I shall specifically refer to Du Toit (2009: 124). This means that, on the wheel, we are dealing with the Grammar (second green circle). Once the text has been chosen, the next step is the initial reading of the text (Roberts & Du Toit 1978: 55). By initial reading, I do not mean that it will necessarily be the first time that I encounter the text, but simply the first reading of the new exegetical process and the necessary translation (Cotterall & Turner 1989: 19-25).
First, I shall read the text throughly and translate the Greek text word for word (Roberts & Du Toit 1978: 67). Initially, the focus should be on a literal translation, as a dynamic translation could be confusing at first (Blomberg 2010: 38; Du Toit 2009: 124). While reading and translating the text, it is important to determine whether the meaning of the words is understood. I shall study the semantics of Acts 17 on the assumption that “words actualize their meaning in context” (Van der Watt 2011a: 5). This implies that “words get their meaning from sentences, sentences get their meaning from paragraphs and paragraphs from sections in books and sections in books from the book as a whole” (Van der Watt 2011a: 5). Consequently, it is important to understand that meaning is directly related to culture, rhetoric and structure (Blomberg 2010: 38-45). In order to be on the same wavelength as the original author, we are interested in how s/he understood the words. This will be accomplished by means of a dual process: using semantic dictionaries (such as Louw & Nida, Liddel & Scott, BDAG) and studying the context in which the word is used, since the meaning of any word is realised in its own context (Blomberg 2010: 38).
Secondly, I shall examine the dynamics of the text (Van der Watt 2011a: 5). By dynamics, I mean issues such as, for instance, why is a participial used or why is an imperfect used, etc. Grammatical intricacies can help fine-tune our understanding of the text (Blomberg 2010: 38). “The most important task in grammatical analysis is to assess – when it makes a difference for interpreting a passage – what kind of usage a given case, tense, mood, voice, and so on, reflects” (Blomberg 2010: 151). In addition, I shall identify, address and resolve immediate issues such as grammatical problems, and the author’s specific use of words and idioms (Du Toit 2009: 124), using dictionaries and other scholarly books on, for instance, style and grammar (Roberts & Du Toit 1978: 56).
Thirdly, while reading the Greek text, I shall consider dividing the text into sections and paragraphs (Blomberg 2010: 195-196). Du Toit (2009: 125) calls this the demarcation of the text. Although I am still dealing with Grammar on the wheel, the Grammar starts overlapping to structure (Fee 2002: 41-43). This goes hand in hand with the structural analysis of the text, but is not quite similar. This is still part of the initial reading of the text where broad divisions are identified. A chapter in a text may typically consist of a few pericopes; the pericopes may consist of a few paragraphs, and the paragraphs may consist of verses (Du Toit 2009: 125). The divisions provided
by our used editions of the Greek text may be “on target, but all too often is not the case”, and wrong demarcations can be misleading (Du Toit 2009: 125). Du Toit (2009: 126-135) mentions three basic criteria that can be used for demarcating a text.
First, the lexico-grammatical criteria (Fee 2002: 42). Markers are sought that indicate the beginning or the end of a passage (Blomberg 2010: 144-145). A few examples of time changes are mentioned from the gospel of Matthew. 2:1 – Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος (When Jesus was born); 2:7 – Τότε (thereupon); 2:13 – Ἀναχωρησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν (When they departed). “In the letters, inferential conjunctions may indicate a new beginning” (Du Toit 2009: 127). Examples are Romans 2:1 – Διὸ (therefore); Romans 5:12 – Διὰ τοῦτο (therefore). Markers indicating the closure of a passage are more difficult to spot, but examples include Matthew 1:17 οὖν – (therefore); Romans 14:12 – ἄρα (then/therefore) (Blomberg 2010: 144). Another important indicator is cohesion (Fee 2002: 41-42), where words are often replaced; phrases or words are repeated; a collection of associated words is combined (for example, in John 2:1-10: Wedding, was invited, wine, servants, master of the banquet, bridegroom), when a word or phrase is omitted that is essential to the meaning of a statement, but can easily be determined from the context, or by the congruence of location, occasion, time, participants, time sequence and modes of verbal action as well as the use of conjunctions.18
An obvious example from Acts 17 is verse 16 Ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ἀθήναις ἐκδεχομένου αὐτοὺς (While/when he waited for them in Athens …). The δὲ clearly distinguishes the new sentence starting in verse 16 from the former in verse 15 and indicates why the majority of Bible translations divide two paragraphs between the verses.
Another example is between verses 31 and 32. The latter starts with Ἀκούσαντες δὲ (when they heard), and indicates that the speech has ended and we are about to witness something new, namely the reaction of the hearers.
Secondly, the literary criteria (Du Toit 2009: 132-135). Demarcation can be guided by a variation or change in literary forms within a specific genre. Stylistic figures such as parallelisms, chiastic patterns, and inclusios can also create cohesion. A good example from Acts 17 is the structural analysis in Chapter 7, between the verb ἔφη and the form of address, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι. See the brief reflection below.
The obvious reason why I chose a division between ἔφη and ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι is that the latter indicates a form of address that starts a new genre, namely a speech. A bigger division is, in fact, obvious between verses 21 en 22, starting with Σταθεὶς δὲ [he then stood…], but there is, strictly speaking, no difference in genre.
Thirdly the semantic criteria (Du Toit 2009: 134). These are extremely important because, since other criteria for demarcation can vary, “semantic coherence is a constant prerequisite for any normal communication”. For semantic coherence to occur, it requires a topic in the case of oratorical material, or an occasion in the case of narratives. Four types of topics have been identified (see Diagram 5), indicating type A-D. In model A, the triangle, the topic is announced and then expounded, as in Romans 8:1 and further. In model B, the wedge, the theme appears at the end, as in Romans 6:11 at the end of 6:3-11. In the hourglass shape of model C, several propositions lead to the announcement of the theme and will be elaborated upon later. A fine example of this is Philippians 3b-11. In model D (the diamond) the theme is mentioned, then expounded upon, and mentioned again at the end. Additional biblical examples are found in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 and in Matthew 1:1-17. Of course, this also coincides with the structure of an inclusio.
Diagram 5: Four types of topics A
B
C
In Acts 17:16-34, verses 22 (and/or 23) to 31 form a semantic coherent whole because of the way in which the content is structured and the topic introduced and concluded. The shape of a diamond (shape D above) can be identified, starting with Paul’s statement that the Greeks are religious and the referral to the unknown god. This whole theme of religiosity (in terms of the unknown god) is expanded and elaborated upon from verses 24 onwards until the focus returns to and ends in verse 31, where Paul announces the one who is to come to judge. By announcing this person’s resurrection from the dead, he replaces the unknown god in verse 23 with Jesus, the coming judge in verse 31, thus reflecting a diamond shape.
I paid some attention to text demarcation, because “it forms such an important part of the exegete’s groundwork and also because new linguistic developments can help us significantly in this respect” (Du Toit 2009: 135).