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

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

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

The absence of the intervening words, “Thou shalt” to begin verse 7 accents the immediate antecedent of “keep them” being the “pure words” in verse 6. Note the divided rendering. In the first clause, Coverdale intended the words to be kept; in the second clause people are in view, “preserve us.” Miles Coverdale, Coverdale Bible 1535, Facsimile (Kent: Wm. Dawson and Sons Ltd., 1975).

Is this not an appeal to historical evidence for the preservation of God’s pure words? If one presupposes that there are no verses in the Bible that teach providential preservation, then, no, this cannot be historical evidence that argues for the preservation of God’s words, because there are no verses that teach providential preservation. If, however, you believe God’s word is true, then there are verses that teach providential preservation, Psalm 12:6-7 being one of them, and the 1935 Coverdale Bible evidence of that truth. It’s like saying, “There is no evidence for the resurrection of the dead, except for those who have risen from the dead.” Likewise, there are no verses that teach providential preservation except for those verses that teach providential preservation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1]Ainsworth, Annotations, Preface.

[2]Ainsworth, Annotations, Preface.

[3] Wedon, Matthew, 78

[4] Turretin, Institutes, 96.

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

אִֽמֲרֹ֣ות יְהוָה֮ אֲמָרֹ֪ות טְהֹ֫רֹ֥ות כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֭רוּף בַּעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֝זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם                            

אַתָּֽה־יְהוָ֥ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ׀ מִן־הַדֹּ֖ור ז֣ו לְעֹולָֽם                                                       

“words” אִֽמֲרֹ֣ות: plural, feminine, noun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 12

Title: The Word of God, and the Church

The Silver seven times tried is pure

From all adulteration;

So, through God’s Word, shall men endure

Each trial and temptation:

Its worth gleams brighter through the cross,

And, purified from human dross,

It shines through every nation.

Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord,

From this vile generation,

Make us to lean upon thy Word,

With calm anticipation.

The wicked walk on every side

When, ‘mid thy flock, the vile abide

In power and exaltation.

James Franklin Lambert, Luther’s Hymns

(Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 52.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By omitting God from the paradigm, man is left to his own devices for distinguishing a Book of transcendent origin, which testifies that it is the very words of God and therefore the expression of God’s authority over any and all other self-imposed criteria. In other words, if the parameters for what is and is not God’s word are academically codified based on scientific rules as a casual perusal of current literature will support, the scholar and his ideas become the inherently relative and provincial standard for knowing who and what God is. Man, by redefining the Bible, is growing in his perceived scientific successes to make God in his own image.

Himself an advocate of the historical critical approach, A. T. Robertson acknowledges the difficulty of reconciling “anti-supernatural scholarship” with “reverence for the Bible as God’s only revelation” in an1892 article entitled “The Inerrancy of Scriptures.” Robertson observed,

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

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

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

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

For the modern evangelical text-critic, is there any word in the Greek that we are certain beyond a shadow of doubt is indeed the original word of Scripture written at the hand of Paul or Peter? If yes, what word or words and based on what manuscript evidence and method are those words deemed certainly the words of the autograph? If no, then every word of Scripture should be doubted at least a little and in the present time given the tenets of modern evangelical textual criticism. Enter the initial text.

What is the initial text? Consider the following quotes and research from Michael W. Holmes paper, From the “Original Text” to the “Initial Text”: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion. Holmes is the former Chair of the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. In this paper he writes concerning the “initial text”,

“‘[t]he initial text is the form of a text that stands at the beginning of a textual tradition.’”

Holmes, Initial Text, 652.

Note that the “beginning” here is not the original or autograph, but a hypothetical text which serves as the source from which the Alexandrian text tradition came from, or the Byzantine text tradition came from. Holmes goes on to quote Gerd Mink,

“‘The initial text is not identical with the original, the text of the author. Between the autograph and the initial text considerable changes may have taken place which may not have left a single trace in the surviving textual tradition.’”

Holmes, Initial Text, 652 quoting from Gerd Mink, “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition, the New Testament: Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology, vol. 2 [ed. Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander, and Margot van Mulken; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004], 25.

And from Wachtel and Parker,

“‘We are…insisting that the initial Text is different from both the authorial text and the archetype, that we cannot reconstruct the former and that what we can reconstruct is more than the latter.’”

