Throughout our classes so far, the question of how to define 'scripture' or 'canon' has come up frequently, and so far, our answers have been somewhat muddled- the definition can be different for different people and different times, which in many ways utterly defeats the purpose of having a canon at all. Dungan discusses this seeming paradox, that a fixed set of texts isn't actually fixed, an argument that leads me to believe a true canon might not exist in today's world. Since the definition of what is canon is left up to the individual, a single version of canon is impossible.
This wasn't the case when Constantine formed his canon. Rather than the decision resting with the individual, Constantine's canon was law- a legally fixed group of texts to be recognized as superior to others. While his subjects may have disagreed with his choices, while some might have treated texts outside his canon with more reverence, they did so with the understanding that their text lay outside of the formal canon.
My point, I suppose, is that individual ideas of what texts are worthy of canonization will always be varied, people will believe that their favorite texts are the most important, but without a legal ruling on what is considered 'canon' like Constantine's, it is virtually impossible to define what is 'canon' because there is no one accepted version.
No comments:
Post a Comment