Over the course of the last two centuries, more and more scholars have come to recognize trauma as an intrinsic part of the human existence. Although readers in modern times are far removed from the people in biblical stories and the situational experiences of the ancients, psychological trauma serves as a common link, connecting different populations across geographical expanses and time periods. Through their own everyday life experiences, modern readers can identify with the strong emotions of biblical characters after those characters witness a trauma. The past does not always stay in the past for survivors. The body remembers, the wounds linger, and the damage remains.
What is trauma theory?
Trauma, derived from the Greek for “wound”, can refer to physical injury, but in the context of this blog, the term trauma will be used to refer to emotional and psychological suffering stemming from overwhelming experiences that violate basic expectations of safety and agency, whether personal or social (McDonald). Although trauma theory has many different definitions and complex applications depending on the approach, whether it be a clinical, sociological, or literary-critical approach, traumatic experience constitutes a profound suffering from some sort of an external source. The hermeneutic of trauma theory offers a new and innovative method for comprehending how history can differ from memory and for exploring the appropriation of texts (Boase and Frechette 2). Using the tool of trauma theory can mean paying special attention to how a text likely impacted it original audiences or to how a text illustrates a trauma experienced by its authors. The perception that traumatic experience constitutes part of the human condition gives voice to marginalized communities and recognizes that in addition to the immediate effects of events or ongoing situations, other aspects of trauma include “mechanisms that facilitate survival, recovery, and resilience” (ibid.). The use of trauma theory as an interpretative framework continues to evolve as the understanding of trauma evolves. When applied to works of literature, it is important to note that the function of trauma theory is not simply to say that a text reflects a trauma; rather, trauma theory stipulates that a text is fundamentally “stimulated and shaped by trauma, or, to be more precise, by the interpretation of a real (or imagined) event as traumatic” (Reinhartz).
Imagined trauma?
In addition to understanding texts in the context of historical situations of trauma, a text may contain themes of trauma even when the occurrence of an actual historical trauma is uncertain or even absent. Another postulation in the realm of trauma theory and defining group identity is the idea of trauma as a social construction, an idea that says “it is the claim and acceptance of an idea of a cultural trauma that creates one, not the objective facts of an event” (McDonald). In other words, no event is inherently traumatic; it is the claims that circulate about events, the possibly embellished narrative representations, and the popular acceptance of those narratives that attribute the label of “traumatic” to an event. This particular outlook must be given adequate weight when thinking about biblical narratives, for even though the Bible does contain historical intersections, it is still a work of literature that includes books containing individual agendas, whether that agenda is persuading converts or inferiorizing a population.
How has trauma theory been applied to the Bible?
With biblical studies, the hermeneutic of trauma theory analyzes traumatic events and their aftermaths as they are recorded in biblical scripture, making sure to note the social environments that generated such texts and the social context in which the Bible is received and used, including situations in which the Bible itself has traumatized its readers (ibid.). Oftentimes, biblical scholars use the interpretive lens of trauma theory in tandem with other fields of study, such as warfare studies, disaster studies, refugee studies, survivor literature, and postcolonial studies (ibid.). A popular biblical example analyzed through the lens of trauma theory is the Babylonian exile and other exilic writings. Within the trauma vein, these texts would be read as a reflection of postexilic trauma, examining the effects of such events on the people of Judah. Going even further, scholars have established deeper layers to trauma theory that aid in the interpretation of exilic writings, such as bridging individual and communal trauma with the concept of a shared identity, such as shared guilt (ibid.).
Can trauma theory help us to understand the New Testament?
The movement of trauma from the psychological and therapeutic universe to the universe of literary studies in respect to history and memory has highlighted an “ethical dimension to practices of writing, reading, and interpretation; texts were then freighted by violence, called to witness the horrors of history, challenging claims to the clarity and accessibility of words and narrative” (Rambo 936). In order to effectively apply trauma theory to the New Testament, one must first acknowledge the existence of central traumatic events in the Gospels. One must also possess the willingness to disrupt previous biblical and theological scholarship since many perceive the meaning of the biblical text as a justification for violence and institutional hierarchies. The capacity of a population to live under oppression and violence over long periods of time and their ability to persevere throughout should garner scholarly interest into a way to interpret their resilience rather than honing in on the traumatic event itself (i.e. slavery or genocide). For instance, part of the historical context of the Bible that literary critic Geoffrey Hartman recognizes is that the Christian Gospel, considered “good news”, serves as an erasure of the religions’ Jewish origins. This would be a broad implication of biblical trauma theory that affects both past and present populations around the world. Yet another way to look at the New Testament regarding trauma is to analyze the text itself, recognizing that each Gospel narrative provides a different account of the crucifixion and the effect of Jesus’ death on his followers. While Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly without offering a conclusion, John’s Gospel includes appearances of the resurrected Jesus to the disciples, creating a kind of survivor narrative. The New Testament contains many traumatic events, so analyzing scripture through the lens of trauma theory allows biblical scholars to understand some of the most painful texts found in the Bible.
Can we apply trauma theory to an example from the Gospels?
