stood against Temple. Affection for the man was not allowed to prevail where the maintenance of the faith was concerned.

3. Burgon battled against the Unitarian, Dr. Vance Smith, of the 1881 English Revised Version Committee of the Bible. Smith's views were intolerable. Burgon even wrote Bishop Ellicott, the Chairman, and suggested that he get that man off the revision committee or get off himself! Burgon said, "You have knowingly associated yourself with one who has openly denied the Eternal Godhead of our Lord and the inspiration of God’s Words."

4. Burgon protested the removal of the Athanasian Creed as the theological basis for his church.

5. Burgon opposed Dean Stanley, who wanted to be a teacher at Oxford, because he was a rationalist and a Latitudinarian. A Latitudinarian is one who seeks to destroy revealed truth.

6. Burgon opposed the Romanizing of the Anglican church. He was against the apostasy of his own church and against those who were seeking to have it adopt doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism.

7. Burgon opposed one of his church's publications on prophecy because the author believed that prophecy by Biblical writers (defined as knowledge of events before they happened) was impossible.

8. Burgon opposed Oxford University's test bill. The University was trying to remove the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith as a test for every student. Only the divinity students had to agree to it not the others.

9. Burgon was against the Darwinian theory of evolution.

10. Burgon did not approve of the spiritualization of Genesis by Professor Prichard who wrote that the Genesis creation was only a "poem." Burgon contended that Genesis was history in the strictest sense.

11. Burgon was against the New Reformation that attempted to change theology and Biblical interpretation.

Boldness. In 1876, at the age of sixty-three, Dean Burgon wrote a letter to a Bachelor of Arts student as follows: "Be zealous for the truth; be not ashamed to confess Christ; be bold on His behalf."

Legacy for Today. Today we have the same Bible-battle that Burgon had in his day. The battle moved from the controversy on the Words of Scripture, to the controversy on the authenticity of Scripture, to the controversy on how does one interpret or translate Scripture. Even in Dean Burgon's day Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were on the wrong side of all three of these controversies.

If we change the Biblical Words today, tomorrow we will have a horrible battle on our hands. As we have entered this new twenty-first century, beware of the seeping poison of textual changes from pulpit to pew and from preacher to people.

Experimenting with a paraphrase today could greatly harm a person tomorrow. Puffing on a cigarette today could bring cancer tomorrow. Snorting cocaine today could mean death tomorrow.

Systematic Treatise. At the age of seventy-three, two years before his death, Dean Burgon began writing his systematic defense of the Traditional Text of Scripture. It was to be a thorough going treatise on Biblical Textual Criticism in two volumes. He argued with himself before beginning: "It will take a long time. I know it. The rest of your life. I know it. It will cost a great deal of money. I know it. And you will never finish it. I know it. No one will ever appreciate it. I know it. I WILL DO IT!"

He was right. Few did appreciate it. But Dean Burgon was a determined man. He thought to himself, "Why don't I do for the whole New Testament what I have done for the Gospel of Mark?" [Referring to his book, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark]

Treatise Reprinted. This resulted in the books, The Traditional Text (Volume I), and The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text (Volume II), both of which were posthumously finished by his close associate, Rev. Edward Miller. The Dean Burgon Society has reprinted them in hardback as #1159 @ $16+$5.00 S&H and #1160 @ $15+$5.00 S&H respectively. It is satisfying to notice that researcher, Dean John W. Burgon, was always careful to defend the character of the Scriptures. He treated those Sacred Words as if he were dealing with a dear living friend.

Quotations of the Church Fathers. As a result of his research, Burgon compiled an index of sixteen folio volumes of more than 86,000 quotations of or allusions to Scriptures which were used by the Church Fathers. These indexes were about 12" by 18" by 3" in size. They are presently in London's British Museum. They have been catalogued by Dean Burgon and his associates. Each quotation or allusion is color-coded to show the exact page and version of the Church Fathers from which they were derived. These are very valuable indexes, but as yet are unpublished.

Who were some of the Church Fathers? This is another name for the leaders of the early church, whether pro-Textus Receptus or not. They were men such as Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Cyprian, Clement of Alexander, Augustine, Tertullian, Eusebius, and many more.

In the writings of the Church Fathers whom Burgon researched, he found that these early leaders quoted from various Greek and Latin texts of Scripture. Remember that the purpose of researching the Church Fathers was not necessarily to give word for word quotations of the Bible. It was to show that a writer, in referring to the Bible in a personal letter or document, had used a certain verse, a series of verses, or even one word or two that he found in his copy of Scripture. In many instances, this exact quotation or allusion showed whether the writer had before him the Textus Receptus-type of text or a Westcott and Hort-type of text. So, we may conclude that these early Fathers, regardless of their individual faith or convictions, had specific New Testament texts in their hands which help us immeasurably.

Disdain of Westcott and Hort's Views. Why did Westcott and Hort knock the Church Fathers? Because many of the writings of the Church Fathers contained words which were contrary to those preferred by these liberal Anglican clergymen. There were approximately seventy-six Church Fathers who died 400 A.D. or before whose writings made frequent reference to the New Testament. Yet, Westcott and Hort (of the nineteenth century) and D. A. Carson (of the twentieth century) said that the Greek texts used before 400 A.D. did not reflect the Traditional or Byzantine text, but only the Westcott and Hort-type of text. Westcott and Hort and Carson refused to see the evidence. Not only did quotations of these seventy-six Church Fathers from the Textus Receptus prior to 400 A.D. exist, but these Textus Receptus quotations or allusions were in the majority. Not only were they in a simple majority, but were in a majority ratio of 3 to 2 (60% to 40%)! In fact, Dr. Jack Moorman, when researching this independently, found the ratio to be 70% to 30%! (See Early Church Fathers and the A.V. (#2136 @ $6+$4.00 S&H)

For instance,take this hypothetical case: If there were 500 quotations altogether, we would discover that 300 Textus Receptus-type of manuscripts were quoted from, and only 200 Westcott and Hort-type of manuscripts were quoted from by the Church Fathers. Instead of having no reference to the Textus Receptus before 400 A.D., we find more texts alluded to of the kind on which our King James Bible is based than those on which the E.R.V., A.S.V., N.A.S.V., or N.I.V. are based. This should encourage and buttress our Authorized Version (KJB) convictions!

Cause of Death. The doctor said the cause of Burgon's death was nervous fatigue resulting in prolonged mental work produced by strain to the nervous system. Though his labor was great, and though his days had been shortened because of such labor, John William Burgon had great fondness for his writings. He pondered over them from daybreak until night. He taught what he believed and he believed what he taught.

Dearest "Friends" at Death. Two days before Dean Burgon died, he asked to have his great portfolios--his life's work--placed on an adjoining bed in his sick room. At first, members of his family rejected his request; but soon they humored him and granted his dying desire. He promised that he would not touch or read his manuscripts. He only wanted to see them. Burgon whispered: "When a man dies, he wants to say good-bye to his favorite child." When Burgon died, his goal was not reached.

Burning Zeal for God's Words. Dean John William Burgon's enemies had called him "a defender of lost causes." The following was said in the sermon given at his funeral: "It was his burning zeal for the Words of God which stirred him to come forward as a champion in a cause which he thought was being betrayed by those who should have been its guardians."

Edward M. Goulburn, in his biography, The Life of Dean John William Burgon, wrote: "All my memories of Dean Burgon are bound up with the Bible. . . I have never left him without feeling stimulated and reproved."

Faith in Bible Preservation. The following words of Dean Burgon have been quoted often: "Either the whole Bible is inspired, the Words as well as the sentences, the syllables as well as the Words, the letters as well as the syllables, every 'jot' and every 'tittle' of it, or the whole of it must be abandoned, since no part of it can be certainly depended upon as an infallible guide."

Books may be ordered with credit card by phone at 856-854-4452 or from the DBS website: www.deanburgonsociety.org/. At the HomePage click on DBS Press, then click on "Click here to order DBS Publications button."

1. Inspiration and Interpretation by Dean John Burgon. There is an excellent summary of this book by Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D. at www.deanburgon society. org/ dbs2925d.htm. This is a "must have" book for anyone interested in the preservation of the Scriptures. Dean Burgon remarks on "Essays and Reviews" concerning inspiration and interpretation of Scripture. The book includes sermons on "The Study Of The Bible Recommended; And A Method Of Studying It Described", "Natural Science and Theological Science", "Inspiration of Scripture.--Gospel Difficulties.--The Word Of God Infallible.--Other Sciences Subordinate To Theological Science.", "The Plenary Inspiration of Every Part of the Bible, Vindicated and Explained.--Nature Of Inspiration.--The Text Of Scripture.", and much more. Order DBS #1220 now for a gift of $25 + $5.00 shipping and handling. Hardback book, over 300 pages.

2. A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. This book is by Rev. Edward Miller who was a close friend and fellow worker with Dean John W. Burgon. In this volume, Miller condenses and sums up Dean Burgon's methodology for textual criticism. In it he refutes the false system usedby Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort. This DBS #743 is for a gift of $11.00 + $5.00 Shipping and handling. It is a hardback book of 168 pages.

3. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by Dean John William Burgon. Dean Burgon vindicates and establishes Mark 16:9-20 as genuine. In his day the only manuscripts (with few exceptions) that omitted these verses were the false Vatican & Sinai manuscripts. Order DBS #1139 for a gift of $15.00 +$5.00 S&H. Hardback book Over 300 pages.

4. Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon. In this volume, Burgon does the following four things: (1) He attacks the false Greek text of Westcott and Hort; (2) He demolishes the theory behind that text; (3) He refutes the English Revised Version of 1881 and (4) He defends the King James Bible! Order DBS #611 for a gift of $25.00 + $5.00 S&H, Hardback book over 500 pages

5. Traditional Text Of The Holy Gospels by Dean John William Burgon. A careful survey of the historical supremacy of the New Testament Greek Text that has been preserved from the first century until the present. Dean Burgon shows the superiority of this text and the inferiority of B and Aleph and others. Order DBS #1159 for a gift of $16.00 + $5.00 S&H. Hardback book over 300 pages 6. The Cause of Corruption Of The Traditional Text, by Dean John William Burgon Dean Burgon, gives detailed illustrations of five accidental causes and ten intentional causes of the corruption of the original traditional text. The book is replete with condemnation of the B & Aleph, Vatican & Sinai manuscripts, and the Westcott and Hort and other critical Greek New Testament Texts. Order DBS #1160 for a gift of $15.00 + $5.00 S&H. Hardback book almost 300 pages.

7. Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. This is a survey of the documents and history of the Bible, illustrated with pictures of various Hebrew and Greek texts. An excellent textbook for those interested in the background of the current textual battle. Order DBS #1428 for a gift of $20.00 + $5.00 S&H. Hardback book over 300 pages.

8. Ten Reasons Why the D.B.S. Deserves Its Name by Dr. D. A. Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society. Order DBS #1847 for a gift of $5.00 + $2.00 S&H.

9. Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament by Dr. Frederick Scrivener. Order DBS #1670 @ $35 (hardback) $45 (leather) + $5.00 S&H. This book gives over 5,600 places in BOLD TYPE where the ERV and Westcott/Hort Greek text departed from the T.R. underlying our King James Bible.
 

[ HomePage ] [ Up ] [ #61  8/99-5/00 ] [ #62  6/00-7/00 ] [ #63  8/00-3/01 ] [ #64  4/01-7/01 ] [ #65  8/01-3/02 ] [ #66  4/02-7/02 ] [ #67  8/02-3/03 ] [ #68  4/03-7/03 ] [ #69  7/03-2/04 ] [ #70  3/04-7/04 ] [ #71  7/04-10/04 ] [ #72  10/04-3/05 ] [ #73  4/05-7/05 ] [ #74  8/05-10/05 ] [ #75  11/05-3/06 ] [ #76 4/06-6/06 ] [ #77 7/06-9/06 ] [ #78 10/06-12/06 ] [ #79 1/07-3/07 ] [ #80 4/07-7/07 ]

the   Dean   Burgon   Society   Inc.   Box 354 - Collingswood, New Jersey  08108, U.S.A.   Phone: (856) 854-4452   Fax: (856) 854-2464   E-mail: DBS@DeanBurgonSociety.org

WebSite PageViews:

By Logos Ministries - An anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast - hope in Christ Jesus (Heb. 6:19)