"Teksbetekenis" staan sedert die opkoms van strukturalisme
in die middelpunt van die diskussie in literere Kringe. Die
ontwikkeling van lesersgeorienteerde teoriee en die opkoms
van die konsep van "intertekstualiteit" het veral bygedra
tot die bevraagtekening van die opvatting dat tekste 'n
"eintlike" betekenis "het".
In konserwatiewe kerklike kringe word daar egter nog baie
gemaak van die Skrif as 'n regulatiewe dokument met een
sensurerende eintlike of korrekte betekenis. Die opvatting
is ook dat prediking Skrifprediking moet wees waarin slegs
die Skrifwoord 'n plek het. Die opvatting strook nie met
literere insigte nie.
In hierdie studie word sekere aspekte van die literere
gestalte van die Masoretiese 1 Konings 21 ontleed en die
resultaat hiervan vergelyk met soortgelyke analises van
die weergawe van die verhaal in vertalings (LXX, Vulgaat,
Wycliffe, Purvey, en die Geneva Bible), oorvertellings
(deur Josefus en Lukas), kommentare (in die kantlyne van
Purvey-en Geneefse vertalings), preke en in 'n akademiese
artikel. Die bevinding is dat elke weergawe, ongeag die
genre daarvan, die verhaal op een of ander manier verander
het en dat interpretasies wissel van mindere uitbouings tot
die skep van nuwe verhale. Die situasie van die interpreteer-
der het telkens die interteks gevorm wat 'n nuwe vertelling
laat ontstaan het.
Hoewel tekste betekenis mag he (wat dit moontlik maak om
hulle met mekaar te vergelyk) is elke interpretasie 'n
kontekstualisering wat onvermydelik 'n nuwe teks produseer.
Die bevinding bring konserwatief-teologiese definisies van
Skrifbeskoulike konsepte soos kanon, kanoniese betekenis,
Skrifgesag en Skrifprediking ernstig in gedrang en noodsaak
dringende herbesinning op daardie terreine
Since the rise of structuralism "textual meaning" has been at
the centre of the literary debate. The formation of reader
orientated theories and a concept like "intertextuality"
contributed a great deal to the questioning of the idea that
texts "have" a "real" meaning.
However, in conservative church circles much is still being
made of scripture as a regulative document with one censuring
"real" or correct meaning. The conviction is, further, that
preaching should be "scriptural", that is, sermons should
only repeat what Scripture says. This view does not tally
with insights gained from current literary theory.
In this study certain aspects of the literary shape of the
Massoretic version of 1 Kings 21 are analysed and the results
compared with similar analyses of accounts of this narrative
in translations (LXX, Vulgate, Wycliffe, Purvey and the
Geneva Bible), re-tellings (by Josephus and Luke),
comnentaries (Purvey and Geneva Bible margins), sermons and
an academic article. It was found that each account,
irrespective of its genre, in some or other way changed the
narrative and that the interpretations vary from lesser
extentions to the creation of completely new narratives. The
situation of the interpreter constantly functioned as the
intertext generating a new narrative.
Even though texts may "possess" meaning (enabling one to
compare them with one another) every interpretation is a
contextualisation inevitably producing a new text. This
conclusion seriously questions conservative theological
definitions of concepts such as canon, canonical meaning,
scriptural authority and scriptural preaching and
necessitates urgent rethinking in these areas
