Biblical Hermeneutics: A Concise Panorama

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 3 Approach and Methodology

Introductory Notes

Biblical interpreters and exegetes are currently enjoying the privilege of being able to select, from a broad available assortment, a hermeneutical approach deemed to be in harmony with their traditions, beliefs, and theology, which they consider as authoritative criteria and as standard references to identify suitable and unsuitable, correct and incorrect readings. Thus, a rewarding and plausible hermeneutical endeavor should comprise, as a preparatory phase, two steps: First, an adequate comparison of approaches in order to ascertain their overall contribution to the meaning and understanding of the given biblical text; and second, a satisfactory choice of an approach capable to accomplish such an endeavor. Following this logic, this Chapter portrays the approach and the methodology adopted in this thesis. In addition to these Introductory Notes, this Chapter comprises three main sections and certain Concluding Remarks:
Section One presents a concise panorama of biblical hermeneutics aiming to locate the approach of the thesis within these approaches and to emphasize the significance of employing an integrated approach in the interpretation of a given biblical text.
Section Two indicates the limitations of the thesis.
Section Three depicts the approach and the methodology employed in this thesis. It is a holistic integrated approach/socio-historical and literary-theological approach.
It is the conviction of the researcher that exploring the Johannine spirituality and investigating the experience of God in the Fourth Gospel, require an integrated hermeneutical approach that harmonically combines specific elements from various approaches to reach its goals.

