Interactive Media: Canon Comparison

The BTX is, as you note, based on the current critical editions -- as are most recent translations. Besides the two critical editions you mentioned, there are two other critical editions to consider:

• Gottingen Septuagint, especially important to the Eastern Orthodox tradition
• Leiden Peshitta, especially important to the Oriental Orthodox tradition

Basic history:

At the time of Jesus mission, many Jews did not understand Hebrew. Therefore the Targums (in Aramaic) and the Septuagint (in Greek) were used in Jewish communities in addition to the Hebrew. There are lists of New Testament quotations of Old Testament scripture that show which version (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) was most likely being quoted.

As the church developed, it had three major branches - the easternmost Church used Syriac as its liturgical language i.e. the language follows the Aramaic thread. The primary Syriac Bible is the Peshitta and most other Bibles are built off it. However, the Armenian Bible has an independent tradition while being part of the "Oriental Orthodox" tradition. The Nestorian controversy split this branch off from the rest of the Church. With one exception, the Oriental Orthodox have reconciled but not merged with the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

The second major branch, the middle Church geographically is the Byzantine (Eastern) Orthodox Church. It simply retained the Greek Bible - the Greek Old Testament of Jesus time and the Greek New Testament as written. It includes the Georgian and Slavic Bibles. Like the Armenian, the Georgian Bible has a somewhat independent tradition. Sidenote: Armenia was the first country to declare Christianity their national religion; Georgia followed fairly closely behind.

The third major branch of the Church is the Western branch which used Latin as their liturgical language and the Vulgate as their primary Bible. The Vulgate includes translations from both the Hebrew and from the Greek as its Old Testament. The Byzantine and Western churches split in 1054 over very small theological differences but a huge cultural divide.

All three of these branches included non-Hebrew books in their Old Testament, often using terminology to distinguish them from the Hebrew books. Examples:

• (Proto)canonical (all traditions) i.e. canonical across “all” traditional definitions
• Deuterocanonical (Catholic) i.e. second canon
• Ecclesiastical (Catholic) i.e. used in church
• Anagignoskomena (Eastern Orthodox) i.e. worthy to be read
• Outside (Syrian Church) i.e. outside the Hebrew canon but worthy to be read[1]
• Biblical but not canonical[2] (Lutheran)
• Apocrypha as used by the Reformation movement in the Western Church
• Not (proto)canonical but useful reading – all traditions

During the Reformation, Anglicans and Lutherans resequenced the books so that the presumably non-Hebrew books were together. The Calvinists deleted the books.

The canon comparison tool includes bibliographic references that should fill in the details. There are still some errors in the data which will eventually be corrected.

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--

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.