The Definition of the Term ‘Canon’: Exclusive Or Multi-Dimensional?
There has been an ongoing debate amongst biblical scholars about how to define the term ‘canon’. In recent years, one particular definition – that canon can only be used to refer to books in a fixed, final, closed list – has emerged as the dominant one. Moreover, some scholars have argued that this...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2012
|
| In: |
Tyndale bulletin
Year: 2012, Volume: 63, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-20 |
| Further subjects: | B
Canon
B Scripture B Biblical Theology B Historical Theology B speech-act theory |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | There has been an ongoing debate amongst biblical scholars about how to define the term ‘canon’. In recent years, one particular definition – that canon can only be used to refer to books in a fixed, final, closed list – has emerged as the dominant one. Moreover, some scholars have argued that this is the only legitimate definition that can be used. This essay suggests that a single definition fails to capture the depth and breadth of canon and may end up bringing more distortion than clarification. Instead, the complexities of canon are best captured through using multiple definitions in a complementary and integrative manner. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0082-7118 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Tyndale bulletin
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.53751/001c.29324 |
