Talk:Bruce M. Metzger

Explanation
Explanation for changes...

I have added references for many of the books BMM has written.

I have corrected the POV somewhat. It looked as if the article was half cribbed from Fundamentalist attack pages, which seem to dominate a google search for BMM. Bruce is not an extremist heretic by any means, he is an adherant to a scholarly school of biblical study know as Higher Criticism which is right in the middle of mainstream and taught (albiet critically) in even fundamentalist religious schools. I have still included the Criticism of BMM from the original article but have reworded it to aim at his writing rather than his personal beliefs, which we obviously don't have first hand information about. I have included links to both sides of the argument. Biblical Inerrancy and higher criticism. As well as pointing out more of his literary accomplishments. The original article focused on one single assignment which was only a small portion of his career and works.

--Darkfred 12:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Toned down my rhetoric a little in the above comment. Did not mean to claim the author was personally attacking BMM rather that this is the nature of many of the top google hits on his name (#1 even). As with many biblical commentators he has collected a lot of online criticism which is not really relevant to his work or biography. He is a pretty good example of someone  who seems to be providing a NPOV scholarly look at both sides getting attacked by one side. Personally I think his personal beliefs are outside the scope of a biographical blurb anyway. --Darkfred 14:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Original research
I added the OR tag because the connection between Metzger and Westcott and Hort seems like original research, which of course is proscribed here. I'd like to see the debt acknowledged from his own pen or at the very least from a third-party reliable source. Also, the Westcott quote that Metzger supposedly affirms says he denies infallibility, which contradicts the last sentence in the previous paragraph. I added a tag there as well until this is sorted out. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week, so I deleted the paragraph about W&H vis-a-vis Metzger until it can be substantiated (cf. WP:OR). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Atilsley wrote on my talk page:
 * You raise an interesting question about Metzger re innerancy and the contradiction between the two articles. Is this my fault though? Westcott and Hort and the followers of higher criticism clearly do not hold to the innerancy of scripture. This is partly why I added the additional content. I note someone has added the Citation Needed tag to the earlier notes re innerancy. Isn't incumbent on the person who posted the earlier content to provide the necessary citations as I tried to do? And I'm still confused re the issue of new research. My post was to try and clearly show that Metzger leans a certain theological way. It would be no different to saying Billy Graham is Evangelical, or x is conservative, or Y is liberal. These are surely standard terms well known in biblical/theological grounds? I would kindly request the text be reinstated and I would value your assistance on helping me structure the citations to sut wiki's standards. Thanks. Atilsley 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem was not that you were labeling Metzger as a conservative, moderate, or liberal (which are pretty vague terms anyway), but that you were saying "W&H say thus-and-such. Metzger has some agreement with W&H. Therefore Metzger also says thus-and-such." The premises may be true, but the conclusion has been synthesized, which is original research. We need a reliable source (preferably a primary source, i.e. Metzger himself) to say that Metzger says thus-and-such. The citations you did provide (and which you'll note I corrected and enhanced) were for the Westcott quotes, not for Metzger's own views. We can't go attributing Westcott's words to Metzger without his explicit agreement.

As for the existing statement on infallibility vs. inerrancy, we should find a source for it, particularly since it appears that you're disputing its veridicality, but that statement is not prima facie a synthesized conclusion and so is not as egregious a violation of the content policies. It should be fairly easy to find a quote about infallibility (I think I recall reading one near the end of The Canon of the New Testament, but I don't own the book). We can look in the page history to see who added that statement to ask them to provide a source, or we can research it ourselves. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Flex. I'd appreciate you checking the page history to ensure the contributor has accurately made the claim re innerancy. The 'citation needed' flag has been there for some time...thanks. Atilsley 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:199.91.34.33 added the text in this edit. I have requested on that user's talk page that a source be provided, and I'll also ask for other input. From what I found on the web, Metzger defines inerrancy in a different way than most conservatives. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I got rid of the part where it said he believes in the Bible's infallibility but not inerrancy which had no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.24.147 (talk • contribs)

I put out a call for that to be substantiated (I've heard of people making that distinction; I just don't know if Metzger is one of those who does). If nothing happens within a week, we'll delete it. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-deleting it now per User_talk:Flex. The burden of proof rests on the editor who wants to restore the sentence. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Flex, I'll look again at my copy of The Canon of the New Testament. I thought that I had read something about it, but was unable to find it the other day.  I think we're all in agreement that if he does say something on the subject, it's hard to find. Tim 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted external link?
User:Ambroseboles posted a link to an electronic copy of List of Words Occuring Frequently in the Coptic New Testament (Sahidic Dialect). I deleted it because of the unclear copyright status of the electronic version per the section of WP:COPY about contributory infringement. Ambrose restored it and wrote on my talk page:


 * I've already been in contact with E.J Brill, Leiden regarding the matter, from whom I have formal permission to reproduce the book. Proof available if you should request it. You should know that in no have I tried to take credit for Prof Metzger's work or sought to gain financially from his efforts. In fact, my motivation in reproducing his work was to make his valuable work available to the greatest audience possible with the aim to furtherment of the study of my native language, Coptic. Neither have I proceeded to reproduce his book without the necessary permission.

Proof should be submitted here to prevent future questions. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad citation of critic
The entry cites David Cloud in asserting that Metzger "was criticized by some evangelicals." In fact, Cloud rejects the evangelical label and has stated "evangelical means unbeliever." If we are to keep this sentence, can we please find an actual evangelical critic, or another reputable source on this? -- Teditor 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any conservatives who don't use the KJV exclusively but who dislike Metzger's work, and those who did (including the cited source) labeled themselves as fundamentalists. I adjusted the text accordingly. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is complete nonsense to suggest that conservatives only use the KJV. That may be true of Fundamentalists, but certainly not conservative evangelicals. We are the ones responsible for the success of the NIV, and think of the KJV as a wonderful relic of a bygone era. There are many evangelicals, such as myself, who studied under Metzger, and believe that he was a devoted Christian in the biblical sense of the experience. Entry citations by David Cloud would be considered hateful and false to any except other Fundamentalist on the extreme right. They are not representative in any way and should be excluded.Feb 15 07 71.110.73.33 21:34, (UTC) DLH


 * I see that my message above was unclear. I meant that it's mainly (exclusively?) KJVers who criticize Metzger, not conservatives in general. That being said, it's not just Fundies who are KJVers -- Douglas Wilson (theologian), e.g., has defended the Textus Receptus and the KJV over and against the other manuscript traditions ( and ; cf. ). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more complex than that. Many evangelicals think his view on inerrancy is too liberal. They also don't like his view on canonicity. But on thhe Textus Receptus issue it is pretty much extremists who disagree with him. The vast majority of evangelicals recognize mainstream textual criticism as perfectly fine, including the majority view that the older manuscripts are much better and closer to the originals than the later manuscripts that the KJV was based on. On that score (and on a number of others), Wilson is indeed out of the mainstream, even if it would be inaccurate to call him a fundamentalist. Parableman 22:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Parableman. What we need is a citation of an evangelical (not a self-described fundamentalist) who criticizes Metzger. I was not able to turn up any (save for Wilson, but he doesn't name names) with a cursory search on Google. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 03:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Books
Metzger did not co-author the Revelation 6-16 commentary with Aune. He was general editor of the series in which it was published. I don't know exactly which volumes of that series came out under his editorship; but I think quite a few of them did. Also there are a number of books by Metzger that aren't listed.


 * If this book is going to be listed, the whole WBC series should be here, but it should clearly be marked as a series he merely edited. Also, it would be overkill to list every volume. If someone wants to add something about his serving as an editor of the series, please do so. I don't see any need to have just this book listed here in a way that seems to treat him as a co-author. He was not. I have removed the book. Parableman 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo
In the second photograph from the top, on the right, five men appear, with only four names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.30.69 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce M. Metzger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ncccusa.org/news/070214metzger.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209021650/http://ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=25769807030 to https://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=25769807030

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Notable students: Craig?
William Lane Craig is listed here as a notable student, but Craig apparently did not attend Princeton, and Metzger is never mentioned in the article on Craig. What's the basis for listing Craig as a student of Metzger? I would expect that for a student to qualify as a "notable student", that teacher would need to be either a significant part of the student's education or a major influence, or both - and it appears that in this case it may be neither. (Or can "notable student" mean "notable person who happened to attend a few lectures"?) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)