Is meaning in the canon?

Ever since the day that I read Brevard Childs’ The Church’s Guide to Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus ( there has been a tug-of-war within me. There is something important about the historical-grammatical approach to Scripture, but there are times when the influence of historicism seems to lead to mere speculation that has no bearing on the thought and life of the Christian church. On the other hand, we have a canon of Scripture that has been handed to us by the church as a standard for such things. It is the canon of Scripture as chosen by the church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that is Scripture for us (we can save the discussion on “who’s canon” for another time since there is a basic unity amongst major orthodox Christian tribes). Yet we do not want to de-historicize Scripture so that it becomes some sort of ethereal book.

The early church spoke of reading Scripture as literal/historical; allegorical;  moral; and anagogical/eschatological. I am a novice of interpretive history, but this seems to have been a dominate model until the Reformation. At that point it was “back to the sources” in an attempt to here the original authorial intent. This hermeneutic climaxed with F.D. E. Schleiermacher. For many this is the method that has been adopted. The text means what it meant through authorial intent.

Is there any sense in which the meaning can morph from being locked into static “history”? Is there a way in which we can approach Scripture from another angle? Let me say it this way: Can we read biblical text both from a historical perspective and from a canonical/dogmatic perspective?

If not, why not? If so, where to these two paradigms meet and how do these two paradigms influence the church?