Interpretation is not only shaped by mediation; it is shaped by selection.
Canonical formation is the most striking evidence of the pressure to contain meaning. Some texts are elevated, others bracketed, some marginalised, some excluded entirely. The result is a curated field of constrained meaning — a manageable subset of a far larger, unruly potential.
Excess Meaning Is Dangerous
Every text contains more than any single community can stabilise:
-
divergent narratives,
-
competing ethical demands,
-
alternative theological emphases,
-
voices from distant times and contexts.
Left unconstrained, this surplus threatens intelligibility, coherence, authority, and communal identity. Canonisation is not about truth per se. It is about what can be held together without fracture.
The Cut of Canon
The act of canon formation is a decisive interpretive cut:
-
these texts are authoritative,
-
these texts are supplementary,
-
these texts are excluded.
The cut produces stability. It makes interpretation possible.
But the cut also suppresses: multiplicity, tension, and relational surplus are bracketed. The remainder persists quietly, waiting to reassert itself.
Intolerance at the Boundary
The intolerance of excess emerges wherever the cut is threatened:
-
disputed books provoke anxiety,
-
apocryphal texts are treated as dangerous or corrupt,
-
marginalised voices are ignored or delegitimised.
This is not accidental. It is a structural necessity: the field cannot contain everything, and attempts to do so destabilise the community.
Canon as Relational Device
Canonical authority is often presented as timeless, divinely sanctioned, or natural. Relationally, however, it functions as a device for constraint:
-
it reduces interpretive multiplicity,
-
it channels attention,
-
it aligns communities across time,
-
it limits ethical and theological complexity to a manageable set.
Canonical closure is never final. Its boundaries are maintained continuously through interpretation, teaching, and ritual.
The Suppressed Remainder
Even canonical texts retain excess:
-
internal tensions,
-
unresolved ethical dilemmas,
-
contradictory narratives,
-
divergent perspectives.
Canon does not eliminate these pressures; it shapes the field in which they can safely exist. Their continued presence is a testament to the impossibility of total control.
Reading Canon Relationally
A relational reading recognises the canon as both stabilising and limiting:
-
stabilising: it enables interpretation, authority, and community.
-
limiting: it brackets what cannot be held, creating surplus that persists as tension.
Excess is never destroyed. It is only contained — and the boundary of containment is constantly policed through interpretation, tradition, and pedagogy.
Looking Ahead
In the next post, we will examine Authority — The Intolerance of Distributed Voice. Where canon manages text, authority manages readers: who may interpret, who may teach, who may speak. Here, relational constraint shifts from textual selection to social organisation.
For now, it is enough to recognise this:
No comments:
Post a Comment