Andrew M. Johnson PhD Thesis - University of St Andrews

239 Pages·2011·15.33 MB·English

1>><> -;0 1=5?@19<8<35/-8 =></1?? 5; @41
=1;@-@1A/4 -;0 9->7\? 3<?=18+
- .5.85/-8 @41<8<3D <2 7;<B5;3 2><9 2<A;0-@5<;-8 @1C@?
-QHTIY 9" 6RLQURQ
- @LIUMU ?WFPMVVIH JRT VLI 0IKTII RJ =L0
EV VLI
AQMXITUMV[ RJ ?V" -QHTIYU
&$%%
2WOO PIVEHEVE JRT VLMU MVIP MU EXEMOEFOI MQ
>IUIETGL,?V-QHTIYU+2WOO@IZV
EV+
LVVS+##TIUIETGL!TISRUMVRT["UV!EQHTIYU"EG"WN#
=OIEUI WUI VLMU MHIQVMJMIT VR GMVI RT OMQN VR VLMU MVIP+
LVVS+##LHO"LEQHOI"QIV#%$$&’#%)*(
@LMU MVIP MU STRVIGVIH F[ RTMKMQEO GRS[TMKLV
@LMU MVIP MU OMGIQUIH WQHIT E
/TIEVMXI /RPPRQU 8MGIQUI
UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS

S M ’ C
T ARY S OLLEGE

!

Error and Epistemological Process
in the Pentateuch and Mark's Gospel:

A Biblical Theology of Knowing
from Foundational Texts

A THESIS SUBMITTED BY

Andrew M. Johnson

TO THE FACULTY OF DIVINITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ST ANDREWS, SCOTLAND

April 2011
ii
Declarations
I, Andrew M. Johnson hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 86,000 words in length,
has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been
submitted in any previous application for a higher degree.

date 30 Nov 2010 signature of candidate

I was admitted as a research student in January, 2009 and as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in June, 2010; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University
of St Andrews between 2009 and 2010.

date 30 Nov 2010 signature of candidate

I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations
appropriate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of St Andrews and that the
candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree.

date 4 M a y 2 0 1 1 signature of supervisor
iii

COPYRIGHT

In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews I understand that I am giving permission for it
to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time
being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. I also understand
that the title and abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to
any bona fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for personal or
research use, and that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as
required to ensure continued access to the thesis. I have obtained any third-party copyright permissions
that may be required in order to allow such access and migration.

