(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...I have been enjoying reposting these reminiscences of my relationship with Bruce Metzger, widely seen as the most learned and important textual scholar in North America in the 20th century. I was privileged to study with him and honored to be his final student. Here I reflect on his supervision of my dissertation.
Different dissertation advisors have different approaches to supervising a dissertation. Some are extremely hands on, to the point of working over every thought and every sentence. Not too many are like that, because if they were, they would never do anything else with their life. Plus, the idea is for the student to figure it out and get good at it. That takes some trial and error. Other advisors go for the big picture and like to talk over the big ideas. Others basically don’t give a rip how the dissertation is coming along – they want to see it at the end, and when it’s done, they’ll tell the student whether it’s good enough or not. Others … well, there are lots of other approaches. Sometime I’ll explain mine, which is not quite any of the above.
Metzger took an approach that other students may have found frustrating, but that was absolutely perfect for me. He basically let me do my own thing. He would graciously read the chapters as I gave them to him. He would answer any questions I had. He would indicate where I made grammatical (and related) mistakes (he could spot a misplace semicolon from twelve pages away). And he did not get very involved in the whole process. As I said, that approach is frustrating for students who want a lot of guidance. But I was very independent minded and really wanted just to get on with it without interference. So Metzger was perfect.
If you’re interested in the blog, why not join? You get five posts a week dealing with just about everything you can think of connected to the NT and early Christianity; and every penny of your membership fee goes to charity! It’s good all ’round! Click here for membership options
Dr. Ehrman. If someone intended to read all of your books is there an order you would recommend as the information presented in one might make the material in another more clear?
Maybe start with Misquoting Jesus and then look at the topics of each and see what is most interesting to you at the time? They are all on different things, so it depends mainly on your interests.
Maybe start with Misquoting Jesus and then look at the topics of each and see what is most interesting to you at the time? They are all on different things, so it depends mainly on your interests.
How did Christianity become so fixated on right belief? I read your explanations of it, eg in the case of Paul, and they pacify my mind–for a while. But eventually I can no longer get my head around the idea. Punishment and reward for wrong and right actions seem to make intuitive sense. Does right belief seem so strange because of American culture’s emphasis on freedom of thought and science’s openness to revision? I try to think of other cultures that strongly emphasize right belief. From your books I know that in the ancient world right belief was not especially important, at least not in religion (except maybe Judaism). Islam seems to be an example of emphasis on right belief. Marxism may be a recent example. Emphasizing right belief seems like a form of social control and also a way of suppressing doubt (including one’s own doubts). It can even suppress doubts caused by disconfirming events-like Jesus’s failure to return. Instead of changing their beliefs people become even more committed to the belief. In the end is it simply another aspect of a Christian’s complete obedience to (and/or reliance on) God?
It’s a very complicated question, and would require a long article rather than a short comment to expllain. But you’re right, the idea of “right belief” is very odd, especially in the context of early Xty — there weren’t any other religions that focused on what a person believed. For Xns, though, it was necessary because there had to be some mechanism for saying who God’s people were, when they were bound together by a common belief that Jesus was the messiah who died for their sins. One had to *believe* that for salvation; that meant that it mattered what you believed; and that ended up leading to an emphasis on “correct doctrines,” that started out early in the Xn tradition and just became increasingly emphasized until for some it became the main thing….
Jesus never taught you had to believe he “died for your sins.” Mark 10:45 was a ransom of his Life (‘psuchen,’ meaning breath), not his death. A ransom by sacrificial death would have been a ransom given for all, whether accepted or not, and he said his was given only “to many” — *not* to all.
And in his words, there was as much stress on “seeing” him as belief. John 6:40, 9:5, 14:7, and 17:11 for example. It is Paul, the Spouter of Lying, who added his own ingredients. This is what Eisenman’s work is all about. Linguistic parallels from Pesherim to Bible tie Paul securely to the DSS Pesherim Lying Spouter, ‘Scoffer’ (Jude 18), or any number of other nasty things those who knew his lying would call him. It would take a book to list them all. It took ‘James the Brother of Jesus’!
