So far in this chapter, trauma theory as theoretical framework and multidimensional exegesis as methodology were discussed in their separate capacities. In this section, the relation between these two seemingly odd partners will be discussed. Questions will be asked as to whether and how this theoretical framework and methodology could engage and work together, and why they are (together) important for this study. I will subsequently attend to what the rest of the dissertation’s structure and content will look like.
When dealing with biblical texts, it is important to keep in mind that one cannot force a certain methodology and theoretical framework on them. As readers we approach a biblical text with our own presuppositions and hermeneutical lenses and it is important that we acknowledge that. It is, however, important to choose a theoretical framework and methodology that would do justice to the multifaceted nature and intension of 1 Peter, and that would assist this study in the best possible way. Multidimensional exegesis and trauma theory seem, at first glance, to be incompatible. They approach biblical texts from different angles.
Previously in this chapter, it has been said that biblical texts in themselves are multidimensional. We encounter a text in its literary form, but we need to understand something of the historical context and rhetorical aspects in order to grasp the text more fully. Similarly, the experience of trauma does not affect only one aspect of a human being or a group’s existence. It affects the whole. Trauma does not only affect one’s ability to use language and to talk about the traumatic experience, but also one’s relationship to one’s body and the social body (also a group’s relationship with each other in terms of group identity) and an individual’s and collective’s relationship with time. Life is multidimensional. However, I am aware of the limitations of this approach, because everything cannot be seen as multidimensional.
dependent on the total historical verifiability of its testimony. Hermeneutics, we might say, is the theological imagination at work as it engages both the biblical text and the historical context in which we now live in order to discern the Word for us today. We are seeking something beyond what Richard Palmer calls the ‘bogus objectivity of the theoretical and scientific’ that requires no self-engagement or self-understanding to grasp their significance. ‘We are searching’, he says, ‘for the historical in the plea for “personal knowledge,” in the impatience with science’s frantic search for origins, causal grounds, neurological antecedents, and the plea for a return to the richness and complexity of concrete awareness in interpreting literature’. We are also seeking ways whereby the truth of the Word can again become deeds in our own time, for hermeneutics is not about translation, but transformation.”
46
However, the multidimensional and intersectional nature of the chosen methodology and theoretical framework of this dissertation, invites the crossing of borders. The methodology is a known approach to biblical exegesis, but together with the theoretical framework, it has the potential to bring surprising elements from the text to the fore. However, I am aware that the reality of trauma and even a text such as 1 Peter, are more complex than I can describe. This dissertation, and especially the following chapters, are conscious attempts to account for the complexities involved.
The motivation for using trauma theory and multidimensional exegesis together in my reading of 1 Peter is mainly because of the multidimensional nature of both. This is also the reason why this particular theoretical framework and methodology are important to the study. My hypothesis is that this will work well together. It is, however, important to work with caution and in a nuanced way when approaching 1 Peter from this angle. It is crucial not to read things into this text, but to account for what is being done. Thus, viewing hermeneutics as the art of understanding texts, trauma theory in the appropriation of it in this study may be seen as the bridge between a broader hermeneutical framework and exegesis (in this case, multidimensional exegesis). What happens in the following chapters will be accounted for in terms of the theoretical framework and methodology, but also in terms of the text itself.
Ultimately, the methodology and theoretical framework of this study both deal with the complexities of life. Biblical texts reflect something of this reality. 1 Peter, in particular, deals with the complexities of suffering as a Jesus follower, of living life in a hostile environment and negotiating Empire, of negotiating just the notion to live as a believer in a man who they say is also God, and to “always be ready to make your defence to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (NRSV). Reading this text multidimensionally attempts to account for the complexities of life that are reflected in 1 Peter. In a similar way, trauma theory acknowledges the complexities of trauma as this theory attempts to account for the multifaceted and devastating effects of trauma on the whole life of an individual or group. This exercise of dealing with the complexities of life, and the methodology and theoretical framework of this study, attempts to bring these elements together in order to see how 1 Peter deals with the realities of trauma on its audience.
In chapter three, an exegetical study of 1 Peter will be done by means of a multidimensional reading of the text through a lens of trauma. The purpose of this chapter will be to show why 1 Peter can be considered as a trauma text in the first place. With the help of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of multidimensional exegesis, the three pillars (alterations in word, body and time) of a trauma lens will be examined, also in order to highlight certain themes, metaphors and strategies used by the author to address the trauma at hand. Chapter four will then discuss three of the concurring themes, metaphors and strategies in 1 Peter, and their rhetorical and theological significance.
47
2.5 CONCLUSION
The purpose of this chapter was to discuss trauma theory as theoretical framework and multidimensional exegesis as methodology of the study in their separate capacities. The objective was also to motivate why trauma theory can be applied to an ancient document such as 1 Peter and which aspects of trauma theory would be used in an argument for 1 Peter as a “trauma text”. The aim was also to show in which ways trauma theory and multidimensional exegesis could serve as conversational partners in the study, especially considering that 1 Peter may reflect a context of suffering, submission and silence.
In the following chapter, an exegetical study of 1 Peter will be made, with the help of multidimensional exegesis and the three main aspects of a trauma lens. This will be done in order to firstly show why 1 Peter can be seen as a trauma text and secondly to identify strategies, themes and metaphors used by its author (to be discussed in chapters four and five of the dissertation).
48