The Preservation of Scripture

The Preservation of Scripture According to the Westminster Confession of Faith: In the Original Languages, Not in Translation

Introduction

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), completed in 1646, remains one of the most respected theological standards in Reformed Christianity. Its view on the preservation of Scripture is often misunderstood or misrepresented—particularly in contemporary debates about textual variants, manuscript traditions, and Bible translations.

This article aims to clarify what the WCF teaches about the preservation of Scripture. It contends that the WCF asserts that God has preserved His Word in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek), not in any one translation. It further suggests that this preservation is providential across the wide array of extant manuscripts, including both Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types. This thesis will be supported with reference to the original wording of the WCF, historical-theological context, and modern scientific evidence from the field of textual criticism.

1. The Westminster Confession on the Original Languages

WCF Chapter 1, Paragraph 8 states:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...”

This statement affirms three key ideas:

1. The original Hebrew and Greek texts were inspired by God.

2. These original texts—not translations—have been kept pure through God’s providence.

3. They alone are authoritative for doctrine and translation.

Critically, the WCF does not say any particular manuscript or translation (such as the KJV) is perfect or inspired. It places the focus of preservation on the languages and textual tradition as a whole, not on any specific textual line.

2. Preservation Does Not Mean Perfect Copies

The phrase "kept pure in all ages" has often been taken to mean that God maintained a perfect manuscript with zero scribal errors at all times. But the divines who wrote the WCF lived in a time when many manuscript variants were already known.

For example, Francis Turretin (1623–1687), a leading Reformed theologian contemporary with the Westminster Assembly, acknowledged textual variants yet affirmed the essential purity of the text:

"Although the original text of Scripture has come down to us with some minor variants, it has not lost its authority or integrity, because those variants do not affect doctrine." (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1)

Thus, "kept pure" is understood as preserved from corruption in essential content, not from every copyist’s error.

3. Preservation Across Text Types: Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Others

In the past two centuries, thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered and cataloged. These manuscripts fall into broad textual "families," primarily:

• Alexandrian text-type (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus)

• Byzantine text-type (majority of later manuscripts)

• Western and Caesarean types (less common)

All these text-types are witnesses to the original Greek New Testament. While they contain variant readings, over 85–90% of the NT text is agreed upon across all traditions. The differences are mostly minor (e.g., word order, spelling, synonyms), and none of them affect any core doctrine of the Christian faith.

This remarkable consistency is scientific proof of what the WCF claims: by God’s providence, the Word of God has been “kept pure” in the original languages, even though we no longer possess the original autographs.

Textual criticism, the science of comparing manuscripts to reconstruct the original text, has confirmed that:

• Earlier manuscripts (like those in the Alexandrian family) tend to be shorter and less harmonized.

• Later manuscripts (especially Byzantine) sometimes contain additions for clarity or devotion, but rarely introduce false doctrine.

• All major textual traditions affirm core doctrines: the deity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by grace, etc.

This data refutes any claim that one textual family (such as Byzantine or Alexandrian) alone contains the true text. God’s Word is preserved across the manuscript tradition—not isolated in a single stream.

4. Translations Are Useful, But Not Infallible

The WCF continues:

“...so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them [the Hebrew and Greek texts]. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God... they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation...”

This clarifies that:

• Translations are important for edification and teaching.

• However, translations do not carry the same authority as the original texts.

• In doctrinal matters, the final appeal must be to the original Hebrew and Greek, not to any one translation like the KJV or Luther Bible.

This directly refutes modern teachings such as Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) or KJV-Onlyism, which argue that one translation (usually the KJV) is “perfect” and divinely preserved. Such views contradict the WCF’s insistence that only the original language texts were “kept pure in all ages.”

5. Scientific and Historical Support for the Confession’s View

A. Manuscript Abundance

• Over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament survive today.

• Over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, plus thousands in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and other languages.

• This vast wealth of textual evidence allows us to compare and reconstruct the original wording with over 99% accuracy.

B. Early Church Fathers

The patristic writings from the 2nd to 5th centuries quote the Bible so extensively that one could reconstruct almost the entire New Testament from their citations alone. These citations reflect both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings.

C. Modern Textual Criticism

Critical editions like the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the Tyndale House Greek New Testament represent the best efforts of scholars to sift through the evidence and recover the most original readings. Their method reflects the very providential preservation the WCF describes.

Conclusion

The Westminster Confession’s assertion that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures were "kept pure in all ages" does not mean every copy was perfect, but that God preserved His Word through the multiplicity of manuscripts. The Alexandrian, Byzantine, and other traditions collectively ensure that the true text is accessible.

Thus, the Westminster divines’ position aligns with both Reformed theology and modern textual scholarship, affirming that God has providentially preserved His Word in the original languages across all ages.

