Pluralist is more committed to the truth than most contributors to this site. A commitment to relativism ought to be more tentative about its own insights, otherwise it becomes as intolerant as those viewpoints it seeks to criticise.

Does it matter if there is a canon? Probably - because the narrative and writings of the bible are not open-ended, and the issue of validity has been debated for as long as there have been traditions and writings.

Are there canons in other faiths? Presumably; I would assume that some writings are said to be integral, and others valuable, or interesting, but not integral to faiths besides Christianity. Pluralist probably knows more about this than I do.

Is there no ‘truth’ in writings outside these ‘canons’? Of course there is, but we would not suggest, for instance, that Keats’s ‘Ode to Autumn’ is determinative of the Christian faith, for all the profound truth about the human condition which it contains. Yet accepting the validity of a ‘canon’ in the corpus of writings which define my faith does not mean that I can find no value in reading widely outside that canon - either in secular or religious literature. With the latter, I frequently come back to the bible with greater appreciation.

What constitutes the uniqueness of the writings of the biblical canon, in contrast to those considered to be non-canonical? That returns the discussion to the wider questions concerning the canon - but whatever the point of view, it is not an irrelevant question.