I was asked recently whether I affirm WCF section 1.8, given the principles of equitable eclecticism I hold. For reference, here is the statement in question:
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. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (Westminster Confession, Ch I.VIII)
Below are some of the principles I think we can extract and identify:
They affirmed the principle of Ad Fontes
We must go back to the original sources, as far as we’re able, in this case the original Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic, which they don’t mention, but it goes without saying). Protestantism was literally born because of the principles of good textual criticism, and has always been founded on those principles, so this is deeply in our bones.
They denied the authoritative primacy of any mere translation
No translation is inspired per se in the same way the original autographs in Hebrew and Greek were. Most especially they had in mind Roman Catholic claims regarding Jerome’s Vulgate, treating it as if it were an inherently inspired document. They denied this, as do all Protestants. The same applies to the collection of books called “the Septuagint”, and to various English translations of scripture, etc.
They affirmed textual purity of the Greek and Hebrew
The Greek and Hebrew have been “kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.” This doesn’t mean the Westminster elders denied the existence of difficult textual variants or claimed that a manuscript exists somewhere that is entirely devoid of scribal errors. “Pure” is not an epistemologically absolute term here. On the contrary, Westminster elders explicitly wrote about textual variants and scribal errors. James Ussher, one of the participants at Westminster, was content to affirm that not only do the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts contain textual variants, sometimes those textual variants are so difficult they might even obscure the meaning of a particular verse! But no matter, Ussher says, because the overall text is plenty pure enough for God’s purposes, for faith, for righteousness, etc. (And once again, remember the Roman Catholic and Vulgate context of this confession: their main concern was to affirm the Greek and Hebrew purity, over against claims of Vulgate superiority.) This is the nuanced meaning of “pure” that at least some Westminster elders like Ussher had in mind when they called the Greek and Hebrew texts pure. And they were right. Some minor scribal errors and minor textual variants aren’t worth making a big fuss over.
They affirmed that translations do contain and represent the Word of God
In the second half of the statement, they call for the necessity of translations, to promote “the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all.” In other words, they are happy to call mere translations “the Word of God.” A translation can accurately convey to us what the inspired text actually says in Greek and Hebrew. (This is also why in some cases an ancient translation like the Septuagint can be helpful for correcting a rare scribal error in a Hebrew manuscript. It’s not because the Septaugint is inspired per se; it’s because the Septuagint like any good translation points to the Hebrew manuscripts that were behind it.)
In Summary:
Not only does it seem the Westminster elders have been okay with the principles of equitable eclecticism I hold, it may actually be a decent description of the Westminster position, albeit a more detailed and modern articulation of it. Personally I wholeheartedly affirm all the principles and statements above, without even the smallest reservation.
Regarding the excesses of modern academia:
The modern academic ‘critical text’ position seems a bit more radical than what’s described above. For example, modern academics want to chop off the ending of Mark, claiming that passage was never inspired. The number of obscure textual variants they embrace is arguably somewhat extreme. Although it’s true the term “pure” can’t be an absolute term when discussing hand-copied manuscripts, nevertheless there surely must come a point when a text contains so many errors that it begins to qualify as “impure”. At some point facial hair becomes long enough to qualify as a “beard”. It’s hard to say when that point might be, but modern academic textual criticism seems to come disturbingly close to the point of saying the NT manuscripts used by most historical Christian churches have been impure.
To be fair, proponents like James White claim this approach doesn’t compromise the doctrine of purity, because (a) these particular textual variants actually aren’t so important, (b) the church has been given all these different manuscripts containing the textual variants, etc. Furthermore, it could be argued that maybe even the Westminster elders themselves wouldn’t have considered this level of textual criticism beyond the pale. After all, John Calvin himself engaged in textual criticism regarding the story of the woman caught in adultery in John: “It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage” (source). Hypothetically would the Westminster elders condemn one of their peers for asking the same sorts of textual critical questions that John Calvin did there? I doubt it. Ultimately it’s hard to accuse modern academic theory of being totally incompatible with the Westminster Confession. At what point does a quantitative difference (number and length of “lost” textual variants) turn into a qualitative difference (the text being impure)? Probably the worst you can say is that academia leans away from the Westminster position into more of an impure direction and ends up softening the doctrine of purity a little. (And for the record, I think the principles these academics use to make their textual edits are unsound and foolish at an intellectual level; they are not just softening the doctrine of purity, they are also failing at the work of basic textual criticism itself.)
Regarding the excesses of traditionalism:
There are a minority of Reformed theologians who are dogmatically committed to the textus receptus as absolutely pure, with no scribal errors whatsoever. As far as I can tell, their view does NOT represent the Westminster position. Such people deny there is still textual critical work to be done (in disagreement with Westminster elders like Ussher, and also in disagreement with a moderate TR/Byzantine fan like Doug Wilson too). Oh, and never mind the fact that the “textus receptus” was itself a product of textual critical work, with several revisions over time. Never mind that the textus receptus was arguably the “equitable eclectic text” of its day. A dogmatic textus receptus proponent might appeal to the fact that textus receptus translations like the KJV have been blessed by God over the centuries with good Christian fruit—in other words, they argue it is part of a blessed tradition of the Church and therefore ought to be considered the unchangeable standard for the biblical text. But that is not a Protestant doctrine of tradition. Mere tradition is no substitute for good textual critical work—if any principle is responsible for birthing the Reformation, it is that one! A dogmatic textus receptus fan happens to affirm the same manuscripts the Westminster elders favored (i.e. the most recent revision of the textus receptus) but ultimately he has more in common epistemologically with a Roman Catholic who affirms the inspiration of the Vulgate. Just substitute the modern textus receptus for Jerome’s vulgate, and they’re pretty much the same arguments. Strict textus receptus dogmatism is not a Protestant attitude, and in many ways it’s the exact opposite of what the Westminster elders had in mind (at least some of them). A person who holds this stance might be able to affirm the bare words contained here in the Westminster Confession, but they’re miles away from affirming what Westminster elders like Ussher believed.