In my reflections on my relationship with Bruce Metzger, my mentor through both my Masters and PhD degrees, I come now to a question I sometimes get asked. Metzger himself was a devout and pious Christian, an ordained Presbyterian minister, and unusually committed to his faith. When I first met him I was an evangelical; I changed over the years; I eventually left the faith. How did Metzger respond?
After all that I’ve written in these posts, I’m afraid the direct answer will be a bit of a disappointment. The answer is: I don’t know.
Metzger and I never talked about either my faith or his. He was my teacher and I was his student, and we talked almost exclusively about scholarship: New Testament studies, the history of earliest Christianity, the textual tradition of the New Testament. We did not have a pastoral relationship but an academic one. I don’t know if Metzger ever had a pastoral relationship with any of his students, but I somewhat doubt it. He was their teacher, not their pastor or counselor.
I know this seems weird to outsiders, since, well, isn’t faith the point? Well, it’s
Members of the blog receive five posts a week, with access to posts going all the way back to 2012. Joining is inexpensive, and all membership fees go to charity. So — why not join? Click here for membership options
–
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.
So do you miss anything about the faith you lost? Is there anything about it that still “calls out to you”, so to speak?
I miss the certainly that I was going to be having a flippin’ amazing eternity!
I’ve always had a really difficult time understanding this separation – personal beliefs with the scholarship. Because, in my mind, how could you NOT blend these two? They derive from the same person!
I mean, you’ve had countless debates with renowned scholars of roughly the same caliber with you (OK, we know you’re the GOAT, but you get my point), and you completely disagree at such major issues such as the reliability of the New Testament or its historicity etc, that one can’t help but conclude that these major disagreements can’t stem from any truly neutral, objective considerations, but are instead traced in your dispositions regarding God.
Let me give an example to illustrate my point. Take the “burial” of Jesus: in “HJBG” you cite plenty of references from the Roman world that show that criminals of the kind did not get a proper burial. Of course, conceding such a insight (if you are an evangelical scholar), you automatically have to reject the idea that Jesus’s tomb was found empty and he was raised from the dead!
I don’t know if I get my point across, or there’s something wrong with my example or my line of thought.
Yup, I get it. But it’s not a question of biblical/historical scholar OR faith. One can accept the findings of scholarship and simply alter one’s faith accordingly. You don’t have to abandon it.
I can understand that coming from you (hell, who else would call himself a Christian atheist!), but it seems impossible to me for a devout scholar to alter his faith accordingly to the finding of Jesus not having a burial!! It surely doesn’t seem “simple” – not by a long shot!
I think it requires a painful and extremely high (and thus extremely rare) level of intellectual honesty.
Anyway, thank you very much for your answers, Mr. Ehrman!
Right — I wouldn’t say that the decision about *how* to alter ones faith is simple. But I definitely know Christians who think Jesus did not receive a decent burial. John Dominic Crossan (famous author) for one.
Prof Ehrman,
Where is the TRUTH in all this. In this period of post truth political dialogue you can see the slippery slope of people ascribing to non factual declarations because a lot of people believe something that is patently false. The truth is the truth regardless of the opinion of scholars. If the foundational beliefs supporting atonement theology are not true then the religion built on the untruths is a lie . This seems to get lost in textual research and endless proving or disproving the bible with the bible.
I am a very big fan of truth, and I think that in *every* quest for truth the issue is EVIDENCE, not authority (i.e.,taking someone else’s word for it, even ancient authors)
Thank you for sharing this. It’s not disappointing as much as it is enlightening for me. I keep thinking that my people that are committed to Christianity have two choices in response to my faith journey… to be ignorant of it or to condemn it’s transition. But maybe, as you explained in your story, there is another alternative. Sharing common interests is huge for a friendship. It helps in any relationship to focus on our commonalities instead of the things that divide or polarize us. I am learning that now through Covid. Not everyone is on the polarization train. There are people who can hold to what they believe and still engage others of different trains of thought and understanding. Thank you Bart for this post.
