Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.09.2012, Blaðsíða 22

the commentary text, M2 = the message that is communicated by S2 to R2,
etc. In the third communication (Com3) S3 is the commentary user (= R2
in Com2) who produces a new text (T3). S3 may be a researcher who uses
a commentary for writing a book or an article or for preparing for a Iecture.
Students usually use commentaries to write papers or to prepare for examina-
tions. Most readers of commentaries are pastors who prepare a sermon or
some kind of church bible study with the help of a commentary. This S3,
then, may be a pastor who preaches for attendants ofa church service or teaches
bible users (R3). Accepting this constraint allows me to articulate the specific
questions of the commenting process that arise in a specific situation (Sit3).
S3 may communicate a message (M3) to R3 with a variety of media (Med3)
that may include speech, written material, pictures, drama, music, dance, etc.
If we define the R2/S3 in this way we get a communication situation
which includes faith in a significant way. The same can be said about
Coml. The question is: Should this character of Coml and Com3 influence
Com2i Do I have to include my Christian faith when I analyse the first
situation and in some way help the reader of the commentary to deliver
his sermon? I have no simple answer to this question. It is easy to see how
commentators try to solve this problem. We have now also a “Two Horizons
Commentary”, in which the first part is a historical, philological exposition,
while the second part gives a Christian lecture with the text as the starting
point. Has a pastor the competence to transfer a historical, philological
analysis to a theological work that results in a sermon?
The development of text hermeneutic during the last fifty years makes
clear that all interpretations are bound to perspectives and contexts. We
have to choose different alternatives when we interpret text. We can choose
a faith perspective, but we have to motivate such a choice and define it.
The greatest problem is related to the demand for intersubjectivity in all
scientific research. Is it possible to discuss your interpretation with an
unbeliever if you have belief as a prerequisite?
A last comment on the formula in point 6. C, the context of the inter-
pretation process, can in general be defined as the church or as the univer-
sity. We have had a lot of discussions in Sweden about the position of faith
in theological studies at high schools. The Bologna process has stressed that
those who have studied in our universities must get such a competence that
they could be employed. How to teach those students at our universities
who are going to work as pastors? How is the relation between university
and church as the situation for interpreting the New Testament?
20