Perhaps Professor Ehrman would comment further, as he points out it would take an article to do justice. But your question swirled in my mind long ago when I read Elaine Pagels’s best-seller on Gnosticism. Bart does not agree entirely with Elaine’s positions on the dating of Thomas, perhaps its number of sayings that the Jesus Seminar, or she, might find authentic, or sounding a lot like Jesus- etc. But I think Bart MAY agree on the events of say 140 ad through 180 AD and persecutions in the empire that practically FORCED the church of Rome to draw in the reins and decide WHOM to defend and whom to write off as heretics/casualties lost. It seems to me the answer to your excellent question lays in the second century, as much or more than in the third or fourth. Professor? Do you agree that it was the mid to late 2nd century dust-ups with the gnostics that kicked things off, if not set up this whole orthodoxy hang-up on its inevitable strict bent of mind?
I actually have no problem with some of the sayings of Thomas being earlier than their corresponding forms in the NT Gospels. But you’re right, I completely disagree that the Gospel of Thomas as it has come down to us is earlier than John. My view is that the second century is indeed the key, but not because of persecutions (which were not particularly extensive); instead, by this time there were so many different Christian books and perspectives about that church leaders had to decide which ones were “right” and which ones were “wrong.” Hence the need to know which and what to believe.
Following from the above, one other suggestion for a possible topic:
Would you be willing to discuss you work as an editor, and, more specifically, what that job entails.
For example, from most conversations I’ve had with folks (especially with folks who’ve never worked with an editor) their understanding of an “editor” would almost always be more properly called something like a “copy editor”; I.e. someone who does things like check the author’s spelling, or —to use your example above— make sure the semicolons and other punctuation are in their correct place.
But while copy-editing is an important and, when done properly, a highly-skilled job, the role of an actual editor goes far beyond this. (I had one author/friend describe her interactions with her book editor as much more like a “silent co-author”.)
Anyway, I (and I think others here) would interested in hearing about your experiences here.
Great idea. I’ve had a number of editing positions over the years and my work itself always goes through editors. And right, it’s more than correcting grammar and punctuation! IN fact, it usually isn’t that at all. I’ll add it to the list.
Please do write about editors. They, like librarians, are much more important than they usually get credit for. Someone once noted that one of the CIA’s sources of power is not so much its spies as the editors who wring out its intelligence products that go to senior policymakers in DC.
With you on editors and librarians! And in wanting to read about editing . . (please prof Bart).
Do you know whether the.scholarly consensus that the historical Jesus taught the resurrection of the body into an earthly paradise (rather than an immortal soul that goes to a spiritual heaven) has had much influence on what contemporary Christian churches teach? Are there denominations that promote that belief? Are there prominent Christian theologians that take that position?
Setting aside whether either bodily resurrection or spiritual immortality actually happen, I would think that bodily resurrection would be attractive to Christians in many ways. It defends against accusations that Christianity doesn’t value our physical, earthly lives for their own sake (rather than merely being preparation or a test for getting into heaven). You do emphasize that Jesus didn’t teach that Christian ethics would actually bring about this earthly paradise. Only God could do that. But Christian ethics are at least a foretaste of what life in paradise will be like. It might not be too big of a jump to say that people practicing Christian ethics are one of the instruments that God uses for creating paradise-though in a progressive rather than a sudden, cataclysmic way. This sounds to me like liberation theology.
My sense is that this historical conclusion has had almost no effect at all on what denominations or people within them personally believe today, or what theologians teach.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
How do we know that Jesus didn’t actually predict his own death, and thus didn’t agree with or understand its implications in what Paul established as Gods plan for salvation? Looking specifically at verses like mark 9:30-32 or mark 8:31 which seem to contradict his hopeless and unprepared demeanor during his crucifixion in that particular gospel.
Thank you!
Again, it is a matter of figuring out *how* to decide what in the Gospels actually goes back to Jesus, and why. The Gospel writers themselves often did agree with Paul’s views. But did Jesus? It involves careful analysis, and can only yield probabilities, not absolute certainty.
