Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-26T19:03:44.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Holy Writ: Interpretation in Law and Religion. Edited by Arie-Jan Kwak. Ashgate2009. Pp. 204. $99.95. ISBN: 0-754-67896-2.

Review products

Holy Writ: Interpretation in Law and Religion. Edited by Arie-Jan Kwak. Ashgate2009. Pp. 204. $99.95. ISBN: 0-754-67896-2.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Henry L. Chambers Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , 2010 , pp. 635 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Some essayists attempt to engage the U.S. Constitution, with mixed results. For example, Tom Zwart addresses unenumerated rights in the U.S. Constitution, but does so incompletely (113-29).

2. Justice Scalia distinguishes the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights' enforceable legal rights with the Declaration of Independence's discussion of principles. (12).

3. Hans Nieuwenhuis's essay contribution tracks these two issues quite closely. (131).

4. Why the text is being interpreted matters. Accordingly, Willem B. Drees notes in his essay:

The historians are not textualists. They are text-oriented, but not textualists in the sense given to the term above. If archaeological excavations or Hellenistic sources reveal facts relevant to the interpretation of passages of the Sermon on the Mount, it would be against the professional ethic to disregard such text-extemal evidence on the basis of a textualist preference. (51).

5. Tom Zwart notes: “Others, like Justice Scalia, who is the most prominent advocate of Originalism, will try to establish what the words meant to those living at the time that the Constitution was drafted.” (115).

6. See Chambers, Henry L. Jr.Biblical Interpretation, Constitutional Interpretation, and Ignoring Text, 69 Md. L. Rev. 92 (2009)Google Scholar.