(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...THIS POST CONTINUES MY RECOLLECTIONS OF MY MENTOR BRUCE METZGER.
Several times in these posts on Bruce Metzger I have mentioned the fact that many of his colleagues at Princeton Theological Seminar considered him “old school,” and theologically a bit, well, naïve. It is common in theological circles to brand someone who has an older view of things that is not cutting edge as naïve. And Metzger certainly was not cutting edge when it came to theology.
Metzger had been raised in a pious home in Pennsylvania and the piety and simple beliefs of his youth stayed with him through old age. As I’ve indicated, he knew billions of facts about the Bible – its teachings, its historical context, the formation of the canon, the transmission of its text, the translation of its text into ancient languages (Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic — and so on!), the history of its interpretation, etc. etc. But his own personal beliefs could well have been the same had he not known these billions of facts. His was a traditional, fairly conservative belief in God through Christ, and he had a traditional understanding of the Bible as the inspired word of God.
Metzger was no fundamentalist. And he did not self-identify even as an evangelical. He did not think the Bible was inerrant or even infallible. He believed that parts of Genesis contained ancient myths (Adam and Eve) and legends (in his words: “Who ever said that God could not inspire myths?”). I don’t know if he believed in evolution, exactly, but if he did, it was in some kind of God-driven evolution. He certainly knew that there were some discrepancies in the Bible, but he thought most of them could be reconciled with due diligence. He thought most of the books of the Bible were likely written by the authors who claimed to be writing them, or who were claimed for them (Matthew was probably written by Matthew; 1 Timothy was probablyt written by Paul; etc.), although he did make an exception with 2 Peter. He thought there was no way the author of 1 Peter could have written 2 Peter (and he’s right!): the styles are too radically different. But, then again, who ever said that God could not inspire a pseudepigraphon?
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, HEY, WHAT’S STOPPING YOU????
Bruce Metzger is the author of several books including The Early Versions of the New Testament and The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration.
“I have obviously moved a very far way since then. Away from being a minister. Away from being a Christian. Away from believing in the Bible as the inspired word of God.” Ditto.
Also, I heard Dr. Metzger speak some years back at First Baptist Church(?) in Athens, GA. Afterward, he autographed for me one of his books I used as a text in seminary. I’ve forgotten which book, but it had a medium blue hardcover with silver or white lettering. It was in one of several boxes of reference books I donated to a local library when I left the ministry, from where it has long since disappeared. I’d like to have it back now, but can’t recall the title 🙁
I think we are all agnostic, Bart. The only difference being our intellectual and emotional honesty and our relative levels of unbelief.
As an atheist undergrad (gradutating in December 2012) enthusiastically looking for a grad-school and career in the field of biblical research, this is a post that is both touching and encouraging. I do not believe (not even one iota – though I used to), but I am fascinated by the history and anthropology of Jewish, proto-Christian, and Christian groups (as well as other religions, such as Hinduism). The love and admiration for your fellow scholar makes me less stressed about grad-school applications, financial aid/funding, and relocation… a bit. Academia is daunting! To work with brilliant people and share a brief glimpse into the past sounds utterly rewarding.
Bart,
I fully agree that committed theists and religious people can be as smart, perceptive, knowledgeable and all the rest as non-religious people. This is true in the present day as throughout history: this is true for people working in fields of humanities as well as natural sciences and social sciences. There are great thinkers and intellectuals across the religious and non-religious spectrum. Belief in God in one form or another is an inherent, though non-universal, aspect of humanity, resulting from religious experience, religious reasoning, historical considerations, and human yearning for meaning and value.
However, I maintain that it is rarer to find leading thinkers and intellectuals nowadays who have a fundamentalist form of faith, namely the position that the sacred text of their religion (be it the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Vedas) is, or must be, totally inerrant and infallible. Those few in this position, while knowledgeable in their field of expertise (say natural sciences), lack knowledge of critical academic studies of these texts.
I suspect Metzger has much in common with N.T. Wright, a widely recognised leading NT scholar, in their attitude towards the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible.
What was Metzger’s view of the historical Jesus? Did he understand Jesus to be an apocalyptic prophet? Did he believe Jesus thought of himself as the Suffering Servant, or the apocalyptic Son of Man?
Yes, I think Metzger and Tom Wright would have been very close theologically. Metzger did not think that Jesus was a “mistaken” apocalyptic prophet, and yet, I believe he did think that he saw himself both as the Son of God and as the Suffering Servant predicted by Isaiah.
This is a great post, one of your best yet and I have read all of them. Thanks so very much.
I know theological beliefs are not about intelligence, but it is still difficult for me to understand how someone can know so much about the various Biblical problems (which you have outlined over and over again) and still retain a conservative theology about the Bible. In other words, if the Bible contains myths, then God inspired the myths. Doesn’t this eventually become like political commentators always somehow spinning the evidence to a particular preconceived view? Sometimes, we call this “confirmation bias” or in the case of supreme court justices, “result-oriented judgments.” One can be very intelligent and still have a very closed mind. One can also be driven more by psychological wishes and needs than by evidence so that all evidence gets discounted, no matter what, in favor of those psychological needs or wishes. Conservative Christianity is quite comforting and certain. The problem is that getting there means doing all sorts of mental gymnastics with the Bible. I don’t know exactly how one does that.
Do you know of any competent biblical scholar, whose abilities and integrity you respect, who is a biblical inerrantist?
Yup, plenty. Both Dan Wallace and Darryl Bock are smart and have integrity.
It is interesting that the two biblical inerrantists you named, specialise in the New Testament. As you have alluded to in one of your books, the problems of internal inconsistencies, protracted period of editorial revisions of individual books, a-historicity of the large scale narratives (e.g. scale of the Exodus, splendor of the Davidic kingdom), are far more severe than for the New Testament. The mental gymnastics inerrantists have to perform on the OT must be all the more convoluted. I think if one is determined to maintain biblical inerrancy on theological considerations, it will always be possible to find the means to harmonise inconsistencies and refute historical evidence. Ancient history is hardly an exact science with rock-solid conclusions. Short of summoning the authors to explain themselves, it is very difficult to be sure what exactly they intended to convey. I think inerrantists have to ask themselves whether they maintain their position on a priori grounds, or on the actual evidence.
I think inerrantists come in different types: there are those who are adamant there cannot be myths in the Bible, and those who think God can use myths to communicate profound theological truths (e.g. the Genesis creation story). However, I think if archaeological evidence makes the historicity of the grand narratives of the OT (the Exodus, the Davidic kingdom, traces of polytheism expressed by authors of the Hebrew Bible, early Israelite religion was polytheistic) untenable, it presents a more serious challenge to the Christian faith than NT authors getting Paul’s itinerary wrong, or altered the chronology of the events in the passion narratives, or redacted their own beliefs onto the lips of Jesus.
After finishing your Introduction to OT textbook, do you plan to write a popular book highlighting contradictions in the OT, something like “Jesus interrupted”? It is nice to have the catalogue of textual and historical problems in one book, accessible to the lay reader.
You should go on the Unbelievable show on Premier Christian Radio to talk about problems of the OT.
I just recorded a show on Unbelievable two days ago! (But it was on Did Jesus Exist?). So, a follow up book on Moses Inerrupted? 🙂 It’s not in the works just now — several other books lined up for the present. I need more hours in the day and days in the week! Don’t we all….
Yes, I know you recorded an interview on Unbelievable, to be aired shortly.
I guess the book may be more aptly entitled “Did Moses exist” than “Moses interrupted”. By the way, do you think the existence of Moses is more like that of King Arthur and Hercules, than of Julius Caesar?
You have a very productive publishing career – you probably write faster than people read.
Well, Hercules certainly never existed, Julius Caesar certainly did, and King Arthur is a quesiton mark (if he did exist he wsa not at all like he is portrayed in the legends). So I guess Moses is more like Arthur.
I remember the first time I heard of Bruce Metzger. It was right after I became an evangelical Christian. One of the first books I read was Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.” Metzger is one of the scholars that is interviewed by Strobel. Mr. Strobel’s book, in my opinion, is pretty deceptive. He tells us he went on a through journey to investigate Jesus, but only interviewed scholars of the theologically conservative persuasion, but that’s getting off topic.
Anyway, despite the problematic nature of Strobel’s book, I think it gave a good description of Metzger and his impressive academic and scholarly credentials, and he (Metzger) earned my respect right away. In the book, Metzger made it very clear that discrepancies in various manuscripts do not compromise any “essential” or “orthodox” Christian doctrines, but to Dr. Metzger’s credit, I don’t think he said that this means the Bible is the “inerrant word of God.”
But, yeah, I totally agree with you, Bart. It’s a mistake to assume that theologically conservative religious believers can’t be excellent scholars in their field of expertise. I must say, though, that there are times when I’m baffled at how extremely smart people can believe the most crazy and bizarre things.
Yeah, I’m with you.
“He thought there was no way the author of 1 Peter could have written 2 Peter (and he’s right!): the styles are too radically different. But, then again, who ever said that God could not inspire a pseudepigraphon?”
How interesting! As a practicing Christian that believes the Bible is inspired, this is a refreshing bit of honesty. Yes, Peter (or Paul or James or whomever) didn’t write that book, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have something to tell me. Wonderful!
“And through the Bible he believed we (he) could hear God speak.”
This brilliant, educated scholar, perhaps the greatest textual critic of all time, believed God communicated with him personally through the Scriptures. Generally speaking, hearing other worldly voices is considered to be a sign of grave mental illness. From everything known about Metzger he did not suffer from mental illness.
Clive Lewis pointed out something interesting about the central character of the New Testament: “He produced mainly three effects — Hatred — Terror — Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.” His fame arose from within one of the few nations that believed in monotheism; his earliest followers were mostly Jews and not one of them seems to have grasped His message and what He claimed to be without great difficulty.
Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there is no conversation that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. Mr. Lewis
As a literary historian, he wields great credibility.
“…there is no conversation that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence.” Mr. Lewis
The more I think about that statement the more weighty it seems. I have never read or heard about anything anywhere that compares to the account as told in “John”. There’s this guy Who waxes eloquent about His GOD, Who is God, and His dad, and their dad, and that this guy, too, is God, specifically God’s Son, that they are One. They’ve been on some kind of really weird mission together, since before time began, to redeem the world. I sit there and go, “Who is this guy? Where did He come from? Why is He talking like this? Was He some kind of nut? He refers to a comforter to come to His band of followers Who will guide and teach then. He speaks like no one else has ever spoken that I know about at least. There is no ego in Him. Nothing extraneous, no airs, no hint of hypocrisy, no hidden agenda, nothing like any normal human being on the face of the earth. Totally weird. Totally different. Totally bizarre. Totally captivating. He’s not people pleasing. He’s not of this world. Who is this?
Real privilege to gain this sort of insight about Dr. Metzger. Thanks for posting this.