New Perspective on Westminster Confession of Faith

The Meaning of Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 and the Error of Restricting It to the Byzantine Text

Introduction

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) stands as one of the most influential doctrinal standards of Reformed Christianity. Among its opening statements, WCF 1:8 addresses the preservation and authority of Holy Scripture. This passage has often been drawn into textual debates, particularly regarding the relative authority of the Byzantine and Alexandrian textual traditions. Some have sought to claim that WCF 1:8 specifically endorses the Byzantine text as the preserved Word of God. Such a claim, however, goes beyond the intention of the Westminster divines and imposes a narrow interpretation on a statement that was meant to be broader and more general.

This paper will argue that WCF 1:8 teaches the preservation of Scripture in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts generally, without endorsing any single textual tradition such as the Byzantine family. Any attempt to claim otherwise is to add extra meaning foreign to the Confession.

The Text of WCF 1:8

The relevant portion of WCF 1:8 reads:

“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; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”

Two key points stand out:

1. The language of preservation is applied to the Hebrew and Greek texts as such. The Confession specifies the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.

2. The preservation is general, not tied to one textual family. The Confession states that these texts have been “kept pure in all ages” but does not identify a single stream of manuscripts (Byzantine, Alexandrian, or otherwise) as exclusively representing that providential preservation.

The Meaning of “Kept Pure in All Ages”

The phrase “kept pure” does not mean “kept free from all scribal error,” for the divines themselves were well aware of textual variants, marginal notes, and difficulties in manuscripts. Rather, “kept pure” refers to God’s providential preservation of the Scriptures so that the Word of God has never been lost, corrupted beyond recognition, or rendered unreliable for the church’s faith and practice.

The Confession thus affirms:

• That the inspired text remains available in the original languages.

• That no corruption has occurred which undermines the authority of Scripture.

• That the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek remain the final standard of appeal in matters of controversy.

This definition fits with the Reformed understanding of God’s providence and the reality of manuscript evidence, without restricting preservation to a single textual tradition.

The Error of Restricting WCF 1:8 to the Byzantine Text

Some interpreters claim that the Westminster divines had in mind only the Byzantine text-type when they spoke of God’s preservation of Scripture. This claim is flawed for several reasons:

1. Historical Anachronism. The classification of texts into “Byzantine” and “Alexandrian” families belongs to modern textual criticism, not to the seventeenth century. The Westminster divines did not frame their doctrine in such categories. To import them back into the Confession is anachronistic.

2. Lack of Explicit Mention. The Confession explicitly names “Hebrew” and “Greek,” not any textual family or recension. To assert that “kept pure” means “kept pure only in the Byzantine manuscripts” is to add to the Confession what it does not say.

3. The Principle of Generality. The divines affirmed preservation in broad terms to defend the reliability and authority of Scripture against Roman Catholic claims that Scripture was insufficient without church tradition. Their concern was not to settle intramural debates over textual families, but to affirm the continuing authority of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as opposed to the Latin Vulgate.

4. Consistency with Reformed Theology. The Reformed doctrine of preservation emphasizes the accessibility and reliability of God’s Word, not the perfection of a single textual stream. The Word is preserved across the whole manuscript tradition, with God ensuring that no essential doctrine is lost or corrupted.

The Proper Application of WCF 1:8

To interpret WCF 1:8 rightly:

• One must see its primary contrast: Hebrew and Greek vs. the Latin Vulgate, not Byzantine vs. Alexandrian.

• One must respect its generality: it affirms that Scripture in the original languages is preserved without endorsing one textual tradition as “the” pure text.

• One must avoid imposing later controversies onto the Confession.

Therefore, the right application is to see WCF 1:8 as affirming the sufficiency, authority, and providential preservation of the original-language Scriptures, without claiming exclusive authority for any one textual family.

Conclusion

Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 teaches that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek are the inspired Word of God, and that by God’s providence they have been preserved in all ages. This means that the Scriptures remain reliable, accessible, and authoritative in their original languages. To claim that WCF 1:8 exclusively endorses the Byzantine text tradition is to go beyond the words and intent of the Confession. Such an interpretation imposes an anachronistic and unnecessary restriction upon a statement that was deliberately general.

In refuting these additions, we uphold both the sufficiency of the Confession and the true Reformed doctrine of providential preservation: God has kept His Word pure in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts as a whole, and thus the church may confidently appeal to them in all controversies of religion.