Article Sidebar
Published:
Nov 15, 2016Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publishing rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Read more here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Main Article Content
Die kanon in die kanon as hermeneuties-teologiese probleem
Abstract
The canon within the canon as henneneutical-theological problem
Taking as point of departure the diversity, and in many cases the disparity of the canon, this essay agrees with a number of prominent scholars that the canon itself invites and requires priorities and preferences, and consequently its own reduction. It also points out that as a result of this fact and due to hermeneutical and theological presuppositions, theological and ecclesiastical traditions have in practice always operated with some kind of 'canon within the canon'. In view of this the conclusion arrived at, is that when one takes the canon and its problems seriously and perceives it responsibly, one has in principle no other option than to work with a canon within the canon. Although a stance like this has its problems and difficulties and runs the risk of onesidedness and the absolutizing of a particular appropriation, it is self-evidently the most preferable and can and should be effectively checked by the criticism of theological discussion.
