I would like to hear a few people’s opinions. What do you think matters the most, the meaning of a biblical document in its canonical context or the meaning of a biblical document in its socio-historical context? Is it more important that the unified compilation of various documents with apostolic authority or apostolic tradition, under the supra-authorial oversight of the Holy Spirit be given the most attention or the intent under the author as the Holy Spirit inspired the author for the particular topic that needed to be dealt with at that time.
Let me put this in concrete terms. Does it matter if there is a First, Second, and Third Isaiah or do we focus on the canonical Isaiah? Do we focus on 1 Corinthians in relation to the church in Corinth in the first century or to its place in Pauline theology and then New Testament and biblical theology in general?
Any thoughts?
the archives near Emmaus 
I’ll say it like this: It’s the Church’s Bible.
I’ve found much benefit doing biblical theology. I haven’t done other theologies from a graduate school perspective yet so I’ll hold off on my comments about them until I do.
Need it be an either/or answer?
I’m with Jason.
And why wouldn’t the “canonical context” also have a “socio-historical context”? Didn’t the Jewish Second-Temple editors who e.g. created the Psalter out of individual monarchical, exilic, and post-exilic psalms and small psalm collections work from a definite and describable socio-historical context?
Michael, I see your point and it a good one. Any ideas on how one would go about discerning that socio-historical context from the arrangement itself? Or should one take the arrangement in its final form as inspired?
Nick, it would seem that the outcome of your statement is that the church has the authority/ability to invest meaning into the text for different times and eras. Is that what you’re saying?
Expound on this. I would like to hear your thoughts.
Well, you could look at the problems that are being solved/questions that are being answered by ANY level of compositional history at which you are trying to work.
For example, you could analyse individual psalms according to their function as cultic poetry in e.g. pre-exilic Israel: Ps 2 as something performed during an enthronement of an Israelite king, expressing the concerns arising from the political hazards associated with this setting.
But then you would have to ask why on earth the Second Temple-period editors of the Psalter had any interest in re-using earlier cult poetry about a monarch, given the fact that there was no Davidic monarch and no plausible reason to expect one in a context of Persian and Greek imperial rule. Why would there be any interest in re-using old royal psalms in such a context–unless it functioned as an expression of hope for an ideal, and possibly eschatological, Davidic king?
And then you could look for other expressions of hope for such a figure in the Second Temple period to see if there is a trajectory with which the outlook of the compositional layer you are investigating could be aligned.
Very good thoughts and reply.