Man “is a meaning being with a natural drive for the mediation of meaning to and from his fellow human beings”
Man mediates his meaning through the use of language, whether, spoken or written. When a man uses language he intends to transmit his meaning to other humans and thus expects his transmission to be received and responded to. Meyer insightfully distinguishes between “intended transmission” (what was intended) and “effective transmission” (how it was construed). The gap between the two reflects either the failure of the transmitter to express his meaning in language or the receiver’s failure to construe accurately the transmission (Meyer 19). The transmitter and the receiver can enter into a dialogue in order to bring the effective transmission closer to the intended transmission. However, in written communication the transmitter is not present for the reception of his transmission and cannot enter into a dialogue with the receiver, in order to clarify his intended meaning. Therefore, Meyer notes that writing is a more deliberate use of language because the transmitter recognizes that he will be absent and thus unable to offer clarification.
In written transmissions (i.e. texts) as in spoken ones, the author (transmitter) seeks to express an intended message and the reader (receiver) seeks to read the text with the purpose of receiving its intended message. The intended message of an author, once penned, is lock in a text or becomes intrinsic to the text only insofar as that message has been adequately communicated (encoded into written language).
What does this mean for OT theology?
First, it means that each author in the OT has a voice and seeks to use it to communicate his intended message or messages. Second, it means that an OT theology will have to represent the intentions of the text on its own terms (in my opinion that means an OT theology will not be formulated in light of the New). Third, theories which allow the reader to deconstruct the author’s intended message and construct his/her own intention in its place is null and void at the suppositional level (this would need to be fleshed out and as it stands is an oversimplification). Fourth, theological constructs should not be used to dismiss or flatten the intended message, but rather should be brought into conversation with such intentions. Finally, for me, it means that an OT theology is possible to formulate. However, this does not mean that the process of formulation will be easy or uncomplicated. Indeed, the road toward an OT theology is fraught with dangers. We turn to one of these dangers in an upcoming post.
 Ben Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament, 18