gathas at hotkey.net.au
Mon Mar 18 06:44:03 EST 2002
| Hmm, maybe you're right, but maybe we're both right,
| maybe it's the same thing. When Childs interprets the
| text of the Book of Isaiah, it's canonical form is it's meaning as part
| of the *Christian* canon, and the present meaning of that canon
| includes the whole history of its interpretation in the church. At any
| rate, he's not concerned with what the historical Isaiah is trying
| to say.
Liz, I don't think that is quite right. By 'Christian Canon' doesn't Childs mean only the Hebrew
scriptures and the 27 New Testament books? I don't think he includes anything beyond that, though
he may consider it in his analysis in the same way anyone interested in the history of
interpretation would. I'm fairly sure that Childs does not include the history of interpretation
beyond the New Testament in his concept of canon.
More information about the b-hebrew