The Applicative and Theological frameworks on the wheel are relevant in this section. Present-day readers are far removed from the first readers of ancient times who listened to, or read a biblical text. As mentioned earlier, this creates communicative problems and leads to misunderstanding. How do we translate the message meant for them to suit our situation in such a way that it also becomes our message? The answer is by analogy (Van der Watt, Joubert, Du Rand & Naudé 2002: 50)28. This phase of the total process should not be underestimated. It often requires more individual attention than all the previous steps discussed in this Chapter, since two millennia and thousands of miles separate us from the original recipients of the NT documents. Klein, Blomberg & Hubbard (2004: 483) mention four basic principles whereby the core message of ancient texts such as the Bible can be translated and applied to a contemporary audience in order to maintain academic integrity:
First, we should determine the ancient, original applications intended by the passage to its first receivers. At this point, the meaning of the given passage to its original hearers has already been established; yet the meaning has been applied to the first audience by certain culture-specific commands, examples, promises, warnings or beliefs. Consider for example, the meat being sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8. These applications no longer apply to contemporary culture, as we currently do not sacrifice animals.
Secondly, we evaluate the level of specificity of those applications to their original cultural situation. The sacrifices are a good example. These practices cannot be applied to our present culture.
Thirdly, if the original applications are not transferable, we should identify one or more broader cross-cultural principles reflected in the passage. In 1 Corinthians 8, we could summarise Paul’s main cross-cultural principle as follows: we should be aware that our God-given freedom and rights do not become a stumbling block to the weaker members of our community; we should act in love by refraining from exercising our rights.
28 Blomberg (2010) discusses this method extensively. He also mentions some of the pitfalls of using
Lastly, we find currently appropriate applications that can express this principle. In this instance, we translate the ancient coded language into contemporary cultural and rhetorical codes, symbols and metaphors, package them in a modern medium so that a twenty-first-century audience would understand the ancient message without changing its essence. The art of knowing one’s culture is extremely important. I shall discuss this aspect later.
During this process, the initial twenty-first-century receiver now becomes the new sender. It is significant to introduce the notions of “surface structure” and “deep structure”29
that form part of this process, and explain the encoded language used in each culture. These terms will also be applied to Acts 17 and are used in transformational, generative grammar and generative poetics (Deist 1990: 66) to indicate the superficial or apparent structures as opposed to the underlying deeper meaning of a sentence (Nordquist s. a.: ad loc.). Take the following sentences as a simple example:
- “John is easy to please.” - “John is eager to please.”
Syntactically, these two sentences appear to be similar, yet they are not. John is the subject in the one instance and the object in the other (Warsi s.a.: ad loc.). Surface structure refers to the sentence as it is written and as it appears on the surface (Deist 1990: 66). This can also be applied to science. Searle (1972: ad loc.) points out that language describing something in scientific terms may sound intelligible on the surface without any real “significant intellectual content”. In grammar, deep structure relates to the underlying, “abstract structure that allows the native speaker of a language to know what the sentence means” (Warsi s.a.: ad loc.). Therefore, a writer can convey a potential idea (deep structure) by encoding it into a local, cultural language of surface structure (Nordquist s.a.: ad loc.). This process of encoding and decoding is called “transformation” (Deist 1990: 66). Transformations serve as the “link between deep structure of sentences and their surface structures” (Warsi s.a.: ad loc.; Deist 1990: 264). This is extremely relevant in interpreting the sayings of Luke in Acts 17, since one has to decode the surface structure in order to understand Luke’s deep structure the way his first readers would have understood it. Once the meaning of, and applications to Luke’s first hearers is established (Blomberg’s first principle), the specificity to ancient culture is determined (Blomberg’s second principle), and cross-cultural principles are identified, his message should be encoded again in contemporary language (Blomberg’s fourth principle), so that present-day hearers can understand it, making the modern receiver the new sender. See Diagram 6.
29 Chomsky was the first person to mention surface structure and deep structure in grammatical
Diagram 6.
