Regarding the matter of what the framers of the WCF meant when they asserted the Scriptures had been “kept pure in all ages” (1:8), it’s an interesting question. In a nutshell this is my view:
the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages. Not entire manuscripts, but
the readings were kept intact and in the Lord’s timing put into a particular edition. This in bold above I took from a private conversation with a friend, and I put part of that here below, slightly tweaked for posting here.
A friend asked while discussing these things: "what about before the reformation if all the words were not in one place, wouldn't there be uncertainty and doubt? Not sure which was the original in the manuscripts? Therefore isn't the TR position of uncertainty similar to CT for all the saints before 1500?"
My understanding is this: the sort of textual scrutiny we focus upon the manuscripts in the present century – and increasingly have in the centuries since 1500 – was not typical prior to 1500. Various locales had their Bibles based on mss in their respective possession; they were for the most part content with what they had. True, Rome persecuted the Waldenses (Vadois) and Albigenses with their Antiochian versions of the Bible and theological dissenting; while in the East the Greeks had their settled Byzantine manuscripts and a fairly settled Bible – as far as the Greek Orthodox Church was concerned; Rome was content with its Latin version. All were pretty much satisfied with their status quo. The Renaissance, however, changed that; Ad fontes (a Latin expression which means "to the sources" – literally "to the fountains") was the cry of Valla and Erasmus, and they began examining the various manuscripts, mostly Greek, and comparing them with the Latin, as regards the New Testament. At this point scrutiny did become focused on the various text-types. (It later intensified in the contention between the RCC and the Reformers.)
It has been similarly asked by some, “If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different texttype – did they not have a preserved and adequate Bible?” And I would answer:
There is a preserving of the text, and there is a preserving of the text — the latter where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated and brought to maturity through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James translation) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.
Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an adequate preservation as distinguished from preservation in the minutiae.
As regarding the Lord’s promise to preserve His Scripture (Matt 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; etc), many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word. When the Lord prophesies, does it have to come about instantly? Is there not sometimes progression, as in the development seen in the Olivet discourse of events from the time Jerusalem fell till the time of the end?
Concerning the statement in the Westminster Confession, 1:8
The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...
Warfield introduced a new understanding of this section differing from that of the framers, (I can elaborate on this if necessary). What I want to say concerns what this “kept pure in all ages” entailed. Does it mean that there was a pure text – intact in the sense of the autographic documents – in all generations and all locales? Does it mean every generation and geographical area had an equivalent of an autographic copy? I do not believe so. I believe this means that
the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages; when in certain textual traditions (I am thinking of the Greek here) some readings were removed they were retained elsewhere – and later restored to the Greek by His providence. The Hebrew and Greek copies – the apographs – the WCF divines had in hand exemplified this.
[end quote from conversation]
__________
The trouble with discussing theory / theses is that it gets removed from the actual texts. Part of my labors here at PB has been to deal with evidences to support the thesis I hold, and to show the soundness of my understanding by concrete examples of Byz / TR readings compared to CT variants clamoring for acceptance; to give a few examples:
Defending the Lord's Prayer 1 thread (Matt 6)
Defending the Lord's Prayer 1
Defending the Lord's Prayer 2 thread (Luke 11)
Defending the Lord's Prayer 2
On Enoch in Jude thread (I start in post #9)
Peter Enns, A Blog
Granville Sharp thread
Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Granville Sharp
Mark 16:12 thread
Mark 16:12
John 7:53-8:11 thread
John 7:53-8:11
Colossians 1:14 thread
Colossians 1:14
Johannine Comma thread
Nolan on
1 John 5:7:
Johannine Comma
Minute vs. adequate preservation:
Johannine Comma
Pickering on the early history of the text:
Johannine Comma
Holland on
1 John 5:7:
Johannine Comma
________
and then a couple of threads that deal with both text-critical theory
and various evidences—one vis-à-vis James White of AOMin and the other one of Dr. White’s lieutenants, Alan Kurschner.
Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin thread
Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin
Hort on early Byz majority:
Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin
Borland essay; Lake, allegation Alexandrian text majority examined: ibid
W&H text not the same as CT/ET per White:
Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin
Responding to James White of AOMIN thread
Responding to James White of AOMIN
When we deal with evidences that either support or seek to invalidate various readings we are getting into the trenches and hand-to-hand combat, so to speak. It takes a mix of both theory and evidences to establish a defensible view. I don’t think this will be settled before the Lord returns; I labor for the sake of those who need—with certainty—to know that God has indeed provided a settled Biblical text, both OT and NT, that the saint may declare, “Thus saith the LORD” both to devils and to men—and to his or her own heart.
We either have a Bible one can hold in one’s hand of God’s word preserved in the minutiae, or we do not, but instead a theoretical Bible cobbled together with provisional readings, till perhaps a newer MS—or newer opinions—may be produced. Either God preserved His word in
a Book, or it’s scattered around in a number of them. I hold with the former.
