Biblical Knowing

A Scriptural Epistemology of Error

Johnson

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781630878924
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

With major themes like the knowledge of good and evil, knowing that YHWH is your God, knowing that Jesus is the Christ, and the goal of developing Israel into a wise and discerning people, Scripture clearly stresses human knowledge and the consequences of error. We too long for confidence in our understanding, the assurance that our most basic knowledge is not ultimately incorrect. Biblical Knowing assesses what Israel knew, but more importantly, how she was meant to know--introducing a comprehensive Scriptural epistemology, firmly rooted in the Scripture's own presentation of important epistemological events in the story of Israel. Because modern philosophy has also made authoritative claims about knowledge, Biblical Knowing engages contemporary academic views of knowledge (e.g., Reformed Epistemology, scientific epistemology, Virtue Epistemology, etc.) and recent philosophical method (e.g., Analytic Theology), assessing them for points of fittedness with or departure from Scripture's own epistemology. Additionally, Biblical Knowing explores what proper knowing looks like in the task of theology itself, in the teaching and preaching of the church, and in the context of counseling.

1

How Should We Conceive of Knowledge and Error?

We walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7). What does this mean? Certainly, picturing the Christian life as a walk fits within the collective imagination of the biblical writers. But what are we to do with Paul’s juxtaposition of faith and sight? Regardless of the Apostle Paul’s intended meaning, a common Christian interpretation has pictured something akin to “faith as a blind walk.” Depicting the Christian life as a walk, where Believers grow in knowledge of the Creator and His creation, certainly fits the biblical picture. From ancient Israelite faith to its extension into Christianity, the metaphor of life as a walk (the peripatetic life) has been common, though not always the kind associated with Socrates and his followers.1 But what kind of walk do we envision? Is it like a frustrating stumble and grumble through the wilderness with Moses, a maddening walk with Socrates, or a peaceful stroll with Jesus?

Whether it is representative for historical Christianity or not, many Modern Christians view walking by faith like the game minefield played at youth camps. A field of play is strewn with objects to find and obstacles to navigate. The players, except for one designated to be the caller, are all blindfolded. The caller verbally directs her blindfolded teammates around the obstacles to retrieve their objects and win. The players walk by faith and not by sight.2

I want to suggest in the following pages that this analogy is wrong. Well, if not flat out wrong, it is at least flawed in a crucial way. It does not adequately capture the view of knowing advocated in the Scriptures themselves. However, the analogy can be redeemed, but we will have to adjust our understanding of two facets. First, we need to ensure that we all mean the same thing when we use the word “faith.” Second, the blindfolds have to come off! In the totality of the Scriptures, “not by sight” means something different from the ever-popular blind faith connotation. Indeed, even within the Pauline corpus it cannot mean that we are blind, for Paul clearly believes that we do indeed see, even if “in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor 13:12).

The idea of listening to a caller who can see where we need to go is still ripe for usage because the Scriptures are intent on us being good listeners in order to know reality well. Blind or not, listening is the fundamental priority when it comes to knowledge. In fact, we will argue later that to whom we listen determines what we can know. However, we do not wear blindfolds when we listen. Instead of the blindfolded players in the game described above, I would like to replace it with three examples: a docent at a museum, a golfing coach helping us with our swing, or a pilot teaching us to fly. Good knowing occurs when the novice listens to her guide and also looks at what the guide is showing her. For instance, what separates me from knowing the significant features of Egyptian hieroglyphics or the graphs of space exploration cannot be bridged by closing my eyes (see image above).3 I must open my eyes and look at the relevant features being pointed out to me while listening to the acknowledged authority who can guide me to know.

Corresponding to this, the Scriptures insist over and again that walking by faith means: 1) recognizing the docents through whom God speaks and listening to them alone, 2) embodying the actions they prescribe, and 3) looking at what they are showing us. When the people of God do all three to the extent required, then it is considered knowing. When we transgress any of these three, it is considered error (or, erroneous knowing).

Not walking by sight then signifies that there is no such thing as brute seeing. There are no self-interpreting events for Israelites to know, not even the exodus plagues nor the miracles of Jesus. Not walking by sight does not mean being blind to the world before us, instead, our sight needs to be guided by an authority so that we can see what is already before us. This brings us back to the former issue of that peculiar word: faith.

