The characteristics of the schism in the Johannine community

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY: THE APPROACH OF THIS RESEARCH

Introduction

The intent of this chapter is to locate the hermeneutics of the researcher in the midst of the vast subject of biblical interpretation. Instead of presenting a historical survey of biblical interpretation, this chapter will rather state its understanding of hermeneutics and how it relates to the methodological approach to this study. Hermeneutics is the science and art of biblical interpretation: It is a ‘science because it is guided by rules within a system, and it is an art because the application of the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation’ (Ramm 1970:1)15. These two facets must be equally applied to a text in order to enhance interpretation.

Contemporary scene

The contemporary academic scene in hermeneutics is characterised by a wealth of varying approaches to the biblical text. These varying approaches are represented adequately in Dockery’s (1992) three primary models among contemporary approaches. These models are discussed below.

 Author-oriented perspective

This view has been known as either the ‘literal-grammatical’, ‘historical-contextual’ or ‘historical-critical’ method of interpretation. This approach to interpretation is defined as determining the meaning intended by the human author and understood by the original readers. It considers the ‘meaning of texts to be stable and univocal, and its meaning in the original setting is where meaning is located’ (Dockery 1992:170).
During the previous century this stance is echoed by Stendahl (1958:33-38) who notes that ‘to reconstruct the transaction of the author to the original audience by way of the 15 Dockery cautions against the blatant affirmation of interpretation as a science by noting that there are elements which are ‘not scientific in the sense that an observer free from presuppositions and prejudices can simply analyse the biblical texts and produce a startling new and true hypothesis to explain them’ (Dockery
1992:170). Such a hypothesis could hardly be new in view of the multiplicity of hypotheses produced during the last 200 years; it could also hardly be true, in view of the shakiness of those hypotheses when their fundamental bases are questioned. text is the task of interpretation’. This position is supported by Grant and Tracy (1984:134) who note that ‘it would appear that the primary task of the modern interpreter is historical, in the sense that what he is endeavouring to discover is what the texts and contexts he is interpreting meant to their authors in their relationship with their readers’. This interrelatedness is highlighted through some areas of interest which will now be discussed.
The critical areas belonging to the Author-oriented perspective include
• an examination of the text of the documents under study in order to find out how the texts were transmitted and what the process of transmission involved in relation to the original document, that is no longer extant;
• a consideration of the literary form of the documents and the forms employed within them. The language and style used by the author must also be taken into consideration;
• the historical setting within which the documents originated which were later included in the New Testament, including the Graeco-Roman world with its variety of literature, the world related to Judaism, and the community of the early Christian Church.
In this dynamic interpretation the author is at the centre of the investigation, and therefore a deliberate attempt is made to see the world through the window provided by the author.
The departure point of this perspective is the fundamental presupposition that all texts have a fullness of meaning, which by its very nature can never be exhausted. Thus it is not only possible, but it is always the case, that the meaning which is communicated to the reader exceeds and is broader than the meaning that the author intended to convey (Dockery 1992)16.
This hermeneutics stresses the distance that separates interpreters from the original author(s) of a text in terms of time, culture and language which makes the authorial

Text-oriented perspective

This approach has been expounded sufficiently by Ricoeur18. He notes that ‘the goal of a text-oriented approach is not so much to discover the “author’s intention”, but the “author’s results”’ (Ricoeur 1976:1-3). This is in contrast with the view supported by Nicholson who argues that ‘authorial meaning may be judged to be identical with textual meaning’ (Nicholson 1984:82). Despite this difference between Ricoeur and Nicholson, the former agrees that it is possible to reach a valid interpretation of a text. He emphatically stresses that when ‘one reads a text, the author is not present to be questioned about ambiguous meaning in the text but maintains that a text’s meaning is intelligible across historical and cultural distance’ (Ricoeur 1976:1-26).
This approach also realises that, because of the nature of the writing, the text opens up a possible world to the interpreter (the text-world); the interpreter may enter into that world and appropriate the possibilities which it offers. When that occurs, the meaning of the text is actualised in the interpreter’s understanding. What is understood or appropriated then, is not essentially the ‘author’s intended meaning or the historical situation of the original author or readers, but the text itself’ (Ricoeur 1976:142-150).
When a text is disclosed to the reader, then a convergence takes place so that understanding seems to occur on a variety of levels, including that of the author (following Hirsch), reader (following Gadamer), and text (following Ricoeur). This model has been appropriated in biblical interpretation by newer fields in ‘linguistics, structuralism, and the new narrative and literary approaches’ to the biblical text (Dockery 1992:175).

