An Oriental Canon of Scripture
For some time now I have been pondering the creation of the western canon of Scripture, what we call, of course, the New Testament. Most of us know something of its history; how it was the compilation that was finally decided upon during the early Ecumenical Councils of the Church (at the Council of Laodicea in the fourth century).
Before then, there were many collections of sacred Christian texts, but as in other things Constantine demanded (and got) uniformity, and so one codified listing of Scripture was agreed upon by the participants in the Councils. It is not a bad collection, certainly, but the unfortunate result of its creation was that a multitude of important early Christian documents were forgotten, lost, or discarded. Many texts that were held to be sacred (Scripture) by many early Christian communities simply disappeared.
This is not the place to critique the present canon of Scripture that western Christians hold dear. In it, certainly, there are profound treasures. But my wondering is this. The oriental tradition of Christianity never made such a list. From historical record many other sacred texts were kept alive by the eastern communities even after the western Church had narrowed the list to 27 books. For example, the Odes of Solomon (a collection of early Christian wisdom hymns) were kept and read as a part of the scriptural tradition in the East (the Syrian Christians in Edessa), as well as the Gospel of Thomas.
We are a long way from those early days. Much has transpired. Among us now we read many texts in contemplative services (offices) that we feel to be sacred. Some of them come from traditions other than our own. The question I have (for myself, at least) is why I/we choose these? Is it simply because they are somehow sacred “to me,” or is there something larger at work here? Are we reading them, perhaps, because we sense that they too are “inspired” (moved and breathed by Spirit). One cannot read the visionary poetry of Rumi, for example, and not sense that the Spirit animates it. We sense that and read him because his poetry profoundly moves and teaches us.
If we were to create an “Oriental Canon” (one that stayed dynamic, flexible, and not static, as in the West). What would we choose, and why? It’s a question, perhaps, for us to ponder.
Before then, there were many collections of sacred Christian texts, but as in other things Constantine demanded (and got) uniformity, and so one codified listing of Scripture was agreed upon by the participants in the Councils. It is not a bad collection, certainly, but the unfortunate result of its creation was that a multitude of important early Christian documents were forgotten, lost, or discarded. Many texts that were held to be sacred (Scripture) by many early Christian communities simply disappeared.
This is not the place to critique the present canon of Scripture that western Christians hold dear. In it, certainly, there are profound treasures. But my wondering is this. The oriental tradition of Christianity never made such a list. From historical record many other sacred texts were kept alive by the eastern communities even after the western Church had narrowed the list to 27 books. For example, the Odes of Solomon (a collection of early Christian wisdom hymns) were kept and read as a part of the scriptural tradition in the East (the Syrian Christians in Edessa), as well as the Gospel of Thomas.
We are a long way from those early days. Much has transpired. Among us now we read many texts in contemplative services (offices) that we feel to be sacred. Some of them come from traditions other than our own. The question I have (for myself, at least) is why I/we choose these? Is it simply because they are somehow sacred “to me,” or is there something larger at work here? Are we reading them, perhaps, because we sense that they too are “inspired” (moved and breathed by Spirit). One cannot read the visionary poetry of Rumi, for example, and not sense that the Spirit animates it. We sense that and read him because his poetry profoundly moves and teaches us.
If we were to create an “Oriental Canon” (one that stayed dynamic, flexible, and not static, as in the West). What would we choose, and why? It’s a question, perhaps, for us to ponder.
posted by Lynn Bauman at 7:22 AM
3 Comments:
Seems to me we could use a discernment process:
That is, a text that creates consolation for a particular person is tested by others, alone and in corporate settings, when that individual requests that it be considered for the oriental orthodox canon.
If the community confirms that true consolation occurs through interaction with a particular text at a particular historical moment, it is appointed to the canon. [It could be removed through a similar process.]
We might borrow clear, rigorous, empirical criteria for the discernment process from the Ignatian tradition.
This assumes, of course, that God's call to the community is also heard through individuals.
That a text is not "elected" to the canon would not negate its consoling relationship to the original individual . . . it would simply indicate that it is not a text God is using to "call" the community as a whole.
Duane, this is a viable and interesting approach, with much to think about. I wonder about the difference between intuitive cognition and consolation. I assume that consolation has a very subjective emotional content, whereas intuitive cognition (potentially at least) has the "empirical criteria" you talked about. Thanks for the comments.
I'm wondering if having a canon as such might not be a slippery slope... as in, today's good intentions becoming tomorrow's Oriental Orthodox Fundamentalism. Too scary to contemplate.
I find having a bibliography helpful, and the Spirit leads where it will to whatever I need at the time to advance my "spiritual evolution" (anyone have a better term than that?). Also, this blog is the perfect forum for us to share what we read and recommend it to others.
Of course, there are standards that we choose and experience over and over (both in community and individually) because they are well loved and convey much wisdom concisely (a couple examples that come to mind are the chant "Be Still" and Rumi's "Die" poem). But I imagine that even these might morph into something else over time. Only time (space/time) will tell!
For that reason, I'd be reluctant to call anything "canon." Perhaps more like "revered, appreciated, significant..." Of course, doing it that way is harder. As humans (Myers Briggs Js, anyway), we like things settled. It'll be interesting to see how this discussion about canon evolves.
Post a Comment
<< Home