Bart,
What do you make of Hegesippus via Eusebius, 23.11, regarding James: “He is sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and He will come on the Clouds of Heaven.”? That’s Mark 14:62, “And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the Clouds of Heaven.”
I”m afraid I can’t look it up because I don’t know what you mean by Eusebius 23.11. Are you talking about the Ecclesiastical History? It has only ten books. Find a more exact reference and I can see.
History of the church, book 2, 23.11, page 60, Penguin. James according to Hegesippus, via Eusebius, speaks what is given to Jesus in Mark 16:42. Why?
Also, I can’t read Greek, but nearly all the major translations, including Greek ones I found on Biblehub.com – Greek parallels, show a period or semi-colon after ‘Thy kingdom come.’ It would not read “as it is in heaven” for both Thy kingdom come and thy will be done in light of John 18:36.
OK, I looked it up. Hegessipus is having James quote teh Gospel of Mark.
These are the same quotes STEPHEN utters in Acts 7:56-60, together with the “casting out, and crying out, and kneeling” language (kneeling so much as to have hardened ‘camels’ knees praying for the people) attributed TO JAMES in Apocryphal sources, when he is stoned to death by a crowd with Saul consenting. Paul casts James down breaking his leg and being beaten to death in separate accounts such as Pseudoclementine Rec. 1.70. More tell-tale “casting”nets and fishing, imagery with both Greek and Hebrew word parallels connect James with numerous figures covering him in the New Testament, including the Nag Hammadi James Apocalypses, which Dr.Charles W, Hedrick says are early, lacking allusion to developed New Testament concepts. We don’t KNOW the terminus a quo for most of these gnostic texts, and they parallel exactly, and tendentiously, the Judas betrayal narrative in all four versions of the Gospels. What I’m trying to say is that Eisenman, and Hedrick are supporting me when I tie Judas to James as a cover character converting James from a gnostic/Essene master into a condemned betrayer. The “casting out” language dates the Wicked Priest as the corpse, Ananus, “cast” over the city walls, courtesy of Josephus.
There is far too much to cover in 200, or even 2,000 words, to make the case that these Apocryphal sources are the source of the Gospel material. I know you think the reverse order is the case. It isn’t so. I mentioned before change in the appellation, “Hail, BROTHER!” of Second Apocalypse of James changed to “Hail, MASTER!” in the Gospels as indicative of it being not the derived, but the source of the latter. It was necessary to accommodate later Church virgin-birth theology.
Eisenman is indispensable for showing the derived Pauline theology of ‘The New Covenant in His Blood’ stemming from the Habbakuk Pesher ‘New Covenant in the Land of Damascus,’ of the Essenes. “The Spouter of Lying [“I lie not” Paul says in his letters], who leads Many astray [Matt. 24:5], shall build a worthless City upon Blood” – x.9-12; derived from mocking Essene blood purity observances. Hundreds of pages he devotes to all the word circle evidence tying Paul to the Lying Spouter. There is no doubt. Paul is the Liar. Same with the Righteous Teacher. No Jesus, but lots of “standing” – “casting” – “crying out” – “falling headlong” – “kneeling” — JAMES …….
I have a copy of your Didymus book and it’s quite different from your trade books! I assume when you publish a book like that the main idea is to make it available to others in academia, but is there some expectation for sales? Or is getting it published the main goal by itself?
Oh boy is it. The goal for a book like that is to influence the scholars in the world doing that kind of work. At that time there were hundreds of them, and now there are many more. But no, sales is about the last thing on ones’ mind…
Hi Dr Ehrman!
In Jesus Interrupted, you speak specifically about why Jesus had to die according to Mark and Luke- which I found incredibly fascinating! but there’s not so much on Matthew and John.
So how did they interpret the death of Jesus? Especially Matthew for whom good deeds unto others was so important.
Thank you!
Matthew has a similar view to Mark’s; John’s his harder to spell out. He thought that Jesus was dying for others, but the main reason was so he could return to his father, jsut as he had originally come from him. He came to deliver his message of salvation; now that was over, he could return.
