Why I do not accept Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

 Why I do not accept Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

My answer up front

I do not accept Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). I consider it an untenable extension of the doctrine of inspiration because the historical and textual evidence does not support the claim that every single word of the original autographs has been perfectly and identically preserved in any single extant text-family or printed edition. Below I give the main reasons (historical, textual, and theological), then show how VPP proponents try to attach the idea either to the Byzantine / Majority stream or to the Alexandrian / critical stream — and why neither move solves the basic problems.

What VPP claims 

VPP says that God has verbatim and plenary (every word) preserved the original inspired words in the apographs (the copies) so that we have an infallible, inerrant, perfectly-preserved text today (typically asserted by proponents to be the Textus Receptus / Majority/Byzantine family or by others the “preserved” Alexandrian witnesses). That summary follows the literature and the FEBC / KJV-only context where the doctrine is currently debated. (Wikipedia)

Main reasons I reject VPP

1) The manuscript data show plurality and many variants — not a single perfect line of identical texts

We possess thousands of Greek manuscripts (and far more translations and patristic citations) and hundreds of thousands of variants across them. That reality is the raw data of New Testament textual criticism: multiple early witnesses, often disagreeing in readings, sometimes significantly. Any doctrine that says a single, perfectly preserved set of words survives intact in the apographs has to explain why the surviving witness-base shows widespread and systematic variation rather than uniform identity. (Biblical Training)

2) No extant manuscript is the autograph; textual critics therefore reconstruct the best attainable original from competing witnesses

Modern textual criticism proceeds by weighing external and internal evidence (age and quality of witnesses, early versions and patristic citations, internal transcriptional/lectoral probabilities). The standard scholarly conclusion is that we can approximate the autographs but must acknowledge differences among early witnesses — there is no single surviving manuscript that is the autographa. VPP collapses the methodological distinction between inspiration of the autographs and the complicated empirical task of transmission, and thus oversteps what the evidence allows. (ia600202.us.archive.org)

3) The “majority = original” move is methodologically weak

VPP proponents often appeal to the majority/Byzantine stream (and sometimes to a printed Received Text) as the locus of preservation. But the numerical majority of later manuscripts (mostly minuscules from the medieval period) does not automatically mean those readings go back to the autograph. Many of those later MSS show smoothing, harmonization, conflation of variants, and other secondary tendencies that make them later in character. Simply pointing to large numbers of later manuscripts does not meet the critical standards that textual scholars use to assess originality. (Wikipedia)

4) The earliest, best witnesses are often Alexandrian in character — which undercuts a simple Byzantine-VPP claim

Many of the most important and earliest relatively complete witnesses (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, several early papyri) tend to align with what textual scholars call the Alexandrian (or “early”) text—readings which are often shorter and sometimes more difficult. Because the earliest external evidence points in that direction, a preservation claim that must track the earliest attested texts would have to look more to Alexandrian material than to the late majority. That undercuts the neat KJV/Byzantine claim that a late medieval/renaissance text = verbatim, providential preservation. (Wikipedia)

5) Theological and hermeneutical problems: biblical promises of “preservation” do not compel the VPP technical claim

Scripture promises God’s care over his words (e.g. “the words of the LORD are pure… Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them” — Ps 12:6–7; Matt 5:18 is appealed to). But those promises do not specifyby which manuscripts, editions, or manuscripts-families God would preserve every exact letter for every language, nor do they settle the empirical question of how textual transmission actually occurred. Historic confessions (e.g. the Westminster Confession) speak of God’s providential care — but defenders and critics interpret that differently (some read it as preservation of the truth and authority of Scripture in the church’s life rather than identity of wording in one extant manuscript family). So VPP imports a much more technical, modern claim into ancient/biblical language than the texts themselves unambiguously teach. (Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary)

If VPP were true — would it better “fit” the Byzantine text or the Alexandrian text?

Both lines of argument are used by different defenders; I’ll give the case each side would make and then evaluate.

