What am I reading? Well, when I have time to sit and read these days it is usually something to do with canon issues:

• Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (amazon.com). pp 75-162.
• Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon (amazon.com), pp. 102-111.
• Michael W. Holmes, “The Biblical Canon” in the Oxford Handbook to Early Christian Studies (amazon.com), pp. 406-426
• Wilhelm Schneemelcher (tr. R. McL. Wilson), “General Introduction” in New Testament Apocrypha, Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings (amazon.com). Revised Edition. pp. 9-50. Particularly §2, “On the history of the New Testament canon”, pp. 15-34.
• Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance (amazon.com).
• F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (amazon.com).

My primary interest is in early Christian conception of “canon”; and this is of course problematic. Most interesting to me have been Holmes and also Schneemelcher, who deal with the Septuagint. It really throws a wrench into thoughts of canonicity in early Christendom. I love that the introduction to a volume on NT Apocrypha has such a great essay on the topic of canonicity. Can’t agree with everything, but this essay in particular is really great stuff. And Holmes is top-notch too. Both are highly recommended.

OK, my real primary interest is because the topic of canon in early Christianity will be a decent chunk of the class I’m teaching in spring 2011 on “How We Got the New Testament”. I want to make sure I’ve got my bases covered. Wegner is the text I’ll be using, so the NT portions of his section on canonicity will be primary, though I hope to supplement with at least portions from Holmes and Schneemelcher.

Thanks to Hendrickson Academic for sending along this review copy of Clayton N. Jefford’s Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (amazon.com).

As I’ve mentioned previously, I’ll be teaching a six-week course next spring on “How We Got the New Testament”. I’m also evaluating the possibility of teaching a six-week course on the Apostolic Fathers. It would be an introduction to the people, their writings, major issues covered, relationship with the OT, NT and other writings of that era.

The problem, of course, is a textbook. It’s a short class, so the textbook itself can’t be big because we’d also likely be reading the writings themselves. Jefford’s Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (amazon.com) seems a good fit, and I can supplement it with other more specialized articles if I feel the need to do so. Note Hendrickson has links to the TOC, Intro and Chapter 1 on their web site.

I haven’t read it yet (still working on Wegner’s Journey from Texts to Translations (amazon.com)) but hope to get into it soon to evaluate the possibilities. But it looks good and I’m highly predisposed to use it after my initial evaluation.

That, and I’d hope we could rustle up at least a few who would be willing to take such a course through the MEMRA Institute for Ancient and Biblical Studies.

A friend of mine has asked me to help him out by teaching a 6-week course on “How We Got the New Testament”. It will be online, and will consist of assigned readings, podcasts, forum Q&A with me and with other students, some quizzes, perhaps webcasts and videos. It is presently not scheduled until sometime next year, but it never hurts to be ahead of the game.

So, the inevitable question: Which book to use?

Subject matter includes stuff like:

• how canonization happened
• ancient scribal tasks and practices
• coping and transmission of the biblical text
• ancient and modern translation of the biblical texts
• history of the printed New Testament

Regarding NT textual criticism, the following will be hit upon:

• types of errors in manuscript transmission
• divergent readings in manuscripts (examples and their effect)
• basic text-critical principles of evaluating errors and divergent readings

I’m expecting anywhere from five to 15 students, but would take more if they sign up. The target is somewhere between motivated layperson and focused undergrad. The students may take a similar OT class, which will use Wegner’s Journey from Texts to Translations (amazon.com), which also covers the NT. I haven’t read or used Wegner, but it does seem to cover those bases (simply by checking the TOC on Amazon.com). I’m planning on assigning around 50 pages a week for reading, a brief podcast overview of highlights to be on the lookout for with the reading, and an extended post-reading podcast to review the reading.

So, my questions:

1: Have you read or used Wegner (amazon.com)? What are the book’s strengths and weaknesses?

2: I’d like to prevent the necessity of having them buy another book. Even if Wegner isn’t the best, is it good enough? Any article or other book chapters to supplement?

3: What other book(s) would you recommend instead of Wegner?

Other books that have some overlap with these areas that I’m familiar with:

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (amazon.com).

Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration [4th ed] (amazon.com). Although I have only read the 3rd edition; the 4th came out soon after I’d read through the 3rd.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament (amazon.com). Excellent, but I actually like Vööbus better. There are some portions of Metzger that almost echo Vööbus, and it’s uncanny. And Oxford simply wants too much for this book. Buy a used version or buy Vööbus.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture (amazon.com).

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (amazon.com).

Vööbus, Arthur. Early Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript Studies (amazon.com). Dated, but for my money the best place to dig into the question of early versions.

There are also some chapters in other books and other essays/articles I’ve got frittered away that would be good supplementary references.

Once the class details solidify, I’ll post more info here. If you’re interested in such a course, email me at text geek at gmail dot com for more info.

Update: Thanks to all who have responded thus far. I appreciate it! Seems plain I'll have to get a copy of Wegner somewhere and get readin'. Brian, thanks for the suggestion on Metzger/Ehrman, but that plus Bruce seems a bit overkill for a six-week class where I'm trying to limit reading to 50-75 pgs per week. Esteban, I'd seen Patzia's book when searching but haven't looked at it. I'll have to give it a peek. Mike, on the Textual Criticism aspect, my guess is I can get enough out of whatever book I go with, and go with some supplementary articles to round that aspect out.

Weston, this will be more like a guided study for motivated laypeople than a traditional lecture-style undergraduate session, though I am thinking of some review-type podcasts to round out each week. I don't know that they'll be freely available online, though, as the class will be through Dr. Michael S. Heiser's newly-announced MEMRA Institute for Ancient and Biblical Studies. This particular class isn't scheduled until May 2011.

Update II: Hadn't realized it until now, but Patzia's The Making of the New Testament is available in Logos Bible Software, and it is available for the Logos iPhone app as well. And I've already got the book. Sweet.

[Part of my More Non-negative αλλα series]

27 Νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται,
καὶ τί εἴπω;
πάτερ, σῶσόν με ἐκ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης;
ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ὥραν ταύτην.
28 πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα. (Jn 12.27-28a, NA27)

27 “Now is my soul troubled.
And what shall I say?
‘Father, save me from this hour’?
But for this purpose I have come to this hour.
28 Father, glorify your name.” (Jn 12:27-28a, ESV)

The contrast in the statements preceding and following the αλλα in v. 27 is rather obvious; instead of pleading to the Father to be saved from the hour (the counterpoint), Jesus notes that he has instead come to glorify the Father (the point). The contrast is evident. The Father is in focus, but instead of requesting deliverance from the Father, Jesus is seeking to ascribe glory to the Father. Here there is an interlude of sorts between αλλα and the contrasted item. This interlude (here a “reason-result frame” according to Runge’s LDGNT) uses a cataphoric pronoun to point the reader/hearer forward; the resolution being in v. 28 (in addition to functioning as the point of the counterpoint/point pair). This all serves to make Jesus’ action to glorify the Father much more prominent in the scope of the narrative.

[Part of my More Non-negative αλλα series]

41 ἦραν οὖν τὸν λίθον.
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἦρεν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἄνω καὶ εἶπεν·
   πάτερ, εὐχαριστῶ σοι
      ὅτι ἤκουσάς μου.
42 ἐγὼ δὲ ᾔδειν ὅτι πάντοτέ μου ἀκούεις,
ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον τὸν περιεστῶτα εἶπον,
   ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν
      ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας. (Jn 11.41-42, NA27)

41 So they took away the stone.
And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said,
   “Father, I thank you
      that you have heard me.
42 • I knew that you always hear me,
but I said this on account of the people standing around,
   that they may believe
      that you sent me.” (Jn 11.41-42, ESV)

The αλλα in verse 42 serves as the hinge of a Counterpoint/Point structure that is the whole of the verse. The contrast is between the Father and those present who hear Jesus. Jesus began his words (the raising of Lazarus) by giving thanks to the Father for hearing him. He explains this by saying he did it for the benefit of those present, not for the benefit of the Father. The aspect of correction or replacement is in the understanding of those present. Jesus did not give thanks to the Father to ensure the Father’s hearing of his request; he instead gave thanks in order that those present, who will witness the miracle, know the source of the miracle.

The whole of verses 41-42 could be skipped, with the call of verse 43 of Lazarus to “come out”, and the Father would have still heard Jesus. But by stopping and attributing the source of the miracle before it happens, those hearing know the source of the miracle as it happens, and can believe. The structure in verse 42 does this, using αλλα and a Counterpoint/Point, to make prominent who is hearing Jesus, and what their response to his words and actions should be.

[Part of my More Non-negative αλλα series]

Ταῦτα εἶπεν,
καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο λέγει αὐτοῖς·
   Λάζαρος ὁ φίλος ἡμῶν κεκοίμηται·
   ἀλλὰ πορεύομαι ἵνα ἐξυπνίσω αὐτόν. (Jn 11.11, NA27)

After saying these things,
he said to them,
   “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep,
   but I go to awaken him.”(Jn 11.11, ESV)

In this instance, the contrast is quite evident; between Lazarus “falling asleep” and Jesus going “to awaken him”. The information that Lazarus had “fallen asleep” was important, but more important to the context is that Jesus was going to change Lazarus’ state from being asleep to being awake.

The disciples don’t quite get it, it seems; they think Jesus is actually talking about sleeping and waking up, and if so, don’t understand what the big deal is. So, bless ‘em, they follow up so that it can be clear for us too:

The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” (Jn 11.12-15, ESV)

Jesus has to re-explain himself to say that he means that Lazarus has, in fact, died; and that the reason Jesus is going is to raise Lazarus from the dead. Given this information, the contrast seems even higher (death –> life) as does the aspect of correction/replacement.

I figured it was time for a formal announcement.

Since the May/June 2010 issue of Bible Study Magazine, I am now the columnist responsible for the “Thoughts from the Church Fathers” column. The May/June issue (Ed Stetzer on the cover) has been published, my column for the July/August issue (Beth Moore on the cover) is in the can, and just last night I started digging on the column for the September/October issue.

The column itself is nothing large, typically half a page, and primarily consists of writing a very brief introduction and background to a father of the church, setting the scene for an extended quotation (somewhat) relevant to the issue’s theme, and selecting a great quotation.

But it gives me a chance to dig around in the writings of the fathers, to familiarize myself with more of them and their writings, and introduce them to others! How cool is that?

That’s just one of the many cool things in Bible Study Magazine. I mean, where else can you find a column called “What They Don’t Tell You in Church” or “I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible”?

If you’re on Twitter and want to hear more about Bible Study Magazine, follow @BibleStudyMag.