The Gospel of John and the concept of the incarnation provide a source for a compelling discussion of trauma theory in the context of a disruption between the Johannine community and the Jewish community. Many scholars argue that this Gospel’s narrative, theology, and anti-Judaism resulted from Johannine Christians experiencing expulsion from the synagogue and attempting to cope with their newfound sense of “otherness”, otherwise known as the expulsion theory. While the expulsion hypothesis dictates fear as a requisite for the presence of trauma and thus some academics find the hypothesis problematic, there are many other potentially traumatic events that occur in the Gospel of John that can fit under other definitions of trauma. This blog will seek to explore how trauma theory can be applied to the Gospel of John under different definitions of trauma.
How do we understand trauma in the context of the Passion?
One definition of trauma focuses on the terrible nature of the event itself. Sociologist Ron Eyerman explains trauma as the “’impact of shocking occurrences which profoundly affect an individual’s life”’. Such an experience can be individual or collective, experienced first-hand or second- or third-hand (generational trauma). Jesus’s passion – including the betrayal, trial, and crucifixion – can be looked at through this light. For example, Jesus’ death traumatizes not only Jesus himself, but also his friends and followers. The Gospel acknowledges this idea when Jesus compares the suffering his followers will endure in the aftermath of his death to a woman in labor (John 16:21), an inherently traumatic experience. However, even though the Gospel of John speaks on the anguish and tragedy surrounding Jesus’ death, the Gospel minimizes the traumatic impact of his death by emphasizing God’s divine plan and that Jesus remains calm and collected in the face of death. John’s Gospel lacks any notion of Jesus experiencing fear or anxiety surrounding his impending crucifixion, especially when compared to the other Gospel narratives.
Does trauma have to be bad?
Contrary to Eyerman connoting trauma as a negative event, literary critic Geoffrey Hartman defines trauma as “’the rupture of the symbolic order” (Reinhartz), a definition that does not limit the label of “traumatic” to either a good or bad occurrence; trauma can be either. The Gospel of John begins with a prologue that establishes the incarnation of the Word, saying, “And the Word became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). While the incarnation can be labeled as traumatic under Hartman’s definition, John’s audience is meant to understand the incarnation – this massive rupture – as a good thing, for without the Word, “not one thing came into being” (John 1:3). Thus, the incarnation of Jesus represents a positive, life-bringing event. This incarnation that transcends the boundary between heaven and earth forces a choice upon man and separates those who believe in the Word and are destined to reside in the many dwelling places of God’s house (John 14:2) from those who choose not to accept the Word and “are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18). From its inception, the Gospel of John creates a division between the Jewish community committed to the Hebrew Bible covenant and the community that acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah (John 9:22).
Can we understand the development of the Johannine community and other early Christian communities through the lens of trauma theory?
Interpreting the incarnation of Jesus as part of an us versus them mentality dividing the Johannine community from the Jewish community leads perfectly into another definition of trauma provided by Eyerman – that of cultural trauma. Eyerman notes cultural trauma as “not a single event but an ongoing process of meaning-making and attribution” (Reinhartz), suggesting trauma as a social construction. In other words, when a group’s identity becomes threatened by an event, that group attributes traumatic status to that event (ibid.). For John and his readers, the incarnation of Jesus voids the covenant with the Jews based on Abrahamic descent and obedience to the Torah and instead creates a new covenant that requires a belief in Jesus as the Son of God. For those who accept the incarnation, Jesus’s death affects the entire world rather than just a small group of Jesus’s closest friends. The incarnation also provides the Jewish community with a reason to expel Jesus’s followers from the synagogue, thus ousting the Johannine community as an “other”. As Bart Ehrman states in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, “Persecution often functions to solidify the ties that bind a social group together, giving the members of the group a greater sense of cohesion and belonging as they realize they are ‘all in it together’” (507). The onset of Jewish opposition caused by the incarnation narrative bolsters the idea that the Johannine community obtained their group identity due to the trauma of being excluded from the synagogue.
Must we only choose one traumatic event?
The great thing about approaching literary texts with the analytical tool of trauma theory is that scholars do not need to determine the validity of EITHER the expulsion hypothesis OR the crucifixion OR a rewriting of the covenant OR the incarnation as a disruption; multiple or all the traumas can be real experiences for the Johannine community. A singular, central trauma does not need to be chosen when applying trauma theory. One could even argue that when discussing the Gospels and other biblical texts, it remains impossible to objectively choose one central trauma, the effects of which supersede all others. Many of the traumas, and the consequent narratives of the traumas, found in the Gospels contributed in one way or another to the group identity of an early Christian group, so every potential traumatic event is worth hermeneutic attention.
References
Bible Through the Lens of Trauma. United States: SBL Press, 2016.
Ehrman BD. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press; 2020.
McDonald, Joseph “Hermeneutics of Trauma and the Bible”. In obo in Biblical Studies, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0303.xml (accessed 15 Nov. 2023).
New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition. BibleGateway.com.
Rambo, S. (2010). Haunted (by the) Gospel: Theology, Trauma, and Literary Theory in the Twenty-First Century. PMLA, 125(4), 936-941. doi:10.1632/pmla.2010.125.4.936
Reinhartz, A. (2015). Incarnation and Covenant: The Fourth Gospel through the Lens of Trauma Theory. Interpretation, 69(1), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020964314552628