The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that God has preserved His Word in the original languages—not in any one translation or manuscript. This preservation has taken place providentially, through the faithful transmission of Scripture across centuries and languages.

While manuscripts differ in minor details, the essential content of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament has been preserved. The Alexandrian, Byzantine, and other manuscript traditions all contribute to our understanding of the original text. This is not a weakness but a testimony to the sovereign care of God over His Word.

Thus, rather than idolizing one textual family or translation, we should thank God for the rich manuscript tradition we possess and the ongoing scholarly efforts that allow us to read the Bible with confidence today—just as the Westminster divines intended.

Recommended Reading:

• Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1

• Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament

• Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited

• Peter Gurry & Elijah Hixson, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism

Positive proclamation of the truth

The New Testament writers' main principle was not to deconstruct or even analyze the incorrect teachings they were refuting. Rather, they give themselves to the positive proclamation of the truth, confident that it will, in and of itself, undermine and destroy the error.

Reflection on our journey

For nearly two decades, we've poured heart and soul into a blog focused on a singular, critical subject: appealing to fellow Bible teachers to rethink the doctrines of Verbal Plenary Preservation, "King James Version Only," and the "Perfect Bible." Our deepest hope has always been that these particular interpretations, while held sincerely by some, would remain within their own circles and not become weapons to divide the wider church.

Our aim was to encourage gentleness and understanding among believers, rather than seeing these theological points used to split congregations or fuel endless quarrels over words. We truly believed that by sharing our perspective, we could foster an environment of grace and unity.

For nearly twenty years, we’ve written this blog with a singular hope, to gently invite fellow Bible teachers who hold to Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), KJV-Onlyism, or the "Perfect Bible" doctrine to reconsider these views. To appeal to them not to stir quarrels over words, and wound the Body of Christ.

We’ve always believed that unity need not require uniformity. If these convictions nourish your faith, hold them. But let us also hold one another in love. Let’s not allow textual debates to overshadow the gospel’s call to humility, grace, and mutual forbearance. Scripture itself urges us to "pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (2 Timothy 2:22)—not to divide over every jot or tittle.

Yet after two decades of writing—praying for open hearts, tempering truth with pastoral tenderness—we must confess with sorrow: the outcome is not what we envisioned. Instead of softening disagreements or fostering understanding, our efforts seem to have deepened grudges. Where we hoped to build bridges, we see walls fortified. Where we longed for gentle dialogue, we’ve witnessed sharper divisions. The very teachings we hoped might be held more lightly have, in some cases, been gripped tighter—and turned not just against us, but against others in the household of faith.

Sadly, as we reflect on these past twenty years, it's become evident that our blog hasn't achieved the unifying impact we so desperately desired. This outcome grieves us deeply, as it's the opposite of everything we set out to accomplish.

This grieves us deeply. We never sought conflict; We sought peace. We didn’t write to win arguments, but to protect the Church from needless strife. To see our work unintentionally fuel resentment among brothers and sisters we respect is a profound weight on my heart.

So we return to our plea, not with bitterness, but with weary hope.

Let us be gentle.

Let our doctrines be tested, but let our love be unwavering. Let our convictions be strong, but our hands open. Let us disagree without demeaning, discuss without destroying, and honor Christ by honoring one another—even across theological lines.

The gospel is too precious, and the Church too fragile, to be fractured by battles over words. After twenty years, we still believe gentleness is the only ground where truth can take root without choking out grace. May we tend that ground together. 

“Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov 27:5–6).

Providential Preservation

Why We Do Not Accept the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), and a Better Alternative

---

❌ Why We Do Not Accept VPP

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) teaches that God has preserved every single word (verbal) of Scripture, perfectly and entirely (plenary), without error, in specific manuscript texts (the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus), and only in those. But this view is problematic for several reasons:

1. No Scriptural Proof for “Where” or “How” Preservation Happens
   While the Bible promises God’s Word will be preserved (e.g., Isaiah 40:8), it never specifies which exact manuscript or text line contains all preserved words without error. VPP assumes too much.

2. Presumes Infallibility of Certain Texts
   VPP teaches that certain edited texts (like Scrivener’s TR, 1894) are identical to the original autographs, effectively elevating them to inspired status. This amounts to a dangerous and new doctrine, not supported by Scripture or the historical church.

3. Contradicts Historical and Manuscript Evidence
   History shows no single perfect manuscript exists. Even the best manuscripts differ slightly from each other. Yet all faithful manuscripts together help us recover the original text reliably. VPP ignores this process.

4. Creates Confusion and Division
   VPP insists only Bibles translated from TR and MT (like the KJV) are the true Word of God, implying that all others (like the NIV or CUV) are corrupt. This leads to unwarranted rejection of faithful translations and causes unnecessary division within churches.

5. It’s a Recent and Evolving Teaching
   VPP is not part of the historic Christian faith or the Westminster Confession. It emerged only in the 1990s and has been changing its definitions and standards, further showing its instability.

6. Logical Inconsistencies
   For example, some VPP proponents affirm the Chinese Union Version (CUV) as the best Bible for Chinese readers, even though it is based on manuscripts VPP labels as corrupt.

7. Spiritual Danger
   VPP can cause sincere believers to doubt their Bibles unless they use one specific translation, like the KJV. This undermines confidence in God's Word and adds man-made requirements to God’s promises.

---

✅ A Better Alternative: Providential Preservation

Instead of VPP, we affirm the doctrine of Providential Preservation, which aligns with both Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1.8).

This view teaches:

• God has preserved His Word faithfully through the centuries, not through one manuscript or translation, but through the entire witness of the church and the abundance of manuscripts.

• No single copy or translation is perfect, but all trustworthy ones preserve the meaning and message of the original.

• Faithful translations like the KJV, ESV, NIV, and CUV can be used with confidence.

• This view affirms the inerrancy of the original autographs, and the trustworthiness of the Bible today, without demanding artificial perfection in later copies or translations.

---

In Conclusion

We reject VPP because it goes beyond Scripture, creates confusion, and undermines the true doctrine of Scripture’s preservation. Instead, we hold to Providential Preservation—the historic, balanced, and biblically faithful view that assures believers that God’s Word has not been lost, and that our Bibles today are trustworthy and sufficient for salvation and life.

The argument for the Alexandrian text's superiority

The scholarly preference for the Alexandrian text-type over the Byzantine text-type is not simply based on the "older is better" principle. While the age of the manuscripts is a crucial factor, the reasoning is more complex and involves several lines of evidence from the field of textual criticism.

Here are some of the key reasons and evidence for the preference of Alexandrian texts:

1. Characteristics of the Texts Themselves:

• Scribal Tendencies: Textual critics analyze how scribes copied manuscripts.¹ It's a well-documented phenomenon that scribes, over centuries, tended to "smooth out" difficult passages, harmonize parallel accounts in the Gospels, and add clarifying or devotional phrases.² The Byzantine text is widely considered to be a later, edited form of the text that displays these scribal tendencies. For example:

  • Shorter Readings: The Alexandrian text is generally shorter and more abrupt. According to the principle of lectio brevior potior ("the shorter reading is better"), a shorter, more difficult reading is more likely to be original because scribes were more prone to adding words for clarity or piety than to deliberately omitting them.

  • Harmonization: The Byzantine text often harmonizes parallel passages. For instance, the Byzantine text of Luke 11:2-4 includes the full Lord's Prayer as found in Matthew 6, while the Alexandrian text has a shorter version. Most scholars believe the longer version in Luke is a later addition to make it consistent with Matthew.

  • Theological Smoothing: The Alexandrian text contains some readings that are theologically "difficult," which scribes in the Byzantine tradition seem to have removed or modified. A famous example is the phrase "nor the Son" in Matthew 24:36, where the Alexandrian manuscripts state that "no one knows the day or the hour, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."³ The Byzantine text omits "nor the Son," a change that avoids the theological implication that Jesus' knowledge was limited.

2. Manuscript Evidence Beyond "Older is Better":

• Geographic Distribution and Early Witness: While the vast majority of surviving manuscripts (over 90%) are of the Byzantine text-type, this is largely due to historical circumstances. The Byzantine Empire was a thriving center of Greek-speaking Christianity for over a thousand years, and its climate was not conducive to preserving ancient papyri. The Alexandrian texts, on the other hand, are primarily from Egypt, where the dry climate preserved ancient papyrus and parchment manuscripts. The crucial point is not the sheer number of later manuscripts but the consistency of the earliest witnesses. The earliest manuscripts, and the earliest quotations from church fathers like Origen and Clement of Alexandria, predominantly reflect the Alexandrian text-type.

• External Evidence from Other Translations: The earliest translations of the New Testament into other languages, such as the Sahidic Coptic and some early Latin versions, also tend to agree with the Alexandrian text, providing an independent witness to a text-type that was in use early and in different geographical locations.

3. The Genesis of the Byzantine Text:

• Critics believe that the Byzantine text-type, as a distinct tradition, developed later than the Alexandrian and other early text-types.⁴ It is seen as a "conflated" or "mixed" text, combining readings from different traditions to create a smoother, more comprehensive version of the text. This process of combining readings from different sources is a known scribal practice. The very nature of the Byzantine text, which often includes all variant readings in one expanded text, suggests it is a later consolidation rather than the original reading.

In short, the argument for the Alexandrian text's superiority is not a simple chronological one. It is a reasoned conclusion based on a comprehensive analysis of the internal characteristics of the texts, the patterns of scribal copying, and corroborating evidence from the earliest surviving manuscripts and other ancient translations.