Seems some still think it interesting to ponder the 'openness' of the canon of Scripture. This is a boring question, because the answer is obvious that one can in fact add to the list of books on offer.
The Bible is a book of books after all.
So, how to keep this from going all loopy and Episcopalian?
Measure the canon by the Canon. Simple.
Remember the fundamental principle: the Apostles read Jesus according to the Scriptures. Scripture is meant to remind us who Jesus is. This does not foreclose historical and other kinds of inerrancy, it just states the Name of the King in whose service we must always press such notions, should they prove valid.
At some point, however, it seems meet and right to say that we shall not allow this book of books to become so unwieldy that an elderly bishop might fall to his death under its weight. Thus we allow for extra-canonical works that have more or less authority depending on how closely they hew to the apostolic canon for measuring the Canon. Thus Athanasius has more authority than Arius though Arius be flush with good intentions and meek as a lamb. In suchwise, Ignatius of Antioch has more authority than Ignatius Loyola, loyal to Christ though that later knight may have been (and he was, my friends, he was).
These writings help us read the Apostolic Scriptures with greater clarity, and often with greater delight. I'm not sure the book of books should take on the dimensions of a decent seminary library. What's more, it seems to me that this question is too often floated by those who would keep the Church in a constant state of agitation. To my ear, they also call unseemly attention to themselves, as though no one has ever been such a free spirit. Certainly those of us content to simply read the Scriptures we've received lack the vision of one who must always be about the business of noodling with profundities like a list of books in a Book.
No comments:
Post a Comment