Have you spent any time ruminating on the faith of your grad students, past or present?
Never once.
Based on what other intelligent believing Christians have told you, do you suspect that Dr. Metzger might have voiced objections, were he so inclined, to one or two particular passages in Misquoting Jesus? If so, might you share what these passages are?
I’m not suree. He said he really liked it, but he would probably have emphasized the positive side more and downplayed the problems, even if he agreed with everything.
Hello Bart. Another unrelated question here, and one you may not like : of all the books you have written, do you have one you like the most or one that you think is your best ?
Thank you.
Yup. It is always the most recent one. 🙂 They are so different from each other that I like different ones “best” for different reasons.
“In all these years, I have never, ever, had a conversation with a colleague about my personal religious views. Never.”
This absolutely blows my mind. Then again I’m not in academia when keeping one’s mouth shut about certain topics is probably advantageous.
Also, as one in charge of people’s destinies, it surely would be best not to know if your students are ‘like you;’ or ‘opposite of you;’ ‘have ideas you are specifically against;’ etc?
A fair tribute to an honest man.
I don’t want to diminish the focus of your post, which is a very good one and addresses an issue that I have pondered for a while. But I have a question about something you wrote: In the new revision of the NRSV that is soon to be published, have the poor translation issues that you have enumerated in recent posts been corrected?
I’m afraid I haven’t seen the new revision yet, so I don’t know.
Hello Dr. Ehrman. I was wondering if you have ever had the opportunity to see the Shroud of Turin and what did you think. Even if you haven’t whats your perspective on it?
I’ve never seen it. It’s been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be a medieval forgery.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
That’s fascinating! How do they know that the shroud is a forgery?
Thank you!
They’ve done carbon 14 datings. Sceptics of the science (those who desperately want it to be authentic) constantly challenge the findings, but they are consistently clear. (I should point out, even if datings put it back to the first century, that would mean of the many tens of thousands of people crucified then, this would have been one of them — not that it wold be Jesus! But since it’s medieval, it’s not even that)
I think of it as a medieval attempt at creating an object of devotion rather than a forgery. I view it as an icon and have no doubt about its human provenance. Catholicism has always been intensely visual. I was trained in theology by Jesuits but I’m Jewish. I was comfortable with the austerity of Jesuit churches and the lack of candles, crosses and signs advertising how long one would escape Purgatory. That isn’t the case in most Catholic churches, where there are chapels on the side, etc. I view the Shroud as a kind of “monstrance.” I don’t think of it as a cynical attempt to deceive and profit.
I always find it kind of strange when Christians *don’t* take an interest in another’s faith, especially since they believe faith is necessary to avoid burning alive in hell forever.
Dg.. I know many Christians and I don’t know any who believe you have to have faith that in Jesus to not go to hell forever. I don’t usually talk theology even at church. I think we figure “whatever works for you”.
My friends and I go to different churches but we’ve never discussed Luther or Wesley or Augustine of Hippo or Barth. I suppose we wouldn’t bother to go to church if we didn’t believe in some divine force of a more or less personalized nature but that’s about it as far as what I know about their beliefs.
Bart, do you wish now that knew what Metzger thought about your faith and your losing your faith?
I’ve never been sure. It might be hurtful…. I’m sure he would not have been happy about it, but I never knew him to be one who was evangelistic or eager to have people believe as he did. He was more interested in encouraging and educating those who did.
Totally off-topic, but…
Just briefly, do you think King Solomon actually existed? Again, very briefly: if so, why, and if not, why not?
(I ask because I am surprised to find many scholars who think he did *not* exist.)
Thanks!
I think David existed and that he had sons. I don’t think we have much of any reliable information about the son who became king after him; I don’t have trouble thinking his name was Solomon and that he was famous, taht possibly he constructed the temple in Jerusalem, and that after him the kingdom split in two, but beyond that I think the actual stories are almost entirely legendary.
Hi Bart,
A bit off topic, but I’m finishing up your book Jesus Apocalyptic preacher (it was interesting hearing you argue FOR a tomb) and you mention near the end that Jesus’ followers could’ve proclaimed the resurrection three days after the death of Jesus, but also weeks, or months later. I’m curious, what do you think is the most likely timeline? Were followers more likely to have thought Jesus resurrected right away or months later? When would the visions of Jesus have occurred? Theoretically the resurrection hypothesis coincided with the visions?
Yes, I was younger then…. I think it probably was within some days or weeks, but I’m not sure how we could tell. None of them tells us, and Paul converted only three years or so later…
We mostly use labels to make summary judgements about people we do not know (which is almost never ideal but often the best we can do). When you actually know someone, especially as well as Metzger probably felt that he knew you, the labels do not mean so much anymore. He probably had a good sense of your heart and your mind, and was happy with that.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you not believe at some point, no matter how PROFESSIONAL scholars need to be, there is some sort of a duality between faith and research? Do you believe Metzger could have been a bit bias with his research simply because of his faith? I would propose the same contention with Raymond Brown; a brilliant scholar (as you know) as well as a priest. A pious one at that. What about Copernicus? Look how he changed the world! He went against the views of the time and ended up being right; he never lost his faith! He remained a pious Catholic until his death. Any thoughts?
Yes, I think in some of his research and publications he was certainly biased. In his textbook on the New Testament, for example, he comes up with ways of reconciling Gospel accounts that are implausible but pleasing to believing readers. But in his hard core research he was a top-flight philologist and manuscript scholar.
“Pleasing to believing readers”: Sorry for segwaying:
“Shaffer lectures Christ the divine man part 2/3”
After some research I am baffled how your conceptions of early Christologies is derived from a false exegesis of Acts chapter 13 verse 33. You even quote the verse from a corupt version (“auton ek nekron “was added in Codex Alexandrinus) and pivot off of this false basis to explain how Acts 13 supposedly describes Adoptionism. It is actually quite easy to disprove that since there are 2 topics in the chapter: raising Jesus as messiah (the promise made to the fathers) and raising Jesus from the dead. The first is in verse 33 (the promise was not the resurrection !) and verse 34 describes the latter – the resurrection. It appears to be a form of scholarly dogmatism to read adpotionism into the new testament as it is nowhere to be found. I believe you are wrong in your foundations here Mr Ehrmann. Either to please the scholarly world, or because you cannot see it, not sure. But you are certainly very slack in your analysis and should not quote a corrupt manuscript as a high level scholar.
Well, uh, thank you for that frank assessment of my exegetical abilities and skill at dealing with manuscripts! 🙂 It appears that you think that the participle in v. 33 (ANASTESAS; “by raising) is a reference to God raising Jesus up as the messiah, not to his raising Jesus from the dead. OK, I’ve never heard that interpretation before, but fair enough. Let’s think about it. If that’s the likely reading, please explain why Paul’s explanation in the very next verse uses the same word again, and specifically uses it to refer to Jesus being raised from the dead (rather than being brought forward as the Messiah), and why the word is repeated in the same way in v. 37? And why it gets used that way throughout the book of Acts?
Ah, you can handle some “Gegenwind”. Why do you quote a corrupt manuscript is still my question? 13:33 – And why did someone make that corruption ? Slowly read from Acts 13:23 to Acts 13:34 ? The text switches from raising (as David was raised) to raising from the dead. Verse 33 says that a promise was fulfilled. The promise is spelled out in verse 23. What is it ? The resurrection from the dead or the raising of the messiah ? Verse 34 starts with “ὅτι δὲ”. Paul says that the promise to bring Jesus from the house of David was fulfilled in verse 33. “And as concerning (ὅτι δὲ) that he raised him up from the dead….” – is how verse 34 starts. So we clearly do have 2 facts mentioned in the verses 33 and 34. “ὅτι δὲ” weakens your case. As does the fact that the resurrection of the messiah was not the promise unto the Fathers. The KJV (a highly corrupt bible in christological matters) also corrupted this text by adding “again” into verse 33. Btw you also shortened Romans 1:4 in the lecture, omitting “IN POWER” which is very important.
The long-held view among scholars is that “in power” was added to the creedal statement by Paul to bring it into conformity with his own views, that it was not originally part of the creed.
Good evening, Bart. The person who asked about the shroud and your response bring about an interesting question that I have never seen or heard answered. If the shroud is a forgery, how was it done? I find it amazing that someone hundreds of years ago could make this object and have it show an incredible figure when exposed to a negative film. Since you are based in a college with some pretty serious scholars I would like to see a guest blog by one of your colleagues that do research on artifacts like this and shed some light on how this thing was made.
I’m not sure we know. Whoever did it was pretty amazing!
I have a personal reason for asking this question:
When you began losing faith, did you ever consider looking for another “path” to God? Maybe one that was more correct?
I thought about Judaism especially. But the problem is that I came to think there wasn’t any God at all, so it was not so much the “path” that I thought was the problem (I liked and still do like the path of Chrsitianity) but that there was no actual destination.
Prof Ehrman,
Q1. Please what is the title for Marcion’s form of Luke. I read somewhere it being called ‘Gospel of Christ’?
Q2. Does it still exist?
He just called it the Gospel. We don’t have it, but some scholars have tried to reconstrcuct it based on quotations of it from Tertullian and Epiphanius.
Dr. Ehrman, I think I have seen on a couple of youtube videos where you have said that you were first a conservative Christian and then for a time you were a liberal Christian before you became agnostic. I am curious about what you mean by “conservative Christian” and “liberal Christian.” Are these two different varieties of Christianity? or do you mean that a conservative Christian and a liberal Christian share the same religious beliefs, but their political beliefs differ? When you underwent the change from conservative Christian to liberal Christian, was your political position all that changed, or did your religious position change as well?
By conservative I mean that I believed in the absolute infallibility of the Bible and in the literal truth of the traditional Christain doctrines (Virgin birth, physical resurrection of Jesus, and so on); by liberal I mean that I no longer thought the Bible was infallible and I had doubts about the literal understanding of the doctrines. I had begun to be more liberal politically already as a conservative evangelical Christian. But I became more left-leaning the more I realized that we humans are here without divine guidance and this life is all there is that any of us has.
Professor Ehrman,
I agree with almost everything about the scriptures that you have written in your many books, but that fact is irrelevant to my belief there is a higher intelligence (“God”) who is guiding all people toward making the world a better place, but because we have a free will, 99.9999% ignore nearly all of the guidance. Therefore, it continues. (This is the central theme of process theology and explains everything that has happened since humans started creating history.)
A stronger argument for the existence of God is the testimony of thousands of young children (3 to 6 years old) who tell convincing stories about having a previous existence living with a different family, dying, talking with God, and being literally being born again. Many of these children are not part of a Christian family in either life. In multiple cases the very young child discloses enough information that the previous person can be identified and the information about that individual that the child reported can be verified. This research has been on-going at the University of Virginia Medical School for 60 years. I urge you and others to google: UVA Med School DOPS and click links to Earlier Life.
Bill Steigelmann
I think we should not think of leaving religion as a loss of faith but a gain in rationality, putting the matter in the positive. As I see it, the most reasonable responses to religious claims are of the nature of either 1) there is not sufficient evidence to support that claim or 2) there is no evidence to support that claim and the claim is outside the realm of the possible.
I get your point. I would say that it is rather accepting a different *kind* of rationality.
Metzger was a wise man.
Faith in Christ cannot be taught or persuaded.
That, though, does not preclude respect and love for a friend.
I left the Ministry and after some reflection, I was surprised to note that during that whole time I never had a discussion with other Ministers about the faith or personal faith experiences. During Seminary I had a student internship at the tail end of that period. I was working with two inner city Churches in the PCUSA. This was during a time of burn out and a serious struggle with belief. None of them seemed to have a spiritual side and took no Pastoral interest in me. So, at the end of that I left Ministry. I still marvel at that some 37 years later.