Well, i am back from a serious study in the area of textual criticism and matters pertaining to it. And here for all to see is an update on my beliefs regarding the preservation of God’s word and the biblical text in general.
My Belief on Preservation
God has perfectly preserved His word in the extant manuscripts, but textual criticism is not to the point yet where we can perfectly extract it. As textual criticism grows and more extant manuscripts are discovered i believe that it will be possible to come to a perfect text.
What to term my belief on preservation
- Theoretical VPP (Verbal Plenary Preservation)
- Practical EPP (Essentially Pure Preservation)
- EM-VPP – Extant Manuscript Verbal Plenary Preservation (to distinguish from KJV/TR-VPP)
- CT-EPP – Critical Text Essentially Pure Preservation (not referring to any particular critical text)
So that the VPP is theoretical and not confined to a specific text family, but to all extant manuscripts.
EPP is what we practically have and this essential preservation is found in a critical text.
I purposefully kept my belief on the underlying texts separate from my belief on preservation as these beliefs are exclusive to each other to a degree.
My Belief on Specific Underlying Text
The Critical Text (Nestle-Aland/UBS) best represents the original texts.
In the tradition of the Received Text, it considers all available documents to ascertain the original reading. It does not limit itself to one particular family of manuscripts, but considers all the manuscripts God actually has providentially preserved.
Although there are early Byzantine readings, there is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text type was known before the 4th century.
Although it is possible that scribes may have removed sections based on theological prejudice, the evidence shows that scribes were more likely to harmonize and add to the text. And if they would have removed sections based on theology they would have been more consistent in carrying it out.