The idea of what constitutes canon has been a subject frequently brought up in this class, and seems to me to be an important question when looking at the formation of early English bibles. As we learned in the readings, Englishmen were required to be members of the church when English bibles were first being created. As the throne switched back and forth between Roman Catholic, Protestant, and finally Church of England rule, the bibles that were in use changed as well. Hamlin and Jones note that many people would secretly use their preferred bible translation when another was made the official bible of England's churches, which leads me to question which text at the time, if any, were canonical? If the ruling power names one bible canon and the masses name another bible as canon, are either of them well enough supported to be considered a true canon? How did Englishmen reconcile the fact that they worshipped with one bible at church and another at home? It seems to me that at this time the idea of canon was a much more important concept for the aristocracy than for the average citizen.
Another interesting point is the reason why there was such a great struggle by monarchs over which text is preferred, it speaks to how crucial religion was to the control of a population. Originally English bibles were feared by leaders because they thought it would incite revolts, and the fact that they had this fear at all goes to show what a great influence religion played in Tudor England.
No comments:
Post a Comment