date 30 Nov 2010 signature of candidate
iv
Abstract
This thesis will consider the possibility of an epistemological process described in the narratives
and teaching of the Pentateuch and the Gospel of Mark. The specific nature of this epistemological
process will be explored upon the priorities constrained by the texts themselves. While the
epistemological objectives are not always perspicuous to the reader of the canon, error is more clearly
diagnosed in these narratives. This thesis then investigates the epistemological process by looking
primarily at where characters of the narratives 'get it wrong' according to the narrative's diagnosis.
Primacy appears to be given in these texts to heeding the authenticated and authoritative voice
first, and then enacting the authoritative guidance in order to see what is being shown; in order 'to
know'. Errors occur along the same boundaries. Failure to heed the authoritative voice creates a first
order of error, while failure to enact the guidance yields a second order of error. We begin at the fore of
the canon working through these Pentateuchal texts as they are presented to the reader.
In the first chapter, the necessity of this current study will be defended. As well, we will survey
various attempts at describing a 'biblical epistemology' and their deficiencies and/or methodological
shortcomings.
Chapter 2 will advance the case that Genesis 2-3 actually yields sufficient epistemological
categories which resemble the rest of the Pentateuchal descriptions of error in more than superficial
ways. Genesis 2 is analyzed as paradigmatic for proper epistemological process while Genesis 3 is
paradigmatic of error. It is upon the boundary of the authenticated voice that error is assessed in the
Garden of Eden. These patterns of error are lexically and conceptually reverberated in the stories of the
patriarchs and Joseph.
Chapter 3 then looks at how these features discovered in Genesis are interwoven in the reader's
mind as they come to the stories regarding Moses' prophetic authentication, Pharaoh's errors, and
eventually Israel's own errors. The errors of Balak with Balaam in Numbers are considered as further
reason to believe that this epistemological process is not reserved for Israel.
Chapter 4 explores the unique connections between Israel's Deuteronomic reflections and the
creation narratives of Genesis.
The fifth chapter leaps to the Gospel of Mark to discern whether or not any of these patterns
from the Pentateuch remain in the Gospel narrative.
In the final chapter, the fruit of our theological reading is brought forward to interact with
current epistemological theories (mostly in analytic philosophy). These contemporary epistemologies
are found wanting to describe anything like what we found in the scriptures. Implications are then
drawn for theological prolegomena and praxis.
v
Acknowledgements
I must first acknowledge my wife and children, as they have borne the brunt of this thesis in
walking over 2,000 miles each in St Andrews, in the rain, up hill, both ways. Their willingness to
participate in this process with me will always create a tender spot in my heart. As well, I cannot forget
the support of my father's family, Ken and Lannie, and mother, Patricia, who have never ceased to
encourage me. Beyond that, my father's genuine concern to help us discern the prudence of pursuing a
Ph.D. was especially appreciated.
Our family thanks those people who were dear to us and enjoined their families with ours while
we sojourned as aliens in Scotland (in no particular order):
Alberto and Luciane de Paula and their sons,
Mark and Jenny Stirling and family,
James and Julia Ogilvy and family,
Rory and Annice Macleod and family,
Graham McLean and his daughter Ashley,
Cameron and Pearl Harrison,
Bunny (Elizabeth) Slack,
and our wider family at Holy Trinity Church.
I am thankful to those who have mentored me over the years; willing to lovingly correct me and
point me to The Truth when I error. I could not exist fruitfully without these friends: John Ragsdale,
Craig Distelkamp, Judson Bliss, the eldership of GracePoint of Webster, Mark Tucker, Mark Pfuetze,
and Mark Stirling.
As for the thesis itself, it is difficult to put into words the appreciation that I feel for Professor
Alan Torrance. His charity, kindness, wisdom, and sound guidance have saved me from myself and
allowed me to be a better thinker. It was upon my very first encounter with Professor Torrance that I
said to myself, 'I want to study with this man and no one else!' He has only exceeded his well-deserved
renown, and I am profoundly honored to be his student.
I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Nathan MacDonald for volunteering to
join on as a co-supervisor. His keen understanding and appraisal has been invaluable in improving my
thinking about the topic of this thesis. As well, I am indebted to Dr. Kelly Iverson for his expert
comments on my Mark chapter. Thanks goes to my office-mates Somer Salomon, who offered helpful
comments on large sections of this thesis, and Mary Stevens, who helped me to think through many
big-picture issues while I 'knuckled down' on the thesis. I am particularly thankful to my step-mother,
Lannie Johnson, for her editorial wisdom and willingness to read over the entire thesis so scrupulously.
Finally, I want to thank Dr. Esther Meek (Geneva College), who I credit with opening all the
horizons in my epistemological thinking and giving me the 'mental furniture' within which I could
navigate the thorny problems of epistemology. Her friendship and collegial spirit toward me have
always been overly generous. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Michael Williams
(Covenant Theological Seminary) who mentored a much-rougher version of me through seminary and
challenged me to write this thesis.
vi
Dedication
Although I am tempted to write Soli Deo Gloria in the footer of each page of this thesis
(as J.S. Bach was purported to do with his cantatas), I am fearful that Deus might quibble
with my interpretations of his texts. But, it should be acknowledged that this is my
intention.
As much as one can 'dedicate' a written work to anyone other than God, I dedicate this
work to my wife, Stephanie Marie Johnson, who has been my constant prophetic voice in
life. Not many will understand the sacrifices that she has made in being that voice to me.
!"#$%&’&( )*+’,-$,$ "./+0 "+,1 "21
1
1 Proverbs 31:26.
vii
Contents
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements v
Dedication vi
Contents vii
Chapter 1: Epistemology and Ancient Texts
Can Ancient Texts Reveal Epistemological Process? 1
No: The problem of the 'Hebrew Mind' 5
Yes: Methodological Considerations 12
Prior Treatments and Methodology 14
Previous Treatments of 'Biblical Epistemology' 14
Focused Epistemological Treatments 20
Kierkegaard as Paradigmatic for Theological Approaches to Error 22
Errors of Interest 24
The Proposed Response of this Thesis 27
Discerning Resemblances between Texts 28
Theological Reading of a Story 30
Nascent Constructs Unfold 32
What about Leviticus and the Other Gospels? 33
Chapter 2: Epistemological Process and Error in Genesis
Introduction 35
Epistemological Process in Genesis 2 36
Summary of Six Aspects 54
What is The Error of Genesis 3? 54
The Error within the Narrative Structure 55
The Error as Listening to the Wrong Person 60
The Error as a Failure of an Authority 63
The Error as a Failure to Discern the Authenticated Voice 64
The Error as a Failure to Enact 66
The &$3 (.% Motif 66
A. Abram and Sarai 68
B. Jacob and Rebekah 70
C. Joseph and Potiphar's Wife 72
Summary 75
viii
Chapter 3: Epistemological Process in Exodus and Numbers
Introduction 76
The Knowledge Plot in Exodus 78
Seeing and Hearing Developing Exodus' Epistemological Process 80
The Problem of Authenticating Moses 81
Orders of Error in the Epistemological Process 88
First Order Error: Pharaoh 90
Second Order Errors: Israel 91
Summary of Exodus 99
Numbers 99
'Seeing' with Balaam and Balak 100
The Errors of Balak and Balaam 103
Conclusions 108
Chapter 4: Epistemological Process in Deuteronomy
Introduction 110
Connecting Israel to the Garden 111
Deuteronomy 1 and Genesis 2-3 112
Deuteronomy 4 and Genesis 1 114
Deuteronomy 28-30 and Genesis 2-3 117
Three Different Uses of (.% 119
The &$3 (.% Motif: Listen to my voice as I command you … 120
Listen to These Words/Commandments 123
Did any people ever hear the voice … 125
Seeing, Hearing, Knowing and Error 125
Seeing in Order to Know 126
Heart to Know, Eyes to See, Ears to Hear 128
Authentication of Post-Mosaic Prophets 130
Deuteronomy 13: Future Prophets 130
Deuteronomy 18: Future False Prophecies 131
Conclusions 132
Chapter 5: Epistemological Process in The Gospel of Mark
Introduction 134
Disparity and Continuity with the Pentateuch 137
Two Epistemological Trajectories in Mark 138
Isaiah 6 in Mark 4 141
Deuteronomy 29 in Mark's Gospel 144
The Disciples Struggle to See the Passion 155
Disciples Must 'Listen to' Jesus qua Prophet 156
Orders of Error in Mark 4-9 158
Conclusions 168
ix
Chapter 6: Contemporary Epistemology and Theological Implications
Introduction 170
The Problem of Broad Reality 171
Error and Contemporary Epistemology 179
Error in the Scientific Epistemological Process 179
Contemporary Epistemological Approaches 181
Conclusions 193
Implications for Theological Prologomena 194
Genuflection: Determining the Authenticated Prophetic Voice 195
Participation: Enacting the Prophetic Direction 197
Prophetic Guidance: Helping Others to See 199
List of Abbreviations 201
Bibliography 202