英语翻译At this point,an important warning needs to be expressed.For students of literature whose original audience and author are not present (i.e.,dead),we only have direct access to one of the three parties in the communicative process:the mes

英语翻译At this point,an important warning needs to be expressed.For students of literature whose original audience and author are not present (i.e.,dead),we only have direct access to one of the three parties in the communicative process:the mes
英语翻译
At this point,an important warning needs to be expressed.For students of literature whose original audience and author are not present (i.e.,dead),we only have direct access to one of the three parties in the communicative process:the message itself.Whereas we would be profited by having direct access to author and audience ("Paul,what in the world did you mean about baptizing for the dead?"; or,"How did it hit you Galatians when Paul said he wished his troublers would castrate themselves?"),it would be incorrect to suggest that we must have such access for any understanding to take place.Frequently one encounters the extravagant statement to the effect that "one cannot understand a biblical book unless one understands the author's (or audience's) circumstances." The problem with such statements is that they imply that we can have no understanding without access to information which simply does not always exist.We haven't any idea who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews,or why,other than what may be indicated in the letter itself.Does this mean that we can't understand it in any sense?I think not.We just have to recognize that information,which would assist the act of interpretation,is,in this case,missing.
Related to this warning is a second.For Protestants,scripture itself is authoritative.Our reconstructions,often highly conjectural of the historical circumstances under which a given biblical work was written and read,are not authoritative,by my understanding of Protestant theology.Those reconstructions may assist our understanding of the biblical text,but they are not,in and of themselves,of any religious authority.
Finally,we might add that the essential error of many exegetical theories is their exclusion of one or more of these three parties from consideration.While many important debates are continuing to influence interpretive theory,our evaluation of these debates would do well to retain a role for each of the three above-mentioned dimensions.

英语翻译At this point,an important warning needs to be expressed.For students of literature whose original audience and author are not present (i.e.,dead),we only have direct access to one of the three parties in the communicative process:the mes
在这一点上,一个重要的预警需要得到表达.为学生的文学,其原来的观众和作者不存在（即死亡） ,我们只有直接接触三个各方在沟通过程：信息本身.虽然我们将得益于通过直接接触的作者和读者（ “保罗,什么在世界上没有你的意思是对洗礼的死了吗? ” ,或者“它是怎么打你加拉太当保罗说,他希望将他阉割troublers自己? “ ） ,这将是不正确的建议,我们必须有这种机会对任何的理解发生.经常遇到一个奢侈的声明,大意是“一个无法理解一个圣经的书籍,除非人们了解作者的（或观众）的情况. ”问题是,这样的声明是,他们意味着我们可以不理解,得不到信息,只是并不总是存在的.我们还没有任何想法谁写的书信,以希伯来人,为什么,除了可能是在自己的信.这是否意味着我们无法理解它在任何意义?我想不是.我们必须认识到这一点信息,这将有助于行为的解释,就是在这种情况下,下落不明.
与此相关的警告是第二次.为新教徒,经文本身是具有权威性.我们的重建,往往高度推测的历史情况下,某一圣经的工作是书写和阅读的,没有权威,我的理解基督教神学.这些重建可能会帮助我们了解圣经的文本,但它们不是在和自己,任何宗教的权威.
最后,我们可以补充一点,重要的错误,许多训诂理论是他们排除一个或多个,这三个政党审议.虽然许多重要的辩论将继续诠释理论的影响,我们评价这些辩论将很好地保留了作用为每个上述三个层面.