This is late on a Saturday evening, so please forgive me a bit of a random question:
Is there a doctoral dissertation that you’d *really* wish one of your students to take on? A topic that you think is important and/or interesting that you won’t get to yourself but would spend time guiding the student on? Maybe something requiring learning a more obscure language like Armenian or Georgian or whatever?
Or a lite version like an MS thesis?
Not really. I tell my students to pursue their own intellectual passions and I’ll help them achieve their goals as best I can.
I wish I was your student! I’m sure you would have inspired me to pursue something really fascinating in textual criticism or some 2nd-3rd century hot but rather unexplored topic! It’s a bummer we live in different continents! 😂😂
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I finish high school at the end of 2022 and I’m thinking about where to go after that, (I’m in South Africa). Obviously I am very invested in the work that you do and other such scholarship. So I have two questions:
1. For a gap year: could you suggest places to visit or tours to do that would enrich my understanding of biblical studies.
2. Could you recommend courses/degrees that I could take to learn more about your field- and where to study them (in South Africa or otherwise)
Thank you so much!
1. Maybe take a trip to Israel? Also good would be parts of Greece and Turkey. And Rome! Ha! Take your pick.
2. I’d suggest doing some kind of liberal arts degree with some courses in religion. I do not think it’s good idea to major in Biblical Studies and focus on that. You need to learn lots about lots of things *while* you take Bible or early Xty courses here or there. Good luck with it!
Unrelated question
You’ve said several times that 1 Corinthians 15:3 uses Jewish code language for tradition handed down from one elder to another. I’ve become very interested lately in Paul’s knowledge of Jesus and would like to know how well established this claim really is. Could you tell me if there is a consensus among scholars that his language had this extra layer of meaning? I would also like to know where I can find the best and most exhaustive scholarly treatments of this issue.
Thank you for answering my previous question. I’ve shelled out for J Louis Martyn’s commentary on Galatians and think it’s amazing.
It’s a fairly common claim. Most critical commentaries on 1 Corinthians would deal with it. Yup, Martyn was the real deal, an incredibly careful exegete…
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Did Jesus know that he was going to die and resurrect? If so, how did he think that this would play into salvation for people? If not, how do we know this considering the number of verses indicating his knowledge of it?
Thank you!
My view is that he did not predict his death and resurrection in advance, though he may have come to know that his time was up a day or so before it happened. The Gospels want to show he was fully aware of what was going to happen to him and why, since the writers believed he was the Son of God, and so of course *must* have known.
In the ninth book of the Odyssey, Ulysses landed after nine days of storm beyond the island of Kythera.
Strange people welcomed Ulysses and his men, offering them the sweet fruit of the lotus, which has the property to erase people’s memory (oblivion).
Ulysses is afraid that his companions would forget their homeland and wanted to stop in that land, so he hurries to leave.
If everybody knew that reenacting the past would erase it, they would keep silent.
Dr. E—
My father graduated, I believe with an MDiv, from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1944. He would have been there for 2 years.
My interpretation of the holy Wikipedia is that Dr. Metzger started teaching at the seminary in 1938 and spent his entire career there.
I’m trying to figure out if it’s almost certain that my father would have known Dr. Metzger or if it’s anyone’s guess.
What’s your opinion?
Thanks so much.
I’d say almost certainly. Probably had him for class.
Dr. Ehrman:
First off, thank you for this BLOG and ALL THE WONDERFUL INFORMATION YOU SHARE! I have read quite a few of your books, have watched ALL of your debates, and even seen most of your interviews on various biblical programs on TV. As a practicing Roman Catholic, something you opined in one of your interviews astounded me. Most of the priests in my church are WELL EDUCATED! In some cases, we have Jesuits; they go to school for a LONG TIME, like 10-15 years! HIGHLY EDUCATED; however, you have been to seminary as well and you share information that they know! Why is this information kept out of the churches? Why is the same information taught to them as taught to you ignored? They do not communicate this type of material. I just don’t mean mine! It’s the same in Eastern/Oriental Orthodox and Protestant circles as well. Why do you think this is?
The main reason is taht pastors who learn this material in their ministerial training choose not to pass it along to tehri congregations so as not to rock the boat.