The Byzantine (Majority / TR) case for VPP

• Argument used by proponents: The vast majority of surviving Greek manuscripts represent the Byzantine textual tradition; that pervasive, continuous usage in the church (and the history of the Received Text/Textus Receptus feeding the Reformation translations, notably the KJV) is offered as evidence that God preserved his words in the Majority/Byzantine stream. Editions such as Hodges–Farstad or Robinson–Pierpont aim to recover that majority form. (Wikipedia)

• Why proponents prefer it: it matches the intuition that God would preserve his Word “in the body of the church” and in the textual stream that dominated the medieval and Reformation churches.

The Alexandrian (early witness / critical) case for VPP

• Argument used by others: God would providentially preserve the text in the earliest and best witnesses rather than in later massed copies. Since manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and several papyri are older and are often judged by modern textual critics to be closer to the originals, a preservation-claim that wants to be historically plausible should point to those early witnesses. Modern critical editions (NA/UBS) intentionally seek the earliest recoverable reading. (Wikipedia)

• Why proponents prefer it: it fits the standard historical-critical method — the earlier witnesses have priority for reconstructing the original wording.

My assessment — neither solves the key problem for strict VPP

• The Byzantine case rests on majority/later witness advantages but fails to answer why later harmonized expansions or conflations would count as the verbatim autograph rather than secondary developments. Even Hodges–Farstad and Robinson–Pierpont concede significant differences between their Majority and the Received Text, and critics (including leading textual critics) argue the majority approach is methodologically suspect. (Internet Archive)

• The Alexandrian case has the advantage of earliness and therefore plausibility for proximity to the autograph, but the Alexandrian witnesses are not uniform (even Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with papyri and with one another in places), and the early evidence does not give a single, perfect, unanimity of words either. (Wikipedia)

So even if you wanted to make VPP historically plausible, the Alexandrian claim is more congruent with the textual-critical reasons scholars use to reconstruct the autographs (earliness, internal probability, difficulty of reading). But neither text-family supports the idea of an unbroken, verbatim, perfectly preserved single text surviving unchanged in the apographs across centuries.

Practical implication for theology and translation

• A robust doctrine of God’s providential preservation can be maintained without insisting on VPP’s technical claim that every jot and tittle survives identically in one extant stream. Historic orthodox confessions and careful scholars typically distinguish inspiration of the autographs from the providential preservation of Scripture’s truth and authority in the church. Textual criticism is a God-honoring scholarly tool to recover the best attainable text for translation and exegesis. For how textual scholars work and why they favor early witnesses and eclectic editions, see the standard handbooks. (ia600202.us.archive.org)

Further reading (to check sources and see the evidence yourself)

• Kurt & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament — standard introduction to the manuscript evidence and critical editions. (ia600202.us.archive.org)

• Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament and A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament — classic, readable explanation of variant readings and editorial practice. (Cornish Interactive)

• Daniel B. Wallace, overview lectures and articles on variants and the Majority Text debate (good evangelical technical treatments). (Biblical Training)

• Hodges & Farstad; Robinson & Pierpont — editions and defenses of the Majority/Byzantine text. (See the Robinson–Pierpont Byzantine edition and Hodges–Farstad Majority Text.) (Internet Archive)

• On the VPP controversy (FEBC / Life BPC legal case and background): FEBC statements and the Singapore court materials explain how VPP became a live ecclesial/legal issue. (febc.edu.sg)

Final summary

VPP as a strict, technical claim — that a single extant manuscript tradition (or printed edition) preserves every original word verbatim without any loss or variation — runs into a massive empirical problem: the manuscript evidence is plural and messy. If you interpret “preservation” in a looser, providential sense (God preserved the truth and power of Scripture, and the church has usable, reliable texts), that is both defensible and historically orthodox. But the tight, word-for-word VPP claim, especially when tied exclusively to the Byzantine/Textus Receptus/KJV apparatus, is not supported by the historical-textual facts; if anything, the earlier Alexandrian witnesses give a better (though still imperfect) basis for reconstructing the original wording. (Biblical Training)