Holmes, Initial Text, 652 quoting from Joint IGNTP/INTF Editio Critica Maior, 10.

In sum, the initial text is an inferred text, a hypothetical text that is behind all the manuscripts of a given tradition. The initial text is not the archetypal text or the real and actual text which underlies a given textual tradition. The initial text is not the original text, or the one written at the hand of Paul or Peter. So, the shift from the “original text” to the “initial text” is a shift from a real text to a hypothetical text and from the first text to some later hypothetical copy.

For our purposes, the point is, given the immediately above quote, the original cannot be reconstructed, and the archetypal text is something other than the initial text. Thus, modern evangelical textual criticism, at least in this vein, has left off the quest for the original because it cannot be reconstructed. If this “initial text” vein of textual criticism is true, then Warfield’s version of text criticism is misguided or wrong or has at least failed. In short, the case for the “initial text” serves as a series of defeater to the claim that textual criticism will recover the original words of the autograph.

What is a defeater? A defeater is a strong objection to some claim X where a defeater for said defeater must be provided by the claimant. If the claimant does not provide such a defeater and continues to hold to their claim X, they can only hold to their claim X at the cost of being irrational. There are generally two kinds of defeaters: rebutting and undercutting. The former defeats evidence used to support some claim X while the latter defeats some claim X by making positive evidential claims to the contrary. A classic example is of a widget making factory.

Regarding rebutting defeaters, say one day you go to the local widget making factory and believe they make red widgets because you see that the widgets are red. But your trusted friend tells you that they are not red, but instead are blue. In this case you have reliable testimony that what you are seeing is not in fact what you are seeing. Regarding the undercutting defeaters, say you are at the same factory, and you come to the same conclusion, but the foreman says that they are not red. They only appear red because each widget is irradiated in order to find microscopic cracks in the widget. Ergo, the widgets appear red but for different reasons than you think. Rebutting defeaters weaken the believer’s case by eliminating his/her reason to believe the widget is red while undercutting defeaters provide reasons to believe the widget is not red at all.

So which kind of defeater does the assertion that the initial text is the best we can do given the evidence, and the original is out of the question? It seems to me that rebutting defeaters are in play. Rebutting defeaters are in play because of the unreliability of patristic witnesses, the considerable variation between our oldest witnesses, the potential for considerable variation between the authorial text and initial text, and the lack of an exemplar all serve to weaken the claim that we can identify and reconstruct the original. These defeaters so weaken the modern evangelical text-critic’s case that many prominent and capable scholars in that camp are led to conclude that the authorial text “cannot be reconstructed.” But there is also an undercutting defeater present in that given the limits the evidence our capacity to reach beyond the initial text to the original/authorial text is understood to be impossible. That is, there are positive reasons to believe that the reconstruction of the original is impossible at this point.

Why are the above defeaters a unique problem for the modern evangelical text-critic?
For the secularist like Bart Ehrman or for the more theologically liberal like D.C. Parker the initial text is not a defeater because they have no theological skin in the game to reconstruct the original. For the Confessional/Traditional/Ecclesiastical/Standard Sacred Text folks we believe and argue that we have the original, so the initial text is an interesting postulate of academia like Q and Ur-Marcus but is has little to no bearing on our arguments or rational and warranted beliefs. For the folks who want to remain theologically conservative by modern standards while at the same time do not want to hold to a standard sacred text [i.e., the modern evangelical text critic], the claims of the initial text serve as a series of defeaters to the potency and efficacy of the counter claim that the original can be recovered and reconstructed.

It is more than a mere problem for the evangelical text-critic. The claim that the initial text stands at the outer limit of our reconstructing endeavors undercuts the claim that we can reach beyond that and eventually arrive at the original. It is a defeater for the claim that the manuscript tradition can get us back to the original with a sufficiently high degree of probability. If these defeaters are true and they remain unaddressed, then the Warfieldian redefinition of “kept pure in all ages” coupled with Warfield’s confidence in modern NT textual criticism crumbles and is only maintained at the expense of rationality. Warfield was sure that the work of the Wescott and Horts, Tischendorfs, and Tregelleses would yield the original text yet the data and experts in the field seem to indicate that such a goal is out of reach.

What is more, this is an in-house problem. If the Version Debate is an in-house problem of the church, the initial text problem is an in-house text-critical problem born from textual criticism. And it does not appear the leading thinkers in this field are looking for the original text. I suppose we’ll see what happens to the modern evangelical text-critical enterprise over the next 50 years. As journalist and poets, Ambrose Bierce, once said, “We know what happens to people who stand in the middle of the road. They get run over.”

If the original is out of reach, Warfield was in the end irrational, and those who hold to his definition of preservation and reconstruction of the text are also irrational because the initial text is as far back as we can go. The Bart Ehermans of the world and we here at StandardSacredText.com do not hold to Warfield’s view of preservation and reconstruction but the modern evangelical text-critical machine does. The potential veracity of these initial text defeaters challenge and potentially make irrational the veracity of the modern evangelical text-critical claim that we can construct the original via modern text critical apparati. If the veracity of the initial text defeaters is deemed true and no interesting defeaters arise to defeat the initial text defeaters, then to hold to the modern evangelical text-critical endeavor of a Warfieldian sort is to be irrational when it so dearly longs and clamors to be rational.

When I was a kid growing up in the 60’s, when it was time to go to church, I would grab my Bible and head for the car. There was only one Bible. It was God’s Word. It was the same Bible my dad carried and that the pastor would preach from. The pastor would say, “Please open your Bibles” to begin the sermon. We came to hear what God would tell us through His word. It was the King James Version, but it was not considered a version, it was God’s word in English, simply called the Bible. And no one said it was the Bible “in English.” No one had to because it was written in English, and so, it was, the Bible.

With the rise of multiple versions, someone thought calling the Bible, the Bible, was presumptuous and gratuitous, so calling the Bible, the Bible, went out of vogue being replaced with the King James Version. Now it was the King James Version but by calling it a version it moved the Bible out of the category of God’s Word to the category of other versions never equated with the Bible; they were simply versions of the Bible, like eteroV, another or a different kind. Calling the Bible, the King James Version, was a convenient half-step in the decline of how the Church viewed Scripture because it was the King James Version, along with the other versions, but no longer the Bible, God’s word. 

The next step in declining diction was submitting the King James Version, now just another version, to the same historical critical spirit that birthed the novel, multiple version phenomenon. Because no other version is inspired or infallible, the King James Version could not be inspired or infallible, even in the nuanced way eruditely formulated by the post-Reformation dogmaticians. Because  no novel version has been providentially preserved, the King James Version could not be the product of providential preservation, the doctrine of preservation having been excised from theological textbooks. Because no novel version’s internal claim to be Scripture, rises to the level of Scripture, neither can the King James Version. Once the King James Version was considered merely a version, no longer the Bible and God’s Word in the vernacular of the Church, the most significant battle for the importance of ecclesiastical words was lost, and in turn, the Church’s attitude toward Scripture changed.

The change in attitude came when the Bible was no longer considered to stand above and outside the Church, the Authoritative word of God asserting God’s will upon the Church. Now conceived of as a mere version, what was once the Bible became the possession of the Church to do with as it may. Add, subtract, modify, take or leave, find another version that suits you better, with the Church’s change of attitude the version became a “wax nose,” something pliant, readily influenced or turned in any direction. To exacerbate the decline, everyone’s personal “wax nose” was to be treated authoritatively for the sake of ecclesiastical unity.

But there are those that have always held the Bible to be the Bible, God’s word in English. They have not accepted the decline in ecclesiastical diction and argue that the Bible is the Bible from the Bible in a manner modeled after the great 16^th and 17^th c Reformed Orthodox codifiers of Protestant theology. Indeed, if it had not been for misguided, ill-trained, or worse, irresponsible, under-shepherds, leading their flock to burnt-out pastures and raging rivers, to tumult and confusion, the Church would not have abandoned the Bible in the first place.

Finding our way back through the change in world view brought on by the change of diction is not an easy course. It begins by again reading and obeying the Bible as the Bible. Those throughout history who read the Bible as the Bible demonstrated the courage and resolve to see the will of God done in every avenue of life – strong marriages, strong homes, strong churches, founding an exceptional nation, courage to stand against tyrants – something a mere version cannot do. It must be the Bible, the word of God.

Stylos is the blog of Jeff Riddle, a Reformed Baptist Pastor in North Garden, Virginia. The title “Stylos” is the Greek word for pillar. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul urges his readers to consider “how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth.”

INTRODUCTION

This paper considers the quintessential control medical professionals and particularly doctors assert in the preservation or corruption of medical ethics. The primary resource of this study is entitled Medical Science Under Dictatorship, a report written in 1948 by Dr. Leo Alexander, “a psychiatrist and neurologist who wrote the Nuremberg Code after World War II, which established moral, ethical and legal principles for experiments on humans. A medical investigator for Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson and an aide to the chief counsel at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, Dr. Alexander wrote the code after studying the actions of German SS troops and concentration camp guards. Leo Alexander received his medical degree from the University of Vienna in 1929 and served his internship and residency in psychiatry at the University of Frankfurt, Germany. He came to the United States in 1933, holding positions at Worcester State Hospital, Boston City Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Boston State Hospital before becoming associate professor of neuropsychiatry at Duke Medical School in 1941.” [2] Dr. Alexander died of cancer in July 1985.

In his report Dr. Alexander describes two divergent responses of German and Dutch physicians to the threat of death by the Nazi regime if the pogrom was not implemented by the doctors. The German doctors Alexander refers to, for personal reasons, became willing participants in the Nazi health care system, an element of the larger ideology. Of the German doctors, Alexander said they were ”on the whole meek and over polite fellows who committed inhuman crimes because they found themselves suspect by their superiors.”[3] This claim will be investigated later for more detail. Alexander also writes of the courage of the Dutch physicians, who eruditely refused to cooperate with the Nazi directives, maintained their personal and professional integrity, served the population as best they could under terrible duress and were finally sent to concentration camps for their defense of the sick and infirmed. Parallels will then be shown between physicians who serve a nationalized bureaucratic health care system and physicians who uphold their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm no matter what the personal and professional outcome may be.

I. The Motivation to Commit Atrocities: Personal and Professional

Nearing the end of his article, Alexander concluded that the Nazi crimes “started from small beginnings.” He writes, “The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.”[4] The first of the “small beginnings” was the formal discussion of the responding to the idea that for some life was not worth living.

Acceptance of this paradigm shift away from the sanctity of life principle and the Hippocratic Oath is highlighted by Alexander was driven by a negative attitude toward those who could not be rehabilitated. He writes, “It is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick.” “It is rather significant,” observed Alexander, “that the German people were considered by their Nazi leaders more ready to accept the exterminations of the sick than those for political reasons.” Not only did the physicians conclude that quality of life (QoL) was the criterion for a life worth living but the German population was perceived to generally accept this notion. Physician-Ethicist Edmund Pellegrino, writing in 1992, points that,

Seriously ill persons suffer commonly from alienation, guilt, and feelings of unworthiness. They often perceive themselves and are perceived by others, as economic, social, and emotional burdens. They are exquisitely susceptible to even the most subtle suggestion by physician, nurse, or family member that reinforces their guilt, shame, and sense of unworthiness. It takes as much courage to resist these subliminal confirmations of alienation as to withstand the physical ravages of the disease. Much of the suffering of dying patients comes from be subtly treated as nonpersons. The decision to seek euthanasia is often an indictment against those who treat or care for the patient.[5]

A life not worthy to live and nonrehabilitable where accepted principles of the physicians coupled with the public notion of the alienation of diminished QoL, made the extermination of life an acceptable practice. In the early stages of implementation only the severely and chronically sick were euthanized, but, as Alexander chronicled, “Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.”

 History’s clarion call is that some processes must never be initiated. Sadly, one of those conceptual doors already opened to the detriment of society at large is the favorable discussion of defining life by its quality (QoL).[6] The ideology that purports the lives of persons suffering from incurable diseases are not worth living may be a small step on paper but once put into practice has historical precedent endorse the killing all the government deems unwanted.[7] Once a category of “not worth living” is conceptually allowed to exist, social, ideological, racial and nationalistic qualifications can and will metastasize into the identification of classes of unwanted persons for elimination. [8]

