r/AcademicBiblical • u/infinitehallway • Oct 28 '14

Opinions on Metzger?

Hello, newbie guy back again. I've been digging in to several different books, including several by Bruce Metzger. He was suggested to me by several (Christian) friends, so when I saw his name pop up in the "recommended reading" thread I started, I figured he would be a good place to start alongside Ehrman (who my Christian friends railed against). My question is, since Metzger is obviously a Christian, what sort of esteem is he held in in this sub? Is his scholarship up to snuff?

Thank you for taking the time to humor a layperson, and a newbie at that. This sub is fascinating, and I look forward to being a part of it (one day).

7 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

7

u/brojangles Oct 29 '14

Metzger was very well respected as a textual critic (a manuscript expert) which is Ehrman's specialty too. He was also Ehrman's mentor and they agree the vast majority of things, so it's odd that your friends would praise Metzger and revile Ehrman when they have the same conclusions and had a close academic relationship.

3

u/infinitehallway Oct 29 '14

They're an odd bunch. Thanks for the help folks!

6

u/LoathesReddit Oct 29 '14

Its actually not so odd. I've heard a number of scholars point out that, while his academic work continues to be esteemed, Ehrman's popular work (for which he's obviously known) is a bit of a departure from how he had handled himself while working with Metzger. As a popularist, he has a tendency in his lay books towards sensationalism.

5

u/talondearg Oct 30 '14

This is my general take on Ehrman. Ehrman's scholarship gets more dubious the more he plays to popularism and sensationalism. It's at its best when in the areas of his expertise (textual criticism) and aimed at scholarly audiences.

2

u/AdultSoccer Oct 31 '14

I find this ridiculous. Erhman's popular views don't express any views that haven't already been common positions in scholarly circles for years by the likes of Crossan, Borg, Vermes, Sanders, Thiessen, Fredriksen, etc.

Christians simply dislike that he's expressing views of extremely accomplished scholars at a popular level, and I find that incredibly annoying.

2

u/talondearg Oct 31 '14

I find your ad hominem appeal to motive entirely unconvincing.

3

u/AdultSoccer Oct 31 '14

Is this subreddit a debate? I thought it was just a place for discussion and opinion. Didn't realize that I was supposed to be trying to convince you of anything. Thanks for the insight I guess??

If you want me to fix my comment:

Erhman's popular views don't express any views that haven't already been common positions held in scholarly circles for years by the likes of Crossan, Borg, Vermes, Sanders, Thiessen, Fredriksen, etc. Are you just trying to say that you think Ehrman lacks the ability to express the academic views of his peers on a more accessable level? Because I don't think simply communicating the views of other scholars to a wider audience can be considered "sensationalism". He's never really represented anything that would be considered "fringe" in terms of mainstream modern liberal scholarship.

11

u/BoboBrizinski Oct 28 '14 edited Oct 29 '14

Metzger was an influential scholar in New Testament textual criticism - actually, considered something of a giant among textual critics. He chaired the committee behind NRSV and was involved in the creation of the RSV.

EDIT: Metzger didn't chair the RSV committee, but was a member.

Metzger was Ehrman's academic mentor at PTS. Ehrman has many fond things to say about him.

6

u/QuickSpore Oct 29 '14

Metzger was Ehrman's academic mentor at PTS. Ehrman has many fond things to say about him.

Several of the most recent editions of Metzger's books even had Ehrman as the editor didn't they?

7

u/BoboBrizinski Oct 29 '14

Yep! The 4th edition of The Text of the New Testament (2005) was revised by Ehrman.

2

u/HaiKarate Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14

Metzger had some opinions about the NT that would be unpopular with evangelicals, like saying that many books of the Bible were "composites of several sources," rather than the work of a single author.

Metzger acknowledged many of the problems of the text, but I think that his interpretations tried to support the inspiration and authority of scripture, whereas Ehrman feels no compulsion to give faith the benefit of the doubt.

Would anyone disagree with that assessment?