Loading...THIS POST RESUMES MY RECOLLECTIONS OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH BRUCE METZGER, MY MENTOR. Remember: when I say “textual criticism” in this post, I am NOT referring simply to the “study of texts.” Textual criticism is the technical term used by scholars (in all fields) to refer to how we establish what an author wrote if we don’t have his/her original writing itself. For the New Testament that involves studying ancient Greek manuscripts and other sources; since all the surviving sources word the NT in different ways — usually completely insignificant ways, but sometimes important — we need to figure out what the “originals” said and how scribes changed them. That’s “textual criticism.”
******************************
When I entered my PhD program at Princeton Theological Seminary, I knew already that I wanted to specialize in the study of the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament. As I indicated in my earlier posts, that’s why I went there, because Metzger was the country’s leading expert in this field, and one could argue the leading expert in the world (some Germans would contest the point!).
While doing my Master’s thesis for Metzger I read widely in the secondary literature on textual criticism, and came to be highly influenced by a scholar named Gordon Fee. Fee is an interesting and important figure. As it turns out, he is a very committed Pentecostal Christian, who preaches and evangelizes. But when he’s not doing that, he’s doing scholarship, and he’s an amazing scholar. He is also the author of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth and Discovering Biblical Equality, among other works. At the time of my master’s work, he was one of the top textual critics in the country, right behind Metzger (the generation, or so, behind him).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t yet belong, JOIN!
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.
This has me on the edge of my seat, fascinated and feeling incapable of waiting to read the rest. What a murder mystery writer you could have been!
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Why do some Protestants not believe Catholics to be Christian? What is the argument for them being Christian? Thank you!
THe standard argument is that they believe thaey have to “do good works” for salvation, and so do not fully trust the death of Christ to save them. So they don’t have complete faith. ANd without completely faithk, you can’t be saved. It’s a view that goes back to Martin Luther, who argued that when Paul said a person is saved only by faith anbd not by the “works of the law” he meant that doing good deeds could not save a person. (Paul actually wasn’t saying that, but was saying that folliwig the requirements for being Jewish couldn’t save anyone)
Ah thank you that makes a lot of sense. I’ve heard some say that Catholics pray to Mary and thus worship false gods… how valid is that?
CAtholics would say it’s *completely* wrong….
Great, thank you!
I think that there is also the matter of the veneration of saints and relics, which certainly risks having other gods, not to mention the infalliblity of the Pope, even if you limit that to strictly spiritual teachings. (In addition, the intermediary role of the priesthood is often a problem, while most Protestant denominations preach a personal relationship that does not require intercession.) The chief argument FOR them being Christian is the centrality of Jesus and at least their interpretation of his teachings at the center of their spiritual lives. (I was not really asked, but that is my 2 cents for free.)
Bart,
These kinds of disputes are why real Masters all teach that we all need a living Teacher, or ‘Master.’ A ‘real’ Master is a perfect living Master who teaches Surat Shabd Yoga, or listening to the Word, as in Matt. 6:22. Thought you might like to know!
I saw the Master just this morning in Petaluma, CA. He usually goes to Fayetteville in your neck of the woods, but I don’t think he will make it this trip. Wonderful, as ever … Scienceofthesoul.org and RSSB.org
I do understand your disinterest. After all, if there exist real live experts, what will the rest of us do on a blog such as this? Ha! … Well, I enjoy the mental exercise, for my part.
Where would you be now without your teacher, Metzger?
But how do we know what the Church Father’s wrote? Aren’t they also only available to us in copies of copies? Yes they are a couple of centuries later but does that make a huge difference in what we know of the originals?
YEs indeed, that’s part of the difficulty. THese are not easy dissertations to write! I had to explain resos for thinkibng that the manuscript sof Didymus we have are accurate copies of the originals. It was one of the first steps in teh analysis.
You wrote “I had to explain resos for thinkibng that the manuscript sof Didymus we have are accurate copies of the originals. It was one of the first steps in teh analysis.”
1,000 years from now, I pity the Ph.D. student who has to do textual criticism of your own writing! 🙂
I pity anyone who even reads it…
They didn’t have photocopiers in Michigan? As I never went to graduate school, let alone pursued an Phd., it is interesting to see some of the details about how it all works, at least in your personal context. (I do know many other people who earned their Phds, but they don’t usually talk about it in very specific detail. I also know many people who direct Phds, and they tend to be more guarded about what they say. The main thing I hear these days is that, as mostly professors of English Literature, they fear that they are cranking out Phds that will never find actual teaching positions, at least not at the college level. Some are lucky to find positions teaching in High School, and may never be able to pay off their student loans. One hopes that they find personal fulfillment in teaching, no matter the level.)
IT was a very long handwritten ms, and he didn’t want to bother spending many hours photocopying it. (BTW: photocpoy machinews in 1982 were not waht they are today! UnbeLIEVABLY slow)
Thank you so much for these Reflections and Ruminations on Bruce M. Metzger.
It is a beautiful and very pleasant enigma that you and he were so close. Very nice to read, very nice to experience.
Again, thank you.
I have got 2 questions (unrelated to this topic though)
1. Does verse Matthew 16:18 imply that Jesus wanted to start a new religion? Or is that probably not something Jesus would have said? If it is something that he could have said: how should I interpret that?
2. Paul saw Jesus probably as some pre-existing kind of divine being. Since there was also an adoptional christology going around: What kind of christology did the first followers of Jesus; Cephas etc. probably hold to?
1. It certainly implies that he wants to bring something new into the world. Jesus himself (not as portrayed in Matthew, but the actual man) certainly didn’t think he was inventing something new per se, but was giving the correct understanding of God’s will as revealed in the Scripture. With Matthew it’s a little harder to say. He certainly thought the CHristian church was distinct and new, but whether he would call it a new “religion” is hard to say. 2. Adoptionist. I talk about this on the blog elsewhere — do a word search for it, and you’ll see. It’s a major topic for my book How Jesus Became God.
Max and Bart,
Matthew16:18 refers back to Matthew 16:16. The ‘rock’ is Peter’s realization that Jesus was the Son, or Holy Spirit. It isn’t Peter himself as ‘rock.’ This is from a true Master (rssb.org).
Very interesting discussion of your methodology derived from Fee. I really enjoyed your discussion of textual criticisms, etc. from ‘MIsquoting Jesus.’
Some time ago I read ‘The Skeptics Annotated Bible: The King James Version from a skeptic’s point of view’ Annotated by Steve Wells, 2012. Do you happen to know this work? If you do know it, do you have any comments on it, favorable or unfavorable.
Also, have you read ‘The Evolution of God’ by Robert Wright? I found it interesting. If you have read it, your comments?
Of course, you can be brief.
I”m afraid I dont’ know it. And I think highly of Wright, but have not read that one. It’s amazing what I haven’t read….
If you only knew.
As I mentioned a while back I was privileged to study under Gordon Fee at the undergraduate and graduate level myself while in school. What I appreciated about him as well as you is your pursuit of excellence in your field of study and the ability to arouse the interest in the lay person as well as the scholar. Thank you for commitment to making us all think about what we believe.
As an aside would it ever be possible to read your dissertation?
Yup, it’s published. Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels. It’s virtually unedited in the published form, except I took the first chapter off and published it separately as an article. THat’s were I deal with method the most and talk about Fee. (BTW, a few years later he and Mike Holmes and I published a book on Origen’s text of John; but it’s nothing anyone would want to read since its mainly a listing of Greek verses collated against a number of manuscxripts)
Dr Ehrman, I’m not sure if you’ve ever read the book “Girl, Interrupted” by Susanna Kaysen, but it’s name as well as cover are incredibly similar to those of “Jesus, Interrupted.” I’m not sure if this was done on purpose or who modeled off of whom, but I must say that due to the starkly different subject matter it makes for some funny irony
No, I”m afraid I haven’t.
The title and cover of Jesus Interrupted absolutely must have been based on the title and cover of Girl, Interrupted, the one with the picture of Winona Rider from the movie. Very clever marketing by the publisher.
I have to admit, I”ve never seen the cover, the book or the movie!
Haha, what a funny marketing idea! Dr Ehrman, who decides what the title and cover of your books will be?
Titles are negotiated between author and ppublisher; publisher has the cover designed and the author approves. So in theory both are negotiable, but in the end the publisher makes a decision.
Would you say something about the evolution of “salvation” in church history? You have said that Jesus was talking about being saved from annihilation, and later some Christians talked about being saved from eternal Hell, and I once had a preacher who talked about being saved from the spiritual desert of separation from God. I assume that the latter is a fairly recent interpretation.
Yes, that metaphor is modern I should think; it’s not biblical anyway. But it’s dealing with a slightly different issue. It indicates what one is saved *from*, not with what would be the outcome if one were not save from it (eternal pain in the desert or death in it?)
A follow-up query on my last post. Could you recommend a good annotated Bible that has good historical sources and also some skepticism regarding believer’s claims? Thanks in advance if you know of one that includes both the Old and New Testament, preferably as an ebook that is searchable.
THe two best are the HarperCollins Study Bible and the Oxford Study BIble. THey are not produced by skeptics but they do embody fine scholarship.
Bart, I think I’ve asked before, do you know of the painting by Leonardo Da Vinci of Bacchus, Jupiter’s son? It says formally John the Baptist. What does that mean? It was a painting of John first then turned into Bacchus? Do you know why it was overpainted?
I like these ones too. Of course you know.
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
These secret the spoke Didymos wrote
Wrote Didymos spoke the secret these
(46) Jesus said, “Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). Yet I have said, whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John.”
John become Kingdom
Acquainted child
To of
Said
Yet not
His
The
Superior
No baptist until those women
Jesus
Jesus
Women
Those until baptist
No superior
The
His
Not yet
Said of
To
Child aquatinted
Kingdom
Become John
What do you think the religiosity of the typical NT scholar is? It seems they are somehow both christian… and also think many of the Pauline epistles were forged??? That never made sense to me. If the church Fathers/early councils could be so wrong on the authorship of the epistles, how can we trust them to determine whether any of the NT books are divinely inspired?
Most biblical scholars are evangelical Christians. Those who are not tend to be committed Christians, but without a fundamentalist understanding of the BIble. In a very common view, God speaks through the Bible, but it is a very human book with all the foibles of all human books. But God speaks through it. ANd no one can tell God that he can’t speak through a myth, or legend, a pseudoymous writing, a writing with historical mistakes in it, etc.
Why would He, when humans are born daily? One would think he would not so limit Himself, especially to a book, subject as we have all seen, to constant corruption. If God is One, He certainly doesn’t want 30,000 denominations!
Please be reasonable, people. How, exactly, does God endorse this book?
Bart,
I am a big fan of your books and research. I am going to post a question, which a lot of your critics mention below. I am sure , you would have an answer to that . Please answer it if possible.
One charge leveled at you is that you say one thing in your scholarly works — in which you take a fairly conservative line roughly like that of Metzger, saying “we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy” — but, in your popular books, you do your best to make things sound far scarier than they actually are (speaking of “copies of copies of copies of copies” and how there are so many variants we don’t even know how many variants there are, etc).
What are your comments on this question ?
Yeah, I hear that a lot! I’d say both statements are completely true and there is nothing false in either one of them. Does anyone ever point out that something is wrong in them? I don’t say the latter in scholarly works because every scholar of the NT on the planet already knows it. ANd I do say the former to popular audiences (as you can see just on this blog!): most of the words in the NT are not much in dispute questionable. But there are hundreds of thousands over variations and there are places where we simply do not know what the originals said. Every scholar agrees with all of that, so far as I know.
Dr: Ehrman: May I ask to convey a requisition ? So MUCH HATE between Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox! Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, English, German? Who got it right? People still DIE, people still DOUBT! People are SCARED! Just one answer…
MOst people think it’s an easy answer. Who is ultimately right? I myself am!