Conclusion to this section, and the way forward

This was a brief survey of the historical developments of biblical interpretation up to its present modern form, and indicated that scholars belonging to different eras are emphasising different areas of interest in biblical interpretation.
Two things are essential to move toward a hermeneutical synthesis. First, there should be a merger between author-oriented, reader-oriented and text-oriented perspectives, because meaning is found in the author’s achievement and identified as the text itself, though of course the background to the text is extremely informative. Though there is a strong annotation that distance, tradition, and perspective are preventing the reader from a purely objective interpretation, there is also the plausibility of determining a text’s normative meaning. This meaning can be validated by linguistic and literary keys in the text – thus the author’s meaning is available only in the text, not by making contact with the author’s mental patterns (Dockery 1992:175).
Second, it must be recognised that several far-reaching disciplines should be incorp-orated in biblical interpretation, like history, philosophy, theology, language and linguistic studies, literature, rhetoric, sociology, and anthropology. It is true that biblical interpretation should remain the primary focus and concern of the communities of faith, although the Bible’s interpretation should not be shielded from the broader inter-disciplinary questions raised by the perspectives of the various disciplines.
This synthesis is crucial to this research because it demands a multi-dimensional approach that will address its dual nature. The approach much first be able to deal with ‘spirituality’, and also resonate with understanding what the Elder is trying to convey with the clause ‘seeing him as he is’ in 1 John 3:2. There is a need for a merge because the two semantic units of the topic at hand demand a comprehensive approach.
The researcher is aware of the ‘socio-rhetoric’ method19 of interpretation by Robbins (1996a:2-3), but will not use the method, because it has been academically developed into a science of methodology, in which the researcher does not want to get entangled.

 The methodology applied in this research

This research utilises various integrated methodological terms from the works of Robbins (1996a; 1996b). Even though his socio-rhetoric methodology is not used in its entirety, nor followed in every step, this research uses his vocabulary of ‘textures’ in order to arrive at a well-rounded meaning of the envisaged visio Dei in 1 John 3:2, and its implications for the early Christians.

 Inner texture

The exegetical approach in this research will start with an analysis of the inner texture of the pericope of 1 John 2:28-3:10. The quest to get inside the text is broadly referred to as the inner texture. This texture approach covers areas such as word studies, lexical analysis, textual criticism, form criticism, and source criticism. Inner textual analysis is used for ‘merging literary approaches that are attentive to all kinds of aspects of “the text itself” with an emphasis on exegesis – reading out from the text what is in it’ (Robbins 1992:95). Robbins describes this texture as it resides in the language of the text itself, like repetition of words and use of dialogue between two persons to communicate the information (Robbins 1996a:7). This is the texture of the medium of communication. This texture is the written text itself. It is the purpose of this texture to gain the intimate knowledge of the word, word patterns, voice structures, devices, and modes in the text. Linguistic patterns within the text, the structural elements in the texts, and particular mechanisms in the texts which an author uses to persuade the readers are also dealt with. Recent studies as evidenced in this particular study have added discourse analysis to the inner texture, resulting in the creation of semantic networks in the text which are useful in determining the rhetoric of an author.
With regard to exegesis Stuart (1980:15) states that to do a proper job of exegesis, one would have to be ‘involved with functions and meanings of words (linguistics), the analysis of literature and speech (philology), theology, history, the transmission of the biblical writings (textual criticism), stylistics, grammar, vocabulary analysis’. The Christian alternative to a priori speculative systems is an orderly exegesis of revelatory truth (Henry 1999:241).
Exegesis can be defined as an explanation and exposition of a text, with attention to such matters as determination of text, translation and paraphrase, and interpretation of structure, setting, and purpose. Concern for clarification of meaning, prompted in part by cultural and historical separation of author and reader, has necessitated exegesis of the Scriptures since biblical times (cf. Myers 1987:361). The emphasis on exegesis is to get the meaning out of the text as opposed to the interpreter bringing into or reading into a text what they wish to hear from a text.
In addition to all of these, the inner texture may include recent forms of literary criticism such as rhetorical analysis, narrative analysis, linguistic and discourse analysis, and specific genre studies such as analysis of parables and epistles20. In this research, the inner texture is adapted to deal with the discourse analysis21 of 1 John 2:28-3:10 – the pericope in which the clause ‘for we shall see him as he is’ appears. The inner texture will also look at the experiences the readers could have had as they contemplatively read the text.