In American English, “faith” has collected so many connotations that it is unclear if people would even recognize the biblical denotation. Most biblical instances of the Hebrew term aman (אמנ) and its most prominent Greek peer pistis (πιστις) can equally mean something like trusting belief, which begs the question: Who or what is being trusted? Again, to whom we listen determines what we can know. If I could reword 1 Corinthians 5:12 in light of a broader biblical connotation of faith: “We walk by trusting authentic authority and not merely by sight.” Faith and sight are not opposed to one another. Trusting the correct guides, docents, or prophets is the first step that enables our eyes to see.4 Listening to the right voice determines, at least in part, what we can see and therefore what we can know.

Christian Versions of Error

Not only must we listen and look in order to walk by our trust, we must also sort through several misconceptions of error. On the one hand, we want to be sure that we are getting it right when it comes to knowing in this world. On the other hand, we want to have some confidence that we are not getting it wrong. Aristotle tells us that to know something well, we must understand what it is (genus) and what it is not (differentia). We will discuss more fully why we have chosen to focus on error in knowing (i.e., the differentia of proper knowing). But for now, we should consider some of the ways in which people conceive of epistemological mistakes, i.e., errors.

Insufficient Information

There is a category of error that may or may not be a legitimate error, but one that must be dealt with nonetheless: error caused by ignorance or a lack of information. This supposes a situation where someone attempts to know something, but all that hinders them is a supposed lack of information. We must consider this view of error is because the solution ensues directly from it. If our mistakes in knowledge are due to not having the right amount or caliber of information, then the solution is to correct the quantity or quality of our information stream.5

Let us briefly examine what appears to be an error of the disciples after Jesus’ resurrection when they initially question the apostolic authority of Saul. In this episode of Acts, the author has already revealed to the reader both the veridicality of Paul’s claim to apostleship and the ignorance of the disciples (Acts 9:26–31). As a reminder, the disciples back in Jerusalem have heard about their zealous persecutor Saul who has reportedly become a Jesus follower. But, the apostles have good reasons to be skeptical and the story centers upon the change in their belief from skeptical about the reports to knowing the truth. It appears that if the brothers in Jerusalem only had more information, then they too, along with the reader, could know that Saul the persecutor is now Paul the apostle.

Is this an error on the disciples’ part or on Paul’s part or is there is any error at all? We will argue that this is not an informational error because information is not what resolved the conflict internal to that story.6 Rather, it was trust (πιστις) in Barnabas’ testimony which resolved the conflict, and this testimony evinces a different epistemological framework that is not based on a modern notion of information. To show this, we must compare the meaning of “information” and “testimony.” The idea that the disciples simply needed more information connotes that autonomous rational agents were, as a court, weighing the possibility that Saul is now an apostle, a datum-centric view of the scene. But the apostles did not merely need more evidence. Even though we often speak this way by convention, there is something more than brute evidence being presented here.

To resolve what was deficient, the narrative itself shows us the different phases of the apostles’ epistemic assent. The apostles began in fear of Saul and did not trust (Acts 9:26; μὴ πιστεύοντες).7 What disposed them to go from “not believing” (Acts 9:26; μή πιστεύειν) to “learning” (Acts 9:30; ἐπιγινώσκειν) that Saul had become Paul, and by implication, believing that Paul is an apostle? If we assert that the apostles needed more information, then new information ought to resolve the narrative. However, the resolution begins not with their willingness to learn information, but to hear the testimony of Barnabas. Equally, claiming that they needed more information is akin to claiming that maps direct people to w...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: How Should We Conceive of Knowledge and Error?
• Chapter 2: Knowledge in the Garden: Genesis 2
• Chapter 3: Error in the Garden: Genesis 3
• Chapter 4: Erroneous Knowing in Exodus and Beyond
• Chapter 5: Knowing under the Prophet-Messiah: Mark, Luke, and John
• Chapter 6: Scientific Epistemology, Wisdom, and the Epistles
• Chapter 7: Broad Reality and Contemporary Epistemology
• Chapter 8: Analytic Theology and Biblical Scholarship
• Chapter 9: Implications for Theologians and the Church
• Bibliography