Preceding the implementation of the plan to euthanize unwanted members of the population was the open and accepted discourse of the possibility of such action by physicians. Alexander writes that “Sterilization and euthanasia of persons with chronic mental illnesses was discussed at a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists in 1931.[9] By 1936 extermination of the physically or socially unfit was so openly accepted that its practice was mentioned incidentally in an article published in an official German medical journal.”[10]

While the discussion of extermination was discussed openly among the medical elite, the vocabulary used to convey the plan’s implementation to the public according to Alexander was couched “in most careful and superficially acceptable terms.” Daryl Charles’ article “The Right to Die” gives modern expression to Alexander’s findings when he writes, “Euthanasia today depends on euphemisms. Orwellianisms such as ‘exit preference’, ‘death with dignity’ and a ‘right to die’ are absolutely critical to its cultural legitimation. Empowered by sentiment, euthanasia rhetoric is dependent on images and symbols.” [11]

The following examples list German government agencies that assigned pleasant titles to hideous practices. The Nazi “organization devoted exclusively to the killing of children was known by the similarly euphemistic name of ‘Realm’s Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heredity and Constitution.’ The ‘Charitable Transport Company for the Sick’ transported patients to the killing centers, and the ‘Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care’ was in charge of collecting the cost of the killings from the relatives, without, however, informing them what the charges were for; in the death certificates the cause of death was falsified.”[12]

The indispensable lesson to learn is that the naïve will be satisfied with what a thing is called possessing no inclination to look further to find out what the thing is. Words only have meaning to the degree they reflect reality. Prevarications and obfuscations must be recognized for what they are in light of the reality they are proposed to represent. Morality demands truth. If truth is absent immoral decisions will be made based on falsehoods. The continuing debate over when life begins illustrates the point.[13]

II. German Physicians

Alexander included the names to two German doctors that carried out Nazi directives, Drs. Karl Gebhardt and Sigmund Rascher.[14] The deciding factor to go forward with unspeakable human experimentation was the primal compulsion for self preservation. These two men consciously agreed that imposing unimaginable suffering on others was preferable to loosing their own lives. Gebhardt would have been killed if he did not perform “experiments to clear himself of the suspicion that he had been contributing to the death of SS General Reinhard (“The Hangman”) Heydrich, either negligently or deliberately, by failing to treat his wound infection with sulfonamides.” Rascher, after being suspected of having Communist sympathies was “ready to go all out and to do anything merely to regain acceptance by the Nazi party and the SS.” And, lest anyone think that only inhuman monsters would engage in the wanton torture and killing of fellow human beings, Alexander answers in familiar terms. Pointing to the essential aspects of fallen man he says, “These cases illustrate a method consciously and methodically used in the SS, an age-old method used by criminal gangs everywhere: that of making suspects of disloyalty clear themselves by participation in a crime that would definitely and irrevocably tie them to the organization…The important lesson here is that this motivation, with which one is familiar in ordinary crimes, applies also to war crimes and to ideologically conditioned crimes against humanity—namely, that fear and cowardice, especially fear of punishment or of ostracism by the group, are often more important motives than simple ferocity or aggressiveness.”

III. The Physicians of the Netherlands

Against the backdrop of the German occupation of the Netherlands and the ideological pogrom intended for all but the German people, the Dutch physicians bravely disobeyed the German high command, maintaining their high principles as physicians to do no harm. The attempt to pull them into the alignment with their German counterparts began on December 19, 1941, when Sciss-Inquart, Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands Territories, sent orders of the Reich Commissar of the Netherlands Territories concerning the Netherlands doctors which reads in part: “It is the duty of the doctor, through advice and effort, conscientiously and to his best ability, to assist as helper the person entrusted to his care in the maintenance, improvement and re-establishment of his vitality, physical efficiency and health. The accomplishment of this duty is a public task.”[15]

 While this directive does not sound overly obtrusive to modern readership, the Dutch doctors understood they were reading orders sent down from a government that never said what it really meant. The words were permeated with the ideology of death. No matter what was written, the result was the advancement of the regime’s tyrannical ideology. Therefore, the Dutch physicians refused the order because properly rendered; “the concentration of their efforts on mere rehabilitation of the sick for useful labor” meant they were to provide labor for concentration camps. Alexander lauds these physicians saying, “They had the foresight to resist before the first step was taken, and they acted unanimously and won out in the end. It is obvious that if the medical profession of a small nation under the conqueror’s heel could resist so effectively the German medical profession could likewise have resisted had they not taken the fatal first step. It is the first seemingly innocent step away from principle that frequently decides a career of crime. Corrosion begins in microscopic proportions.”

When threatened them with revocation of their medical licenses, the doctors voluntarily returned their credentials, closed their offices and began to see people secretly. For their resistance to Nazi tyranny Sciss-Inquart “arrested 100 Dutch physicians and sent them to concentration camps.” Praising the physicians in the Netherlands Alexander recorded that the “medical profession remained adamant and quietly took care of their widows and orphans, but would not give in. Thus, it came about that not a single euthanasia or non-therapeutic sterilization was recommended or participated in by any Dutch physician.”

The single most important point is that for physicians to violate their oath to do no harm is the step, whether innocent or not, that initiates the slippery ideological slope that engages the health care profession in the killing of the governments unwanted people. Only when doctors remain true to their oath to care for all people, whether they can be rehabilitated or not, can the profession be preserved from governmental tyranny.

IV. Noted Parallels between the 1949 Report and 2009

The parallels between the Nazi program as described by Dr. Alexander and the modern governmental trajectory is striking. America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 HR 3200 and Veteran’s Administration literature challenge the imagination. Note the similarities. The first quote is by Dr. Alexander (A), the second by the fitting government document (B):

(1) The Five Year Stipulation: A. “All state institutions were required to report on patients who had been ill five years or more” – B. HR 3200: “Advance care planning consultation means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning… the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.[16]

(2) The Personal Questionnaire Stipulation: A. “who were unable to work, by filling out questionnaires giving name, race, marital status, nationality, next of kin, whether regularly visited and by whom, who bore financial responsibility and so forth” – B. Veteran’s Administration: “My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family (such as feeling worried and stressed all the time); “I am a severe financial burden to my family.”[17]

(3) The Quality of Life Stipulation: A. “The decision regarding which patients should be killed was made entirely on the basis of this brief information by expert consultants, most of whom were professors of psychiatry in the key universities.” — B. HR 3200: “An advanced care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently that provided under paragraph (1) if there is significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), of a hospice program.”[18]

(4) Euphemisms: A. “Realm’s Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heredity and Constitution”; “The ‘Charitable Transport Company for the Sick”; “Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care.” — B. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009; “exit preference,” “death with dignity,” “right to die.”

V. Conclusion

The crux of saving the health care system is the moral fiber of the American people. The least the community can do for the physicians who care for them, those we hold in the highest regard for their compassion, intellect, and expertise, is to reciprocate that care by creating and sustaining a societal context that believes and practices that life is precious above all other things because it is endowed by our Creator. The local church, both pulpit and people are the key to creating a context based on the Truth of God’s Word thereby aiding the community and physician with the matters of conscience dealt with daily. [19]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Leo. “Medical Science under Dictatorship.” New England Journal of Medicine. 241: 39–47. 1949.

Bumke, O. Discussion of Faltlhauser, K. Zur Frage der Sterilisierung geistig Abnormer, Allg. Zischr. J. Psychiat. 96:372. 1932.

Cameron, Nigel “The Christian Stake in Bioethics,” Bioethics and the Future of Medicine: A Christian Appraisal. John F. Kilner, Nigel M de S. Cameron, David L. Schiedermayer, eds. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1995

Daryl Charles, “The ‘Right to Die’,” Bioethics and the Future of Medicine: A Christian Appraisal. John F. Kilner, Nigel M de S. Cameron, David L. Schiedermayer, eds. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1995.

Dierichs, R. Beitrag zur psychischen Anstaltsbehandlung Tuberkuloser. Zischr. f. Tuberk. 74:24-28. 1936.

The Hippocratic Oath. translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine. 2002.

Mitchell, Ben. “Bioethics and the Church,” Bioethics and the Future of Medicine: A Christian Appraisal. John F. Kilner, Nigel M de S. Cameron, David L. Schiedermayer, eds. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1995.

Pearlman, Robert, et al. Your Health, Your Choices. U. S. Veteran’s Administration. nd.