Another example from 1 Corinthians 11 explains this process of analogy, surface structure and deep structure more clearly and extensively. Paul instructs women to carry a head garment (Van der Watt, Joubert, Du Rand & Naudé 2002: 50-51). If we view the biblical text as currently authoritative, does this mean that contemporary women should also wear head garments? No. Why not? What is the relevant message for us nowadays of head garments? We determine this by the method of analogy, using the concepts of deep structure and surface structure. By using this method, we should understand that some matters remain the same between our time and the text, but that others will differ from culture to culture. There are vast differences between our culture and that of biblical times. Nowadays, women do not necessarily wear head garments. In biblical times, wearing head garments was a woman’s sign of respect towards men. Consequently, this concerns the discernment of timeless values as opposed to cultural practices. In essence, Paul mentioned that women should respect men in marriage and vice versa. He is appealing to a timeless value (deep structure). Nowadays, this spiritual principle should still be valid: mutual respect. As the cross- cultural principle, mutual respect will be revealed according to Blomberg’s (2010: ad loc.) third principle. Once we have determined this, we should ask ourselves what cultural practice, symbol or example, relevant in contemporary culture, can we use to communicate women’s respect towards men in present-day marriages (Blomberg’s fourth principle).
In applying this to the study, I suggest a hermeneutical and critical-realist account of reading in all its parts, throughout the study of Acts 17:16-34, Acts and Luke-Acts as a whole, as well as all other relevant literature (Wright 1992: 61). The application of the biblical message by means of the method of analogy also depends on the critical- realist reading of the Acts text as well as well as the reading of the modern “text”. This also includes the entire exegetical process.
The process, described and illustrated in Diagram 6, is especially relevant and important for a contemporary interpretation of Acts 17. Taking the entire hermeneutical and exegetical process into account, I shall determine the theological content in Acts 17:16-34 and investigate the cultural and rhetorical language the author uses to communicate the message of the text. Once the ancient codes have been identified in Paul’s speech to the Greeks, they will be translated by way of analogy (making use of the theory of deep structure and surface structure), based on critical realism, into indicators as to how the twenty-first-century church can communicate Luke’s and Paul’s message to our post-Christian society. The above structure will not be followed visibly while dealing directly with the biblical text, since the text has a very definite structure of its own. All the aspects discussed will be present and clearly detectable when the study is read in detail.
For the sake of clarity, I shall explicitly point out the broad theoretical framework of the process within which the remainder of this study is conducted. A few brief procedures include:
The identification of some relevant sayings within Acts 17:16-34.
Determining exegetical dynamics. This will include aspects such as the social and literary components, textual criticism, and structural analysis described in this Chapter.
What can the text possibly communicate in the deep structure?
The analogical transfer of the possible message to the present day, with the question as to how and in what situations it can be used and applied.
These are simple, yet, it is hoped, effective criteria whereby I can measure myself and the process.
In summary, I repeat my earlier question. “If understanding is possible, how should we go about attaining it?” (Lategan 1997: 18). I maintain that responsible understanding (without falling into the trap of positivism) is possible by following the process described so far. All these different aspects combine, each element influencing another, and should be integrated into one comprehensive whole.
3.4 Conclusion
It is vital to conclude and summarise this section of the study by reminding the exegete that, as one is engaged in the technical detail of analysis such as placing the
text into context, studying the stylistic figures of the Greek text, and so forth, one should bear in mind, especially in the case of a book such as Acts, that this process is about learning to read and understand a story (Van der Watt, Joubert, Du Rand & Naudé 2002: 96). This awareness has very basic implications such as starting at the beginning and finishing at the end of the book, as stated earlier. Stories are the heartbeat of life and there is a story behind every text of the Bible. An exegete, at heart, should thus be an effective story-reader (Van der Watt, Joubert, Du Rand & Naudé 2002: 97). The Bible is the story of the path of God with His people. Therefore, every story has main characters to be studied. It is important to note who says what under what circumstances and who are the secondary characters that help or object to the purpose of the main characters (Van der Watt, Joubert, Du Rand & Naudé 2002: 97). Every story has a general theme and plan with a beginning (where the story starts), a main part (where the story gradually unfolds around the main characters), and an end (where the storyline concludes) (Van der Watt, Joubert, Du Rand & Naudé 2002: 98). All stories take place within a certain place, time and space.
All the aspects discussed in this Chapter, from the authority of the biblical text through the exegetical process to translating the message into a language for present- day receivers, serve the purpose of better reading and understanding the biblical story, in general, and Acts 17:16-34, in particular.