Subject: Re: Impartial?

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 14:15:03 -0500 (EST)

>Jim {aka Dennis ;-))

If only I made his money! (by the by, a good sense of humor is a conditio
sine qua non of Biblical studies).

>I find your admission of non-impartiality quite interesting.

Why?  Everyone is partial in one degree or another.  The Majority folks are
partial to it and tend to interpret the material in that light.  So are the
eclectics.  So are those who find "corruption" in the transmitted text.
(note, by the way, how the very term "corruption" is biased).
Its interesting, isn't it, that an honest self admission can raise comment!
Is it so unusual as to be worthy of note?

> 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?

Perhaps.  But perhaps the agenda I am striving to put forward is a little
less insidious.  I simply, honestly believe that older mss are closer to the
original redaction and therefore superior.  I don't think this is "liberal".
But if it is, so be it.  For example, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found
(and since) people have been fascinated by their antiquity.  After all, in
them we have mss that predate the standard Hebrew text by a millenium!  we
SHOULD be enthralled by them- just as we should be enraptured by the Greek
mss that predate the dark ages! (note- again, how the choice of words sends
off red flags as to how one feels about something- "dark ages" indeed!)

> Does
>a liberal's theological presuppositions play a part in him favoring the
NA26 rather than the Majtxt?

In this there is probably some truth.  I suspect many eclectics like the
NA27 (!) more than the maj. text not because they have investigated every
reading, but because it disagrees with the TR and thus the KJV! (the same
reason why many folks in NC vote for Jesse Helms, they know it really
irritates the intellectuals at Duke and Chapel Hill)!!
>Just askin'... :-)

Just answering, with sense of humor intact (since some have had a humorectomy!).

>Mike Arcieri

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm
(submissions welcome!)

[email-masked]