 Discourse analysis of 1 John 2:28-3:1022

Discourse analysis is a primarily linguistic study examining the use of language by its native population whose major concern is investigating language functions along with its forms, produced both orally and in writing. This is a part of applied linguistics that deals with the examination of discourse attempting to find patterns in communicative products as well as in their correlation with the circumstances in which they occur, which are not explainable at the grammatical level (cf. Carter 1993:23).
Discourse analysis is undeniably the highest level of interpretation for a particular text and is also the linguistic level that comes closest to the basic non-linguistic questions of sender, receptor, place, time, external circumstances, etc. – questions most appropriate if one wishes to pursue a historical understanding of a text (Porter 1992:300). This is an interdisciplinary approach to language and human communication and endeavours to understand the relationship between language, discourse, and situational context in human communication.
Olsson (1999:370) has identified discernible aims of discourse analysis and these include, but are not limited to the following:
• Show how the text first came to be or how it was redacted.
• Show how the text cohere as a unity of some kind.
• Identify the reading instructions given in the text itself.
• Describe how the text functions.
• Grasp the author’s intention or purpose.
• Determine the text’s genre.
• Describe the text’s argument.
• Show how the text reflects non-textual conditions.
• Summarise the text’s theme or fundamental thought.
• Demonstrate the text’s relevance for readers of later times.
• Draw up an interpretation of the text for others.
The list of Olsson is, to a great extent, exhaustive and brings to the surface different angles that discourse analysis must encompass. Olsson also rightly observes that in spite of the upsetting multiplicity of senses for discourse analysis, which some people consider for avoiding any serious analyses of texts as wholes, ‘discourse analysis is and will continue to be decisive for how we interpret many text-types’ (Olsson 1999:371). Discourse analysis and interpretation are closely linked and ought to be critically inspected much more than has been the case till now.
In this research the spirituality of ‘seeing God’ is understood from the immediate pericope. The analysis and rhetoric of this discourse gives the research its structure and tone. The researcher will not comprehensively endeavour to answer all the questions that Olsson subjects the text to, but will choose those areas which narrow the periphery to the spirituality of ‘seeing him as he is’ in 1 John 3:2. This is necessitated by the fact that most of these questions about the pericope have already been dealt with extensively. Therefore, in the latter stage of this research the structure, cohesiveness, and non-textual conditions are dealt with.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The title and its explanation
1.2 Hypothesis
1.3 Problem statement of the research (purpose)
1.4 Academic contribution
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW: HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RELEVANT LITERATURE 
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Defining eschatology
2.3 Publications on the eschatology of 1 John
2.4 ,The ‘events after the Parousia’
2.5 Literature dealing with ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν (for we shall see him as he is)
2.6 A need for further research
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY: THE APPROACH OF THIS RESEARCH
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Contemporary scene
3.3 The methodology applied in this research
3.4 Special features
CHAPTER 4 INNER TEXTURE
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The structure of 1 John 2:28-3:10
4.4 Summary of insights from the inner texture
CHAPTER 5 INTERTEXTUAL READING
5.1 Introduction
5.2 ‘Seeing God’ and ‘not seeing God’ in Judaism
5.3 ‘Seeing a Deity’ and ‘not seeing a Deity’ in the Graeco-Roman world
5.4 ‘Seeing God’ and ‘not seeing God’ in the New Testament
CHAPTER 6 SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF ‘SEEING HIM AS HE IS’
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Individual locations
6.3 The characteristics of the schism in the Johannine community
6.4 The Parousia as the ideological context used by the Elder to address the conflict
6.5 The rhetoric in the Epistle to convince the adherents to embrace ‘seeing him as he is’ as a climatic experience wedged against a normative practice
6.6 The disintegration of the Johannine community
6.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7 THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ‘SEEING HIM AS HE IS’ IN 1 JOHN 3:2
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The image of God in 1 John
7.3 The holy Trinity
7.4 Human commitment
7.5 Conclusion: Sacred texture
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUDING REMARKS: SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The methodology employed in this study
8.3 Contribution to the understanding of the spirituality of ‘seeing him as he is’ gleaned through different textures
8.4 Limitations and recommendations for further studies
8.5 Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT