Talk:Bruce M. Metzger

message: 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)
thread_title: Explanation

message: 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. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Original research

message: 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#Linking_to_copyrighted_works 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. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted external link?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. ). --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. --Flex (talk|contribs) 03:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad citation of critic

message: 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)
thread_title: Books

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notable students: Craig?