U.S. Congress. House. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. to accompanyHR 1. 111^th Cong., 1^st sess. (February 12, 2009)

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. HR 3200. 111^th Cong., 1^st sess. (July 14, 2009)

---

[1] The Hippocratic Oath, translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html, (accessed Sept. 3, 2009).

[2] Leo Alexander, “Medical Science under Dictatorship,” New England Journal of Medicine, 241: 39–47. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/24/us/dr-leo-alexander-79-nuremberg-trial-aide.html?sec=health. (Accessed Sept. 3, 2009).

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/24/us/dr-leo-alexander-79-nuremberg-trial-aide.html?sec=health. (accessed Sept. 3, 2009)

 [4] Nigel Cameron, “The Christian Stake in Bioethics,” Bioethics and the Future of Medicine: A Christian Appraisal, John F. Kilner, Nigel M de S. Cameron, David L. Schiedermayer, eds. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 5. Cameron asks, ‘Is the pursuit of the good life to be understood in terms of a flight from suffering? Is suffering in itself such a disbenefit as to outweigh the good of life itself? Is a life of suffering a life ‘not worth living’?” Alexander’s observations of euthanasia are not based on suffering but on the concept that some lives have been determined not worth living, not because of infirmity, but according to the world-view of the political regime.

 [5] Ben Mitchell, “Bioethics and the Church,” Bioethics and the Future of Medicine: A Christian Appraisal, John F. Kilner, Nigel M de S. Cameron, David L. Schiedermayer, eds. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 133. Mitchell is quoting Edmund D. Pellegrino, “Doctors Must Not Kill,” The Journal of Clinical Ethics 3 (summer 1992), 96-97. Pellegrino’s findings are especially applicable in light of the present push for nationalized health care and end of life counseling.

[6] Jerome R. Wernow, “Saying the Unsaid: Quality of Life Criteria in a Sanctity of Life Position,” Bioethics, 93. “Patient’s experiences with pain, suffering, indignity, and financial burdens have forced the medical community to reconsider sustaining life at all costs. Currently, this reconsideration has resulted in the acceptance of quality of life criteria (QoL) over the sanctity of life principle (SLP) in the majority of medical literature guidelines and praxis studies which address life-sustaining care in the United States.”

[7] “In Germany the exterminations included the mentally defective, psychotics (particularly schizophrenics),epileptics and patients suffering from infirmities of old age and from various organic neurologic disorders such as infantile paralysis, Parkinsonism, multiple sclerosis and brain tumors.”

[8] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/. “President Obama’s ‘science czar,’ John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a ‘Planetary Regime’ that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet — controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings. Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president’s chief science adviser. He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.”

[9] Alexnder citing Bumke, O. Discussion of Faltlhauser, K. Zur Frage der Sterilisierung geistig Abnormer, Allg. Zischr. J. Psychiat., 96:372, 1932.

 

[10] Dierichs, R. Beitrag zur psychischen Anstaltsbehandlung Tuberkuloser, Zischr. f. Tuberk., 74:24-28, 1936.

 

[11] Daryl Charles, “The ‘Right to Die’,” Bioethics, 271.

[12] “According to the records, 275,000 people were put to death in these killing centers.”

[13] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/51676. “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

 

[14] Nazi physicians performed “‘terminal human experiments,’ a term introduced by Dr. Rascher to denote an experiment so designed that its successful conclusion depended upon the test person’s being put to death.”

[15] Seiss-Inquart. Order of the Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands Territories Concerning the Netherlands Doctors. (Gazette containing the orders for the Occupied Netherlands Territories), pp. 1001-1026, December, 1941.

[16] America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, HR 3200, 111^th Cong., 1^st sess. (July 14, 2009), 424.

[17] Pearlman, Robert, et al. Your Health, Your Choices. U. S. Veteran’s Administration. nd.

[18] HR 3200, 428. According to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, to accompanyHR 1, 111^th Cong., 1^st sess. (February 12, 2009), 142, bureaucrats will determine the definition of “life-limiting disease” or a life not worth living because it is beyond rehabilitation.

 

[19] http://www.theamericandissident.org/PoemNiemoller.htm The entry is thought to be the original sequence of persecutions in Niemöller’s famous statement about the Nazis. Many variants and derivatives have arisen, causing a great deal of confusion about the original, but most agree that the original statement began with mention of the Communists.

“When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest”