Text in Afrikaans / "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 / Biblical and Ancient Studies / D. Th. (Ou Testament)

Text in Afrikaans / "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 / Biblical and Ancient Studies / D. Th. (Ou Testament)