event(s) in, by, and through which Being is manifest. I unfold these fea-
tures as follows: fi rst, I provide a brief summary of Gadamer’s hermeneutic
linguistic ontology leading to a sketch of Zabala’s post-metaphysical per-
spective on the event(s) of Being as the remains of conversation(s); then,
I offer a synopsis of Davies’ Trinitarian theology establishing the Trinity
as the linguistic foundation of all that is and suggesting creation as text,
the overfl ow or abundance of divine conversation(s). I conclude with an
application for biblical interpretation. My goal is modestly to propose a
new perspective that appreciates and augments older views while simulta-
neously challenging them.
G ADAMER: “BEING THAT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IS
LANGUAGE”
In conversation(s), something happens above and beyond the contribu-
tions and intentions of those involved. “The more genuine a conversation
is, the less its conduct lies within the will of either partner.” 2 Conversation
displays two important features of hermeneutic encounters: (1) it reveals
the verbal nature of coming to an understanding, and (2) it models the
medial character of hermeneutic experience. 3 Genuine conversation tran-
scends the participants as a medial reality; like “play,” 4 conversation has no
goal or end but perpetuates itself through constant renewal and in this way
makes available the emergence of something coming into expression, into
being in the livingness of speech. Conversation is hence an open event, an
unanticipated happening that opens spaces and times for the emergence of
truths and realities that transcend dialogue partners. 5
Understanding occurs in the midst of a genuine conversation when
one truly listens to the other, when one—fully aware of one’s histori-
cal situatedness—opens oneself to the perspective(s) of the other. This
happens in language. The essence of traditions exists in words, in ver-
bal re-presentations, suggesting understanding as an event of tradition
and not an isolated subjective moment or a series of moments in which
one’s mind grasps or apprehends something. 6 Like play and conversation,
understanding is medial and one participates in it without controlling it.
Understanding emerges (fi nds its being, its expression) in the linguistic
encounter between text (i.e., tradition compressed in the word) and inter-
preter. 7 Tradition is not the possession of anyone within it but is posses-
sive of those to whom it provides a nourishing sapience. In its nurturing
34 C.C. EMERICK