{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04528985507246377, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.144444444444445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Ontological Definition of “Canon”?


 Michael Kruger’s most recent book calls for a revised understanding of “canon” as the confluence of a closed-canon definition, a “functional definition,” and an “ontological” definition. Kruger intends his call to replace the now-common understanding of “canon” as (simply) the closing of a corpus of Scripture. This article seeks to show that Kruger’s complaints against the exclusive use of the closed-canon definition of “canon” are unfounded and that his attempt at an ontological definition is problematic.