Subject: Impartial?

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 13:43:04 -0700

Jim West wrote:

> >The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC
>
> What hooey!
> [snip]

>
> >
> >Many TCers may have *said* they were impartial, but Scrivener clearly
> >*is* impartial in his method of TC.
>
> Not at all.  NO ONE is impartial in anything.  The best thing that could
> happen to scientific study of the the Bible is for folks to admit this one
> common denominator.
>
> (and I am sure that this was overlooked by many because my horrid little
> name was attached!  Oh no- the Dennis Rodman of theological studies has
> reared his ugly head again!!!)
>
> Vale, pie lector!
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
> Jim West, ThD

Jim {aka Dennis ;-))

I find your admission of non-impartiality quite interesting. For years (actually since Burgon more or less)
those is the TR camp and more recently those in the Majtxt camp are criticised as having a theological axe to
grind when it comes to NTTC. Hence, some prefer the TR/KJV and/or some prefer the Majtxt because they are
[primarily] 'theologically conservative'. Even Maurice Robinson has been so criticised (quite some time ago)
on this LIST because he has a "theological agenda" and _this_ agenda (with all its theological
presuppositions), rather than MSS evidence, is what drives him to defend the Byz txt. Ditto for Hodges,
Pickering, van Bruggen etc..

So, would you say then that those who adopt the Egyptian txt (generally) have a liberal agenda to defend? Does
a liberal's theological presuppositions play a part in him favoring the NA26 rather than the Majtxt?

Just askin'... :-)

Mike Arcieri