4 ms·
Its possible it still fits the word. The bible is canonical too even though it's basically a pieces of disparate texts. Basically if it's the first and earlies
by kilgnad 4y ago
Its possible it still fits the word. The bible is canonical too even though it's basically a pieces of disparate texts.
Basically if it's the first and earliest record and the one that everyone looks to as the most accurate source it's canonical.
- azernik 4y agoThat's relevant to the Bible, or Shakespeare, or the MCU, because those works' authors have authority in a way the Brothers Grimm do not have authority over folklore.
- kilgnad 4y agoBible does not have authority. It simply has a large following. No one has authority over the content in the bible. For the MCU, yes, by law Disney has authority over the MCU.
- azernik 4y agoThere are multiple competing authorities, but they are absolutely authorities, and their versions of individual texts are extremely close to each other. Most notably, for the actual list of books there's the Catholic Church for the Catholic canon; the Masoretes for Judaism; Synods for the Greek Orthodox canon; and a broad consensus in the Protestant community. For the texts themselves, the Septuagint and the Masoretic text are the only game in town for the Hebrew Bible, while the Greek texts of the New Testament were very firmly set in stone by the Imperial Roman Church (as central of an authority as it gets). Note that some of these authorities (the Masoretes, the Imperial Roman Church) do not exist anymore. THat just means that canon is unchangeable, it still exists.
- kilgnad 4y agoBy authority i refer to lawful authority. Able to execute lawful enforcement and prevent editing and copying. No one holds authority over the original texts. There is authority over translations though. But the original is open source with no license.
- azernik 4y agoThat is not the authority that I meant when I used the concept to explain how the Bible's canon is based on the existence of authoritative texts endorsed by authoritative sources. You can make an edited version of the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures with whatever changes you want. But no one will agree to call it The Bible, because it does not match the text endorsed by the original authorities. Same as how there still exists a Sherlock Holmes canon based on Doyle's work, even though you can legally write whatever you want even in contradiction to that canon.
- Dudeman112 4y agoThe whole idea of caring about "canon" is fundamentally bollocks anyway when it comes to stories
- xbar 4y agoReference?
- Dudeman112 4y agoI made it up. It's an opinion The latest commit where the master branch finds itself in isn't any more "true" or genuine than the first commit in history, nor the commits on a fork, nor the commit on branch-1, nor the commit on branch-2 If it's all fiction anyway there is no truth out there for the map to be compared against. All permutations are real, all maps are the territory I do find it amusing, however, that depending on context people consider the first commit in history to be canon, while on other cases they prefer the newest commit approved by the Authority™
- pixl97 4y agoHistory? In the days before books were common stories were not told from written pages but memory. This allowed stories to change and adapt on the storytellers whims (or forgetfulness). Eventually they were ossified in books, of which many people think they are the 'canon'.
- xbar 4y agoPerhaps "canon" means something other than "you can't change a story."
- kilgnad 4y agoThe word has meaning imo. It's used to seperate the fan fiction and maintain consistency during world building. It's quite important for the popular stories of our time, Star wars and the Marvel cinematic universe. I know some people hate those franchises but like it or not, they are some of the biggest mythologies that came out in our time.