Interactive Media: Canon Comparison

Hamilton Ramos said:

Are there any particular Bible versions that you endorse?

Not on the forums [:)] It depends on the use as there are Bibles that are good for serious study that are not good for public reading. And my choice for devotional reading and the Psalms is again a separate choice. But for serious study here the source for evaluation that I use:

"Something I just ran across in a Journal of Hebrew Scriptures review that might be of interest regarding selecting a translation (Of course, it's one person's opinion).

In Part One (chapters 1 and 2) Gorman discusses the task and text of exegesis. In chapter one he briefly defines exegesis before discussing the strengths and weaknesses of various ways in which exegesis has been done. He compares and contrasts the synchronic approach (focusing on the final form of the text as seen, for example, in narrative-critical, social-scientific, or socio-rhetorical readings) with the diachronic approach (the historical-critical method) and the existential approach (his name for readings which focus on hermeneutics, transformation, or theology, such as missional interpretation, sacred readings, postcolonial criticism, or liberationist exegesis). He argues for an eclectic approach in which synchronic exegesis is the first among equals. In chapter two Gorman focuses on the selection of an English translation for exegesis. He expresses a preference for formal-equivalence translations and divides translations into four categories: 1) preferred for exegesis (NRSV, NAB, TNIV, and NET), 2) useful for exegesis, with caution (RSV, NIV, NASB, REB, ESV, HCSB), 3) unacceptable for exegesis, but helpful in others ways (NLT, NJB, CEV, GNB, The Message), and 4) unacceptable for exegesis (KJV, NKJV, LB)."

Gorman, Michael J. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers

(Revised and Expanded Edition; Peabody MA; Hendrickson, 2009). Pp. xii+286, Paperback, US$19.95, ISBN 978-1-59856-311-5--

Hamilton Ramos said:

Do you know if there is much divergent theological conclusions drawn from the different versions, or in the foundational doctrines are them pretty much close?

The foundational doctrines are extremely close to the point that discussions of theologians across the traditions spend most of their time understanding differences in vocabulary, emphasis and cultural implementation. The primary theological split in Christianity is between the Radical Reformation (i.e. exclude Anglicans and Lutherans) and the rest of the church (Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox). That theological divide is not the result of differences in canon rather the theological differences caused the difference in canon. However, either side could adopt the other's canon without diminishing their ability to argue their theology.

Note: the Anglicans and Lutherans represent a middle position between the Catholics and Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) and the Radical Reformation. As such they have more distinctive doctrines but few of them are foundational as I would use the term.