 Biblical Hermeneutics: A Concise Panorama57

Biblical texts, including the Johannine writings, were composed to be read and/or heard. As such, they required an accurate and adequate reading/interpretation. Likewise, it is acceptable to assert that their narratives encompass, certainly among others, the religious experiences lived by their authors, and hint, somehow, at one aspect of their purpose of composition, namely motivating and enhancing the spirituality of their readers. The interpretations of these narratives are as ancient as their accounts and have various features in common, for example:
The later biblical writings reinterpret their antecedents, for example: In the Old Testament, the Psalms and the prophetic writings reinterpret the contents of the Torah. Similarly, the books of the New Testament reinterpret the accounts of the Old Testament in line with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (cf. Longenecker 1999). It should be added that the merits of two of the references to the Old Testament in John should be appreciated, namely, linking the experience of God by John’s readers to that of the people of the Old Testament, and creating/enhancing spirituality.
The input brought by the readers or the interpreters’ personal experience and perspective plays a significant role in the process of the biblical interpretation/reading. Köstenberger (2004:3) states that “no commentary is written without underlying hermeneutical presuppositions, whether conscious or unconscious, acknowledged or unacknowledged, explicit or implicit… Biblical Interpretation reflects the interpreter’s ecclesiastical tradition, view of biblical authority and his or her preunderstanding” (cf. also Klein, Blomberg & Hubbard [1993] 2004:81-116). Concerning the Fourth Gospel and its readers, it can be stated that the ingenuity of John’s literary style -including his Familia Dei motif- has a significant potential of generating new experience(s) and or enhancing its spirituality.
The richness enshrined inside the biblical texts is abundant, and its openness to various methods of interpretation is noteworthy. The development of these methods has always enjoyed both a rich history and a noticeable complexity. Certainly, this is not the place to offer a complete chronicle of biblical hermeneutics – such an endeavor is offered in a number of works and in more details than the present research. Nevertheless, drawing a concise panorama about this history is indeed an insightful advantage to select the approach of this thesis.
At the outset, I should assert that the aim of this panorama is not to get engaged in any debate whatsoever about Biblical Hermeneutics nor to pretend bringing a new input to it.
The history of biblical hermeneutics58 is long and complex, as the hermeneutical fields never stopped getting an ever-growing attention. Over the years, they have developed in numerous areas of specialization and their necessity became more and more vital and undeniable. According to De Villiers (1991:146) and Smit (1988:441), no researcher can operate without employing hermeneutical methods and without observing their criteria.59
Porter & Stovell (2012:13-14) explain that the beginnings of historical exegesis go back to the ancient school of Antioch.60 The approach of this school favored an historical and factual reading of the Scripture. It was considered as a response to the allegorical methods of the Alexandrian school.61 Many scholars under the influences of Cartesian thinking, Pyrrhonian skepticism, English deism, radical German criticism, and the Enlightenment movement62 started to question the historicity of miracles and the historical Jesus, by exploring different types of texts and sources.63 Another important influence upon biblical criticism was the evolutionary philosophy. Failing to examine the latter’s validity as a basis for historical and literary biblical studies, and the insufficient attention given to the uniqueness of the contents of biblical revelation, was a notable weakness of Criticism in the nineteen century.
Suggested references for further insight:
For a comprehensive overview on the New Testament studies: Baird (1992); Thiselton (2009).
For major histories of interpretation of the Old and New Testament:
Robbins (1996); Oeming (2006); Hays (2007); Pokorny (2010); Reventlow (2010); Porter (2010).
For reviews of the history of theological hermeneutics:
Mickelsen (1970:20-53); Virkler & Ayayao (2007:43-78); Deppe (2011:194-227); Thiselton (1992:142ff).
In view of the diversity of hermeneutical theories during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, together with the comparative paucity of satisfactory results, a shift of approach occurred in an effort to provide a more integrated method. Suitably, the foundations of the older criticism were neither destroyed nor undermined by the new approaches. They rather became the bases of modern hermeneutics to some extent. Many scholars like Porter and Robinson (2011:23-33) and Hustwit (2004:185) support the idea that considers Schleiermacher as the founder of modern hermeneutics, and the initiator of romantic hermeneutics as a response to the Enlightenment. Another scholar that influenced biblical hermeneutics is Bultmann. Since the days of Schleiermacher and Bultmann, hermeneutics has undergone a fundamental change in meaning and went beyond its traditional significance.64 Consequently, biblical scholars have employed the three fundamental components of communication to tackle the epistemology of biblical hermeneutics, namely the phenomenology of its interpretation, communication, and language. They have published numerous publications on these topics, employing and presenting these components in different illustrations and various designations.65
The following diagram gives a schematic representation of these designations:
Oeming (2006:ix) argues that each of these components is connected to its own discourse and set of rules. Porter and Stovell (2012:10-12) suggest that most of the books published on biblical hermeneutics or biblical interpretation can broadly be classified into two major categories: The first category presents insightful instructions on how one should interpret the biblical text,66 while the second category provides an introduction to the different methods of biblical interpretation.67 According to them, both categories tend to overlook the larger hermeneutical issues involved in biblical interpretation and often do not do justice to the diverse range of opinions in biblical hermeneutics.68
Biblical hermeneutics,69 also called biblical criticism, is a wide designation umbrella that covers various techniques or critical methods employed in studying the biblical texts. It can also refer to the discipline of studying, evaluating and critically assessing the Bible’s accounts. During the development of its history,70 biblical criticism was catalogued under two main categories: Higher Criticism and Lower Criticism (also called Textual Criticism). Whilst its history was gradually unfolding and its development progressed steadily, both categories never stopped producing new ramifications and evolving in an interweaving complexity. Consequently, their boundaries went beyond the realm of writing to embrace the sphere of orality.
Like any science, biblical hermeneutics has its own specific rules that its practitioners consider as
best proficient and suitable to the process of exegesis and interpretation.71 While its aim – apprehending and comprehending the meaning of a given biblical text- is singular, the pertinent data, or the retrieval and appropriation of this meaning, is many-sided and multidimensional.
At the level of the Johannine hermeneutics, Thatcher (2007:487-505) asserts that three major currents have dominated the Johannine studies: The first current concentrates on the discovery of the Fourth Gospel sources; the second current focuses on the course of developmental history of John; and the third one directs the attention towards the narrative of John and the style of the author that leaves this narrative open for multiple readings and various interpretations. These currents, together with their various ramifications and profuse insights into the complexities of John’s narrative, have produced numerous hermeneutical approaches.
The valuable contribution of these currents to the Johannine hermeneutics is cherished and appreciated. However, at the level of biblical hermeneutics, the quest for what a given biblical text says or implies remains as active as ever, together with the search for a suitable method to realistically interpret this text and accurately continue to challenge the interpreter. This does not mean that there is something erroneous in the outcome of this contribution. To the contrary, one should see the above-mentioned diversity of approaches as a sound indication to the richness of the biblical narratives and as a vibrant reflection of the enormous stream of potential hermeneutic data enshrined in them, waiting for the existing interpretative methods (or methods that have not been initiated yet) to uncover it and make it accessible to experienced scholars and ordinary readers alike. Thus the necessity for new hermeneutical methods became more imperative and the effectiveness of the emerging integrated exegetic technics became more noticeable, acceptable, and employed.
Tate ([1991] 2011:xv) defines exegesis and interpretation as follows: Exegesis is the process of examining a text to ascertain what its first readers would have understood it to mean. The varied set of activities which the exegete performs on a text in order to make meaningful inferences is called exegesis. Interpretation is the task of explaining the implications of that understanding to contemporary readers and hearers. Although the researcher is aware of the original meanings of the terms “hermeneutics” and “interpretation”, in this thesis, these terms are used interchangeably, due to the fact that the term ‘interpretation’ has become, through usage, a comprehensive one – not only does it refer to the implication inferred from exegesis, but it also refers to the entire process of hermeneutics.
The outcomes of this necessity and the fruits of its effectiveness generated a new categorization of biblical hermeneutics that became broadly accepted and gradually started to replace the old twofold classification. This categorization consists of various groups of theories concerning the so-called Pivot of Hermeneutical Attention and the Location of Meaning.72 In other words, the so-called three worlds of the biblical text are referred to as: ‘the World behind the Text’, ‘the World within the Text’, and the World in front of the Text’.73 As such, this categorization could also be considered as a solid perspective from which one can effectively and satisfactorily perceive the shifts that occurred/are occurring within the realm of biblical hermeneutics.
It is the conviction of the researcher that the above-mentioned pivot of hermeneutical attention should be the product of a balanced conversation between the world of the author, the world of the text, and the world of the reader – in other words, between the three worlds of the text. In addition, the aim of this thesis and the limited scope of the present panorama do not allow even a concise elaboration on the history of biblical criticism, its numerous branches, their technics, strengths and weaknesses. However, to maintain a logical balance between the aim and limitation of this panorama on one hand, and the responsibility of keeping its contents enriched with accurate data and supportive references on the other, the researcher has found it practical to articulate some observations in the next paragraphs and to list some annotations.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCING THE THESIS 
1.1 The Title of the Thesis
1.2 The Topic of the Thesis
1.3 The Sequence of Chapters
1.4 Concluding Remarks
CHAPTER 2: LITERARY REVIEW AND PROBLEM STATEMENT 
2.1 Introductory Notes
2.2 Literary Review
2.3 Problem Statement
2.3.1 Concise Observations
2.3.2 A Scholarly Gap to be filled
2.3.3 Suggested Topics for future studies
2.4 Concluding Remarks
CHAPTER 3: APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 
3.1 Introductory Notes
3.2 Biblical Hermeneutics: A Concise Panorama
3.2.1 Textures suggested by Robbins
3.2.2 Textures suggested by Van der Merwe
3.2.3 Hermeneutical Triad of Köstenberger
3.2.4 Conclusion to this Section
3.3 Limitations of the Thesis
3.4 Approach and Methodology employed in the Thesis
3.5 Concluding Remarks
CHAPTER 4: UNDERSTANDING THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL
4.1 Introductory Notes
4.2 Understanding the Johannine Experience of God
4.2.1 Considerations on Religious Experience
4.2.2 Considerations on the Johannine Community
4.2.3 Considerations on the Fourth Gospel
4.3 An Attuned Interaction that constitutes an Experience of God
4.3.1 The Involvement of God
4.3.2 The Involvement of the Fourth Evangelist
4.3.3 The Involvement of John’s Narrative
4.3.4 The Involvement of the Readers
4.4 Concluding Remarks
CHAPTER 5: THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL PRECEIVED FROM THE PRESPECTIVE OF ITS FAMILIA DEI
5.1 Introductory Notes
5.2 The Familia Dei in the Fourth Gospel
5.3 The First Component of the Johannine Experience of God: God’s Initiative
5.4 The Second Component of the Johannine Experience of God: the Believers’ Response
5.5 Concluding Remarks .
CHAPTER 6: GENERAL CONCLUSION 
6.1 Summary of the key Chapters .
6.2 Suggested Features of the Johannine Spirituality .
6.3 Suggested Topics for future studies .
WORKS CONSULTED
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT