Knowing God as an Evangelical: Towards a Canonical-Epistemological Model 3031265556, 9783031265556

Citation preview

Knowing God as an Evangelical Towards a CanonicalEpistemological Model da n-a dr i a n pe t r e

Knowing God as an Evangelical “A masterful and urgently needed study in the ongoing discussion about theological knowledge formation, Dan-Adrian Petre’s Knowing God as an Evangelical utilizes cognitive linguistics to discover and depict a minimal, sevenfold irreducible complexity of the biblical concept of knowing God. The book highlights the idea that Evangelical theology can and must overcome the gravitational pull of philosophical presuppositions and keep close to its essential Sola Scriptura ethos, especially in foundational matters such as theological epistemology.” —Gheorghe Răzmeriță, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Philippines “To be innovative in the field of theological epistemology is precisely what characterizes the current work authored by Adrian Petre. The book describes an integrative model of theological knowledge formation called the relational-participative model. According to this, the knowledge of God can be achieved in such a way as to be fully committed to the Protestant epistemological principle of sola Scriptura amidst the different epistemological tendencies of the evangelical pursuit of theological knowledge.” —Zoltán Szallós-Farkas, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Adventus University, Romania “How we derive knowledge from the Bible is one of the most important and contested questions within Judaism and Christianity. In this interdisciplinary work, Petre moves beyond an older ‘mind-as-machine’ foundationalism to propose an evangelical epistemology that honors the complex innerworkings of divine revelation, community, ritual, and the finite limits of human knowing. A valuable book for philosophers and biblical scholars.” —Ryan O’Dowd, Senior Fellow, Chesterton House, Cornell University, USA “This stimulating work by Dan-Adrian Petre makes a significant contribution toward arriving at a canonically-based theological epistemology. Petre adeptly analyzes a number of prominent evangelical models of theological epistemology (evidential foundationalism, proper functionalism, and postfoundationalism), then lays out his own relational-participative model toward advancing the current discussion. The result is an illuminating, clear, and nuanced discussion of theological epistemology, firmly grounded in commitment to the uniquely normative authority of Scripture.” —John C. Peckham, Professor of Theology and Christian Philosophy, Andrews University, USA

“Various evangelical models of epistemology keep rational validation, cognitive justification, and tradition-based coherence in the foreground. In his monograph, Adrian Petre inquires into the issue of theological knowledge formation, while deploring the insufficient prominence given to the biblical canon. When such a drawback is properly retrieved, the knowledge of God receives abundant new tenors, which are extremely informative for systematicians as well as for biblical scholars in general. Although critical of other models, Petre’s proposal integrates features from these models when they are validated by proper reading of the biblical text. I warmly recommend it as a substantial resource on theological epistemology.” —Laurențiu Florentin Moț, Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Adventus University, Romania

Dan-Adrian Petre

Knowing God as an Evangelical Towards a Canonical-Epistemological Model

Dan-Adrian Petre Adventus University Cernica, Romania

ISBN 978-3-031-26555-6    ISBN 978-3-031-26556-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Gianina-Estera, my beloved wife

Acknowledgments

Every academic journey entails embodied relational participation within a community that fosters epistemic growth. Such was my journey at the Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies (AIIAS) from Silang, Cavite, Philippines, where the dissertation behind this book was born. Wonderful people surrounded me and supported me along the way. My profound gratitude goes to my advisor and friend, Gheorghe Răzmerit ̦ă, for his excellent feedback, penetrating observations, and kind prayers. In addition, I thank Remwil R.  Tornalejo, Teófilo Correa, and Donny Chrissutianto for their willingness to bring their expertise into this research. Finally, my sincere appreciation extends to my external examiner, John C. Peckham. His sharp eye and keen questions improved the quality of my dissertation. I also want to thank the AIIAS administration for providing a proper learning environment conducive to research. The support and friendship of the professors from the Seminary are much appreciated. The Leslie Hardinge Library team was exemplary in their service and support. In addition to AIIAS, I am more indebted to the two institutions that supported me financially: the Inter-European Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Adventus University of Cernica (Romania). I am grateful to what was then a small but dynamic and hospitable Romanian community from AIIAS: Cristian and Alina Dumitrescu, together with their beautiful and talented daughters, Celine and Ingrid; Gheorghe and Diana Răzmerit ̦ă, together with their lovely and capable children, Edna and Edmond. I will cherish the precious memories both me and my wife had with all of them at AIIAS. Furthermore, I thank the vii

viii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Latin community, which adopted us and helped us improve our Spanish and form enduring friendships. I am also grateful for the many friends I encountered at AIIAS, of which I would like to mention: Sung-Hyun Yoon, who was a brother to me; Allan Bornapé and Andrey Sevryukov, who constantly challenged me with new ideas; Josueth Naranjo, my warmhearted amigo. I appreciate the emotional support I received from my parents, Ion and Gabriela Petre; my brother, Alin-Sorin Petre; and my father-in-law, Gheorghe Pantilie. Despite her doctoral requirements, I am most grateful for the continual participative-relational support of my dear wife, Gianina-­ Estera. She embodies genuine love and care, with which I am aware and acquainted daily. Her presence in my life is a gift from the Almighty, who deserves all glory and honor for making this journey possible.

Contents

1 Evangelicals and Epistemology  1 The Need for a Canonically Based Epistemological Approach   4 Scope and Delimitations   5 What Is Evangelical?   7 Canonical-Epistemological Methodology   8 Epistemological Assumptions   9 Hermeneutical Assumptions  10 Canonical-Epistemological Method  12 2 Theological  Knowledge Formation in Contemporary Evangelical Theology 15 The Founding Fathers of Evangelicalism  16 Early Trends in Evangelical Epistemology  24 Locating Contemporary Evangelical Epistemology  29 Evidentialist Foundationalism  33 Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions  34 Formation of Theological Knowledge  37 Proper Functionalism  44 Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions  45 Formation of Theological Knowledge  48 Postfoundationalism  55 Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions  56 Formation of Theological Knowledge  59 Conflicting Models  65 Exploring a Possible Resolution  67 ix

x 

Contents

3 ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω as Prototypical Case Studies for the Formation of Theological Knowledge in the Bible 71 Introducing Cognitive Linguistics  72 Applying Cognitive Linguistics to the Bible  76 Old Testament Cognitive Analysis  80 Profile-Base-Cognitive Domain Relations  81 Unification of Profile-Base-Domain Relations  87 Prototypical Scenario  97 The Schematic Meaning of ‫  ידע‬98 New Testament Cognitive Analysis 101 Profile-Base-Cognitive Domain Relations 102 Unification of Profile-Base-Domain Relations 110 Prototypical Scenario 116 The Schematic Meaning of Γινώσκω 116 Conclusions 120 4 Towards  a Canonical Model of Theological Knowledge Formation123 Theological Knowledge Formation Entails Embodied Awareness 123 Theological Knowledge Formation Is Relational-Participative 126 Theological Knowledge Formation Is Revelational 128 Theological Knowledge Formation Is Temporal-Historical 130 Theological Knowledge Formation Is Both Communitarian and Individual 132 Theological Knowledge Formation Is Fostered by Mission 134 Theological Knowledge Formation Is Fostered by Covenantal Obedience 136 A Critical Conversation of the Evangelical Epistemological Models 138 Comparison of Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions 139 Comparison of the Formation of Theological Knowledge 148 5 Conclusions and Recommendations155 Appendix A: Meaning of ‫ ידע‬in Lexicons and Theological Dictionaries159

 Contents 

xi

 Appendix B: Trajector-Landmark-Cognitive Domain Relationship for ‫ידע‬175 Appendix C: Meaning of ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ in Lexicons and Theological Dictionaries229  Appendix D: Trajector-Landmark-Cognitive Domain Relationship for ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ239 Appendix E: Occurrences of Temporal and Atemporal Profiles for ‫ ידע‬and ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ251 Bibliography255 Author Index275 Scripture Index281 Subject Index289

Abbreviations

General Abbreviations AB AcT AIL AOTC AsTJ AUSDDS BBRSup BDAG

BECA BECNT Bib BibInt BThSt BZAW CBQ CSR CTR

Anchor Bible Acta Theologica Ancient Israel and Its Literature Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries Asbury Theological Journal Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F.  Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 (Danker-Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich) Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Norman L.  Geisler. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series Biblisch-Theologische Studien Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Christian Scholars Review Criswell Theological Review xiii

xiv 

ABBREVIATIONS

DCH DOTP EBR EDB EDNT EDT EP EvT FRLANT FSBP GDT HALOT

HBT HTR HUT ICC JATS JEE JNSL JSNTSup JSOT JTI

Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J. A. Clines. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2016 Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T.  Desmond Alexander and David W.  Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003 Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by HansJosef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009– Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000 Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. ET. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993 Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001 Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Donald M. Borchert. 2nd ed. 10 vols. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2006 Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam Pertinentes Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for the Worldwide Church. Edited by William A.  Dyrness and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J.  Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary Journal of the Adventist Theological Society The Jonathan Edwards Encyclopedia. Edited by Harry S.  Stout, Kenneth P.  Minkema, and Adriaan C.  Neele. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017 Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Theological Interpretation

 ABBREVIATIONS 

L&N

xv

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989 LBS Linguistic Biblical Studies LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies NAC New American Commentary NBD3 New Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. R. W. Wood, I. Howard Marshall, J. D. Douglas, and N. Hillyer. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996 NDBT New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S.  Rosner. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000 NDT New Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F.  Wright. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988 NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIDB New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–2009 NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–1978 NIDNTTE New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Moisés Silva. 2nd ed. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014 NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary OCCT The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Edited by Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason, Hugh Pyper, Ingrid Lawrie, and Cecily Bennett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 OTL Old Testament Library PNT The Pillar New Testament Commentary QR Quarterly Review RelS Religious Studies RevExp Review and Expositor SBG Studies in Biblical Greek SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica STI Studies in Theological Interpretation

xvi 

ABBREVIATIONS

TDOT

TDNT ThTo TLOT VTSup WBC WJE WJW WTJ WUNT ZAW

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Translated by John T.  Willis et  al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 Theology Today Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary The Works of Jonathan Edwards The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Technical Terms ao aorist D piel Dp pual fu future G Grund H hiphil HtD hithpael IA infinitive absolute IC infinitive construct imf imperfect imv imperative ind indicative inf infinitive N niphal pf perfect ppf pluperfect pr present ptc participle

 ABBREVIATIONS 

q qatal sub subjunctive wy wayyiqtol wq weqatal y yiqtol

xvii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 ‫ עדי‬in reference to theological knowledge formation in the Hebrew Bible 82 Table 3.2 Meaning of ‫ עדי‬as indicated in selected resources 84 Table 3.3 Cognitive domains of ‫עדי‬88 Table 3.4 Prototypical scenarios of the meaning potential of ‫עדי‬99 Table 3.5 Γινώσκω in reference to theological knowledge formation in the Greek New Testament 103 Table 3.6 Meaning of Γινώσκω as indicated in selected resources 104 Table 3.7 Cognitive domains of Γινώσκω111 Table 3.8 Prototypical scenarios of the meaning potential of Γινώσκω117 Table A1 Meaning of ‫ עדי‬in lexicons 160 Table A2 Meaning of ‫ עדי‬in dictionaries 169 Table C1 Meaning of Γινώσκω in lexicons 229 Table C2 Meaning of Γινώσκω in dictionaries 231

xix

CHAPTER 1

Evangelicals and Epistemology

As an important sector of Christianity, evangelicalism flourishes worldwide at the beginning of the twenty-first century.1 David W. Bebbington’s definition is one routinely used to define evangelicalism. He lists conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism as the central tenets of evangelicalism.2 This definition can pinpoint the evangelical crisscross,3 but the evangelical theological distinctiveness is more nuanced. As part of the Protestant ethos, evangelical theology varies from it concerning method, using “sola scriptura more radically than the Protestant traditions out of which it grew.”4 However, the current evangelical discussion reflects the existence of a plurality of theological methods.5 This debate has deep roots in the epistemological soil of each theologian.6 The way theologians 1  Mark A. Noll, “What Is ‘Evangelical’?,” in The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 30. 2  David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (1989; repr., London: Routledge, 2005), 3. 3  Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys, A History of Evangelicalism 1 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 19. 4   Gerald R.  McDermott, “Introduction,” in McDermott, The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology, 5. 5  Mary M.  Veeneman, Introducing Theological Method: A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 81. 6  D. A. Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 32.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3_1

1

2 

D.-A. PETRE

see the epistemic role of Scripture directly impacts their methods.7 The methodological debate is thus an epistemological one. In theology, epistemology concerns aspects related to the formation of theological knowledge or knowledge of God (nature, sources, limits, modes of knowing).8 Features like divine revelation, Scripture, reason, tradition, or experience are prominent. Other facets, like understanding, wisdom, testimony, virtue, and evidence, add to contemporary scrutiny.9 Theologians connect these elements in models that attempt to describe the formation of theological knowledge. Within evangelicalism, three mature epistemological models emerged.10 The first epistemological model is evidentialist foundationalism. Propositional statements about reality, also called beliefs, must be true and justified to become knowledge. Such propositions are true when they correspond to reality.11 Justification refers to the rational grounds a person has for accepting a belief as appropriate.12 Hence, one needs rational evidence in order to believe.13 Some beliefs are self-evident or basic (e.g., one’s existence), while others need support from the basic ones.14 For example, the existence of God, the so-called theistic belief, is first rationally established before proving the truth of any other Christian belief.15 Consequently, the formation of theological knowledge is a rational ­process 7  Stanley E.  Porter and Steven M.  Studebaker, “Method in Systematic Theology,” in Evangelical Theological Method: Five Views, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Steven M. Studebaker, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018), 21. 8  Anthony C.  Thiselton, A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oneworld, 2002), 76. 9  For a broader list, see William J. Abraham and Frederick D. Aquino, “Introduction: The Epistemology of Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology, ed. William J. Abraham and Frederick D. Aquino (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 4. 10  As Beilby notes from an apologetic perspective, there are three main approaches. The first emphasizes reason (evidentialism), the second Scripture (presuppositionalism), and the third experience (experientialism). See James K. Beilby, Thinking about Christian Apologetics: What It Is and Why We Do It (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 95–96. Although I am analyzing theological epistemology, my taxonomy overlaps with Beilby’s. 11  BECA, s.v. “Truth, Nature of.” 12  Robert Audi, Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 3rd ed., Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 2011), 2. 13  Norman L. Geisler and Winfried Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, 2nd ed. (1988; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 69. 14  John M.  Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987), 104. 15  Beilby, Christian Apologetics, 97.

1  EVANGELICALS AND EPISTEMOLOGY 

3

wherein logic and validity become paramount. The Scripture itself is a collection of propositional statements, and the theologian’s task is that of “summarizing and systematizing the texts and teaching of Scripture and supplying an exposition of the logical content and implications of the Bible on its own premises.”16 Reacting to this model that highlights the need for evidence is a second influential evangelical approach called proper functionalism. In this view, to become knowledge, a belief needs warrant, which appears when the truth-aiming cognitive faculties functioning according to their design in a proper cognitive context produce a belief.17 Given that God endows human beings with a belief-forming mechanism called sensus divinitatis, they can form intuitively religious beliefs just as they form every other belief.18 As a result, the capacity to form the theistic belief is natural, part of cognitive powers like perception and memory. This model takes into account the cognitive effects of sin, which leads humans to resist the instigations of the sensus divinitatis.19 The combined influence of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and personal faith allows humans resist the effects of sin. Under this influence, a person can form Christian beliefs.20 A third epistemological model, postfoundationalism, moves beyond the previous two models by critically appropriating the communitarian postmodernist emphasis.21 Scripture, tradition, and culture represent the three epistemic sources for forming theological knowledge.22 Postfoundationalism adopts a coherentist approach to epistemic justification. In this model, truth emerges from the coherence of the whole system of beliefs. Each belief finds its support in all the other beliefs.23 Within one’s community, the Spirit directs the formation of both theistic and

16  Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 6 vols. (1976–1983; repr., Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999), 1:239. 17  Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 19. 18  Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 173. 19  Alvin Plantinga, “On Reformed Epistemology,” Reformed Journal 32.1 (1982):17. 20  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 243. 21  Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 10. 22  Stanley J.  Grenz and John R.  Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 24–25. 23  Stanley J. Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 213.

4 

D.-A. PETRE

Christian beliefs.24 The Spirit uses the biblical narrative to inspire an intra-­ communitarian linguistic world that reflects the divine purposes for human life. In consequence, in the process of knowledge formation, postfoundationalism gives primacy to “the world-constructing language of the Christian community.”25

The Need for a Canonically Based Epistemological Approach Each voice of the contemporary epistemological polyphony of evangelical theology succinctly presented above affirms its authority. However, they show dissonant descriptions of knowledge formation. If the Bible constitutes the “plausibility structure, metaphysical vision, or worldview that determines for Christians the meaning of life and reality,”26 then biblical epistemology needs to inform and structure theological epistemology. This sola scriptura principle demands that theological epistemology be subjected to the biblical canon.27 From this perspective, the proposals I mentioned above stop short of establishing a canonically based theological epistemological framework. This lack of approach within evangelical theology necessitates a canonically based epistemological perspective to clarify the formation of theological knowledge. In this book, I aim to outline a canonically derived theological epistemological framework that may foster a fuller understanding of theological knowledge formation within evangelicalism. Specifically, I engage some representative evangelical voices to identify the reasons for the contemporary epistemological variance. I then use a canonical-epistemological methodology to outline a biblically based model. Finally, I assess the contemporary evangelical epistemological dissonance to indicate a way forward for a canonical-epistemological attunement. If, from a philosophical theology viewpoint, time is ripe for outlining an epistemology of theology,28 from a systematic theology perspective, 24  Stanley J. Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 73. 25  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 53–54. 26  Roger E. Olson, The Essentials of Christian Thought: Seeing Reality Through the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 44. 27  As Vanhoozer points out, there is an evangelical consensus that the Bible is “the final and authoritative source for Christian life and theology” (Kevin J.  Vanhoozer, “Scripture and Hermeneutics,” in McDermott, The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology, 36). 28  Abraham and Aquino, “Introduction,” 2.

1  EVANGELICALS AND EPISTEMOLOGY 

5

time is even more auspicious. The study of theological knowledge formation yields rich results if it follows a canonical approach29 without superimposing a specific epistemological framework, irrespective of its source. Therefore, I proffer a canonically based theological epistemological framework that may contribute to the ongoing discussion regarding knowledge formation for evangelical theology. Based upon the biblical canon, it fulfills the evangelical criterion of authenticity, fostering evangelical faithfulness to the sola scriptura principle. In addition, it helps bridge the gap between biblical and theological studies and theology and epistemology.30 Finally, via this model, I intend to be a dialogical partner in various theological discussions while using new epistemological terminology, less dependent on other philosophical epistemologies.

Scope and Delimitations I delimit the study to theological knowledge within evangelical theology. I do not aim to offer a comprehensive view of the historical development of theological epistemology. The space would not allow it. As such, the historical background presented here focuses only on the precursors of evangelicalism. The focus of the book is on highly recognized voices within three models. Using highly regarded representatives of theological models is an established practice in theological studies.31 A model is a conceptual heuristic framework attempting to identify the problem under investigation, systematize the investigated area, and explain in proper language the given answer.32 Models are necessary, given the lack of time and space to ­dialogue 29  See, for example, Ian W. Scott’s novel approach of Paul’s epistemology in Galatians (Ian W.  Scott, Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul: Story, Experience and the Spirit [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006]). 30  James K.  Beilby, “Contemporary Religious Epistemology: Some Key Aspects,” in Carson, The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, 823. 31  See, for example, Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation (New York: Doubleday, 1983); Vincent Brümmer, The Model of Love: A Study in Philosophical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); and John C. Peckham, The Love of God: A Canonical Model (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015). 32  Johann Mouton and H. C. Marais, Basic Concepts in the Methodology of the Social Sciences, trans. K. F. Mauer, 2nd ed., HSRC Series in Methodology (1990; repr., Pretoria: HSRC, 1996), 141. See also Wentzel van Huyssteen, Theology and the Justification of Faith: Constructing Theories in Systematic Theology, trans. H. F. Snijders (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 163.

6 

D.-A. PETRE

with each theologian representing a particular theory of knowledge. As such, “the theologian’s models can be helpful for speaking about classes of theologians, even though every individual will have distinguishing characteristics.”33 The models’ representatives function as prototypical examples pinning down the central features that characterize each model. Norman L. Geisler (1932–2019) best illustrates evidentialist foundationalism due to his enduring influence within evangelicalism.34 The leading originator of proper functionalism is Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932), who deservedly represents this model here.35 Stanley J. Grenz (1950–2005), one of the finest evangelical theologians, stands for postfoundationalism.36 I engage in dialogue with other nuanced viewpoints while retaining a narrow approach. Therefore, I am not focusing on evangelicals working within medieval or continental traditions.37 Nevertheless, the selected representatives partly reflect these traditions, like Geisler’s appreciation for Aquinas or Grenz’s integration of continental emphases on community and culture. I limit my analysis and evaluation of the chosen theologians’ views on theological knowledge formation. Therefore, I discuss their ontological and 33  Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System, 2nd ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1999), 47. 34  For Geisler’s impact, see Terry L.  Miethe, “Introduction,” in I Am Put Here for the Defense of the Gospel, ed. Terry L. Miethe (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016), xiii and Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, eds., To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview; Essays in Honor of Norman L.  Geisler (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004). 35  For Plantinga’s influence, see Deane-Peter Baker, “Introduction: Alvin Plantinga, God’s Philosopher,” in Alvin Plantinga, ed. Deane-Peter Baker, Contemporary Philosophy in Focus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1–2 and Michael C. Rea, “Plantinga, Alvin,” EP 7:579. 36  Grenz himself characterizes his approach both as a “postfoundationalist” (Grenz, Renewing the Center, 208) and as a “nonfoundationalist” (Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 46). Yet, as Smith indicates, postfoundationalism characterizes better Grenz’s approach, a description also adopted here (R.  Scott Smith, “Non-Foundational Epistemologies and the Truth of Scriptures,” in Carson, The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, 846). Grenz uses the two descriptors interchangeably (Grenz, Renewing the Center, 253). For the influence of Grenz’s proposal, see Derek J. Tidball, Brian S. Harris, and Jason S. Sexton, eds., Revisioning, Renewing, Rediscovering the Triune Center: Essays in Honor of Stanley J. Grenz (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014). Others have used postfoundationalist language (e.g., Kevin J.  Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005]). “Postfoundationalist” refers to Grenz’s variety here. 37  See, for example, authors like William J. Abraham, W. Jay Wood, or Merold Westphal.

1  EVANGELICALS AND EPISTEMOLOGY 

7

epistemological assumptions only in relation to the subject matter of this research. I use cognitive linguistics to explore how the biblical canon conceptualizes the formation of theological knowledge. This method, which I describe in the chapter dedicated to the cognitive analysis of the biblical corpus, provides the tools for the canonical-epistemological analysis I need. While not denying the existence of a mind-independent epistemic reality, cognitive linguistics highlights the role language plays in the mental representation of this reality.38 As such, it offers access to the epistemological schematic representation reflected in the Bible. The analysis only covers the two prototypical linguistic units that symbolize the concept of theological knowledge formation. As I aim to identify the contours of theological knowledge formation in the biblical canon, I do not attempt to proffer an exhaustive cognitive analysis of the biblical conceptualization. Nevertheless, the epistemological implications of this prototypical analysis suffice to profile a canonically based epistemological model open to further broadening.

What Is Evangelical? Although the term evangelical is used in many contexts with different meanings, during the twentieth century, it acquired the definition of “relatively theologically conservative, revivalistic Protestantism rooted in Pietism and Puritanism.”39 Roger E. Olson’s historical description suggests that evangelicalism cannot be defined narrowly as a bounded set. Yet, given the prominent role of the Reformed tradition, some Reformed scholars attempted to identify evangelicalism only with their practice.40 A strong reaction came from the Arminian-Wesleyan counterpart, doubting the usefulness of the evangelical label to encompass both traditions.41 38  Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), 46. 39  Roger E.  Olson, “Evangelical Theology,” in The Routledge Companion to Modern Christian Thought, ed. Chad V.  Meister and James K.  Beilby (London: Routledge, 2013), 549. 40  Robert Krapohl and Charles H.  Lippy, The Evangelicals: A Historical, Thematic, and Biographical Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1999), 7–8. 41  Donald W. Dayton, “Some Doubts about the Usefulness of the Category ‘Evangelical,’” in The Variety of American Evangelicalism, ed. Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 251.

8 

D.-A. PETRE

However, there are several attempts to define evangelicalism, among which Bebbington’s proposal is prominent. According to him, four traits characterize evangelicalism: activism, biblicism, conversionism, and crucicentrism. These theological norms form the “quadrilateral of priorities”42 of evangelicalism. Notwithstanding the apparent consensus, Mark A. Noll observes that “there is slippage in the use of evangelical terminology”43 as other traditional denominations also embrace Bebbington’s markers. Noll adopts George M. Marsden’s sociological view that “evangelicalism can be described as a series of overlapping constituencies that vary in their self-­ consciousness but that are related at least loosely in their shared history and convictions.”44 As used in the present work, evangelicalism is an overlap of the historical, theological, and sociological descriptions presented above. In addition, it accepts that the adjective evangelical can function as an intentional or unintentional descriptor.45 Hence, even if a group rejects the label, I consider it a part of the evangelical quilt if the label can describe it.

Canonical-Epistemological Methodology Since systematic theology aims at interpreting reality, its theological method is different from that of biblical studies or historical theology.46 However, this fact does not preclude the need for coherence in addition to contingency or historical happening. Methodological coherence involves procedures followed in the exploration and description of reality which is “given in revelation and received in faith.”47 Coherence attempts 42  Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 2–3. See also the assessment of six evangelical scholars of Bebbington’s quadrilateral printed as the sixth chapter of Mark A. Noll, David W. Bebbington, and George M. Marsden, eds., Evangelicals: Who They Have Been, Are Now, and Could Be (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019), 123–87. 43  Noll, “What Is ‘Evangelical’?,” 22. 44  Ibid. Yet, as he recognizes in 2019, Noll finds it hard to use the adjective evangelical when “a continuous history of interwoven organizations and interconnected personnel such as found in Anglo-American Protestantism of the eighteenth through twentieth centuries” is missing (Mark A. Noll, “World Cup or World Series?,” in Noll, Bebbington, and Marsden, Evangelicals, 306). 45  The categories “intentional” and “unintentional” are borrowed from Krapohl and Lippy, The Evangelicals, 11. 46  Porter and Studebaker, “Method in Systematic Theology,” 5. 47  Paul D. L. Avis, The Methods of Modern Theology: The Dream of Reason, Contemporary Christian Studies (Basingstoke, UK: Marshall Pickering, 1986), 197.

1  EVANGELICALS AND EPISTEMOLOGY 

9

to form logically a unified whole, the theological system. However, this system is not built in abstraction from life. Instead, it is contingent, subject to change, and open to further insights. These are dependent on the dynamic personal relationship between humans and God. Thus, a method is “a means of continuous progression from the known to the unknown.”48 Before presenting the methodological steps, I describe several assumptions requisite for situating the contingency of this research. Epistemological Assumptions The expression theological knowledge is an ambiguous one.49 Strictly speaking, it refers to the knowledge about God, differentiated from religious knowledge, which refers to knowing God.50 Nevertheless, its semantics broadened nowadays to include knowledge about God and various aspects of knowledge, including personal knowledge.51 Consequently, in the emergent field called “epistemology of theology,”52 questions about the knowledge of God are central. In this book, theological knowledge has a broad sense, knowing God, overlapping with religious knowledge and taking a life of its own within each of the models theologians use to trace it.53 The phrase knowing God indicates that this book’s focus integrates explanation and understanding. The talk about theological knowledge assumes that (1) theological  Ibid., emphasis original.  Ambiguity is not necessarily a negative linguistic aspect, given that “the context almost always excludes irrelevant meanings” (Moisés Silva, God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 4 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], 94). 50  Thiselton differentiates between religious knowledge (“knowing whom one worships”) and theological knowledge (“knowing about God”). He also indicates that “in popular or looser terms,” religious knowledge overlaps with theological knowledge (Anthony C. Thiselton, Approaching Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction to Key Thinkers, Concepts, Methods and Debates [London: SPCK, 2017], 153). 51  Brian Haymes, The Concept of the Knowledge of God, Library of Philosophy and Religion (London: Macmillan, 1988), 182. 52  John Greco, “Knowledge of God,” in Abraham and Aquino, The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology, 9. 53  For this reason, in this book, I choose to use epistemology of theology rather than religious epistemology and focus on theological knowledge. But, as understood here, theological knowledge is more than knowledge about God. Thus, theological epistemology focuses on epistemic concepts and theories related to theology (Abraham and Aquino, “Introduction,” 1–2). 48 49

10 

D.-A. PETRE

knowledge is possible and (2) acquiring theological knowledge is a process. The first premise has two embedded assumptions: (1) God exists, and (2) God is knowable by humans.54 The latter implies that humans have a noetic structure, albeit affected by sin, that makes knowing possible. Hermeneutical Assumptions Apart from the epistemological assumptions, every theological method presupposes a particular hermeneutical perspective.55 The relationship between epistemology and hermeneutics is not easy to define. On the one hand, Richard Rorty sets epistemology in opposition to hermeneutics. He sees epistemology as an ancient reliquary for foundationalism. With the demise of classical foundationalism, he advances hermeneutics not as a replacement but as “an expression of hope that the cultural space left by the demise of epistemology will not be filled.”56 As a result, hermeneutics “is what we get when we are no longer epistemological.”57 On the other hand, Thiselton agrees with Schleiermacher that hermeneutics overlaps with epistemology, having the concept of understanding at its core.58 Hermeneutics raises epistemological questions “about how we come to understand, and the basis on which understanding is possible.”59 Thiselton’s perspective functions as my first basic assumption. In the hermeneutical act, the author, the text, the reader—and their worlds—interact.60 Each plays a vital role in forming meaning in unpacking the basic assumption mentioned above. According to Thiselton, following Gadamer, meaning arises in the fusion of two horizons, that of the

54  Thomas F.  Torrance, Reality and Evangelical Theology: The Realism of Christian Revelation [1982; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003], 21. 55  Allen calls hermeneutics the “‘tacit dimension’ of human knowledge in determining how textual sources are interpreted” (Paul L. Allen, Theological Method: A Guide for the Perplexed [New York: T&T Clark, 2012], 13). 56  Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979; repr., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 315. 57  Ibid., 325. 58  Anthony C.  Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 158. 59  Ibid., 1. 60  Oeming includes the subject matter “as the reality behind the text” which “connects author, text and reader” (Manfred Oeming, Contemporary Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction, trans. Joachim V. Vette [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006], 7).

1  EVANGELICALS AND EPISTEMOLOGY 

11

text and that of the reader.61 This does not imply that the author’s intention cannot be recognized in the text if not recovered in toto. Instead, there is a certain “intentional directedness” in the text.62 This is my second hermeneutical assumption. The fusion of the text’s horizon with the reader’s horizon is not a simple one. Two main reasons are behind this complex relationship. First, the text itself is historically situated. One needs to be aware of the life-world of the text and then compare the text with its environment to understand its function.63 The text cannot be separated from its context. This is my third hermeneutical assumption. The second reason for the complex relationship between text and reader is the historical situatedness of the reader. An essential part of readers’ historicity is the provisional or pre-existing knowledge, the question that motivates them to read a particular text. This pre-understanding reflects “that historical understanding is associated with decision making.”64 This is my fourth hermeneutical assumption. The spiral is a helpful metaphor for describing the transformational relation between the reader and the text.65 Acknowledging his or her ­presuppositions and making them explicit, the reader approaches the text with a question, “the most basic relationship”66 between the reader’s and the text’s worlds. The text’s offer meets the reader’s expectations. There is a movement from the world of the reader to the text. When the reader dialogues with the otherness of the text, he or she is willing to listen to what the text has to say. If the reader “adjusts the text to his or her own 61  As he recognizes (Anthony C. Thiselton, Thiselton on Hermeneutics: The Collected Works and New Essays of Anthony Thiselton [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 11), Thiselton first talks about the engagement of horizons in The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer and Wittgenstein (Exter: Paternoster, 1980) and later about mutual transformation (Anthony C.  Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992]). Thus, the meaning emerges when the text transforms the reader accordingly in new contexts. 62  Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 27. See also Petr Pokorný, Hermeneutics as a Theory of Understanding, trans. Anna Bryson-Gustová (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 88. 63  Anthony C.  Thiselton, “On Models and Methods: A Conversation with Robert Morgan,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, ed. David J.A.  Clines, Stephen E.  Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter, JSNTSup 87 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 338. 64  Pokorný, Hermeneutics, 89. 65  Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 22. 66  Pokorný, Hermeneutics, 180.

12 

D.-A. PETRE

views [he or she] loses the possibility of authentic dialogue.”67 Another movement takes place from the text toward its world as the reader explores its pragmatics, the “function in the world for which it was originally intended.”68 The reader’s pre-understanding is moving toward a fuller understanding when confronted with the text. It is a movement from the analogous world of the text to the world of the reader. The fact that the text suggests an answer to the reader’s question leading to a new understanding is foundational for the hermeneutical spiral.69 Understanding the reader-text relationship as a hermeneutical spiral represents the fifth hermeneutical assumption I adopt here. Canonical-Epistemological Method A vantage point is necessary to dialogue with contemporary evangelical epistemologies. Assumed here is that the biblical canon is sufficient to form an epistemological vision regarding the meaning of reality. The canon is understood here as intrinsic, comprising the 66 books of the Judaeo-Protestant collection.70 I, as a reader, enter into a dialogue with the canonical text.71 The approach used here accepts Peckham’s criteria of adequacy of a canonical systematic approach: canonical coherence and canonical correspondence.72 Five major movements describe the methodological steps I employed in this research. First, there is a movement from my theological context to myself. This movement reflects my historical  Ibid., 91.  Ibid., 180. 69  Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 14–15. 70  I agree with Peckham’s assertion that “the available evidence suggests that only the sixty-­ six books of Scripture can be confidently recognized as canonical; that is, no other extant books possess the traits of canonicity” (John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016], 44). For Peckham, “The intrinsic canon refers to those writings that are intrinsically canonical by virtue of what the canon is as the result of divine action” (ibid., 19, emphasis original). 71  The second hermeneutical assumption of this book is that the author’s intention is accessible through the interpretation of the text. Supporting authorial discourse interpretation, Wolterstorff disagrees with Ricoeur’s one-sided case for textual sense interpretation. See Chap. 8 of Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 130–52. This allows Wolterstorff to defend the Bible as a medium of divine discourse. 72  Peckham, Canonical Theology, 206. 67 68

1  EVANGELICALS AND EPISTEMOLOGY 

13

situatedness and partially reveals the formative factors of my provisional knowledge. Second, there is a movement from myself to the canonical text. This movement, generated by my Christian worldview, determines me to approach the text with the research questions reflecting my pre-­ understanding. I enter into a dialogue with the otherness of the text, having the willingness to listen. The interaction between the conceptual framework of the text and that of mine as a reader uses an approach that suits this purpose: cognitive linguistics. I analyze each biblical passage wherein the two prototypical terms used to convey theological knowledge formation occur. The discovery of the epistemological conceptualization portrayed in each passage leads me to make the third movement from the text toward its world. Here, I enter the world that the canon maps. Not only the individual passages speak but also the harmonious polyphony of the canon. The fourth movement ensues, from the world of the text to myself. The epistemological implications of the cognitive-linguistic analysis offer an answer to my question and lead me to a fuller understanding. The fifth movement is from myself to my world as I assess my evangelical context from a new standpoint.

CHAPTER 2

Theological Knowledge Formation in Contemporary Evangelical Theology

Three models display the main thrust of contemporary evangelical epistemology. Each model has various highly regarded exemplars. I selected here one paradigmatic representative for each model. First is evidentialist foundationalism, whose stalwart defender is Geisler. Plantinga proffers the second model, proper functionalism. Grenz represents postfoundationalism, the third model I chose here. Before analyzing the three models that map out contemporary evangelical theological epistemology, three considerations are necessary. First, as a reaction to Locke’s epistemology, two theologians became the founding fathers of evangelicalism: Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) and John Wesley (1703–1791).1 Second, two main trends are setting the evangelical scene. The early epistemological blueprints of Charles Hodge (1797–1878) and H.  Orton Wiley (1877–1961) reflect these trends. Third, situating contemporary evangelical epistemology within its philosophical milieu is requisite for understanding it better. In the rest of this chapter, I explore the models proffered by Geisler, Plantinga, and Grenz. Following their exposition is a section spelling out the present conflict of the evangelical construals. The final section outlines a possible resolution to the epistemological conflict, clearing the way for the discussion of Chap. 3. 1  Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 647.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3_2

15

16 

D.-A. PETRE

The Founding Fathers of Evangelicalism The early modern epistemology begins with Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and René Descartes (1596–1650), both interested in natural knowledge.2 Bacon focuses on the knowledge about divine laws in nature, empirically obtained through induction and experiment after purging the human mind from its idols.3 A genuine reflection upon God’s works is not detached from reality but requires a more accurate understanding of the created world.4 In the process, Bacon attempts to replace the Aristotelian and scholastic metaphysics of the being qua being with an autonomous natural philosophy.5 Like Bacon, Descartes attempts to set a foundation for knowledge. For him, no person can inquire about the existence of reality without having a clear and distinct idea about reality.6 Descartes classifies ideas into innate, acquired from outside, or devised internally. For example, humans acquire the idea of God from outside as the cause of the perfect divine attributes they conceive. Therefore, God is as accurate as the idea itself.7 Descartes thus establishes divine essence before divine existence. The latter is inferred from the former, revealing the Cartesian test of doubting anything not conceived clearly and distinctly by reason.8 Both Bacon and Descartes influenced John Locke (1632–1704), whose theory of knowledge set the foundations of epistemology as a subset of philosophy.9 For Locke, there are no Cartesian innate ideas.10 Instead, he defines knowledge as the reason’s perception of an agreement between ideas.11 Locke details three types of perceiving an agreement: intuitive, 2  Stephen Gaukroger, Descartes’ System of Natural Philosophy (2002; repr., Cambridge University Press, 2004), vii. 3  Sorana Corneanu, Regimens of the Mind: Boyle, Locke, and the Early Modern Cultura Animi Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 36. 4  Matthew Sharpe, “Bacon,” in Knowledge in Modern Philosophy, ed. Stephen Gaukroger, vol. 3 of The Philosophy of Knowledge: A History (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019), 24. 5  Stephen Gaukroger, Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy (2001; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 20. 6  Gaukroger, Descartes’ System, 69. 7  Anthony Kenny, The Rise of Modern Philosophy, vol. 3 of A New History of Western Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006), 123. 8  Gaukroger, Descartes’ System, 74–75. 9  Peter R. Anstey, “Locke,” in Gaukroger, Knowledge in Modern Philosophy, 111. 10  For more details, see James Gordon Clapp, “Locke, John,” EP 5:377–78. 11  Nicholas Wolterstorff, “Tradition, Insight and Constraint,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 66.3 (1992): 46, doi:10.2307/3130660.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

17

demonstrative, and sensitive. Some truths are intuitively grasped and constitute knowledge (e.g., one’s existence). When failing to intuit the truth of a proposition, reason demonstrates it, as is the case with the existence of God. For Locke, “From the Consideration of our selves, and what we infallibly find in our own Constitutions, our Reason leads us to the Knowledge of this certain and evident Truth, That there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being.”12 In addition to intuitive and demonstrative knowledge, Locke talks about the knowledge of the existence of other things.13 The latter is known sensitively, implying a direct awareness of the facts yielded by reason.14 The sources of ideas are the senses and the subsequent reflection upon the relation between them. Senses and reflection together represent human experience.15 This sensitive knowledge is an effect of a greater cause. From the experience of reality as ordered, Locke infers an eternal cause, a perfect and omnipotent Creator.16 In a Kantian reading, the subsequent epistemological history should be a conflict between Cartesian rationalism and Lockean empiricism in broad strokes. Nevertheless, as several authors reveal, Descartes and Locke have several assumptions in common.17 As a further matter, both have influenced the development of deism, to which many eighteenth-century theologians reacted. Contemporary and subsequent deists appropriated Locke’s naturalistic epistemology, stripping special revelation from it as they considered it a contradiction. A natural religion resulted, wherein theological knowledge was accessible by reason alone.18 At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the spread of deism and the ensuing apologetic focus on answering deistic arguments paved the way 12  John Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding, ed. Peter H. Nidditch, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 4.10.6 (621), emphasis original. 13  Matthew Priselac, Locke’s Science of Knowledge, Routledge Studies in Seventeenth-­ Century Philosophy 15 (New York: Routledge, 2017), 113–17. 14  Wolterstorff, “Tradition, Insight and Constraint,” 46–47. 15  Anstey, “Locke,” 113. 16  Victor Nuovo, John Locke: The Philosopher as Christian Virtuoso (Oxford: Clarendon, 2017), 153. 17  Kenny, Modern Philosophy, 131; Stephen Gaukroger, “Introduction,” in Knowledge in Modern Philosophy, 4. 18  For details, see Peter Byrne, Natural Religion and the Nature of Religion: The Legacy of Deism, Routledge Library Editions: Philosophy of Religion 4 (1989, repr., London: Routledge, 2013), 37–51.

18 

D.-A. PETRE

for “a more emotionally satisfying Christianity.”19 This time, two critical theologians of the period, recognized as the founding fathers of Anglo-­ American evangelicalism, reacted to Locke’s epistemology. These two theologians are Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. Characterized as “the most brilliant of all American theologians,”20 Edwards—in agreement with Wesley—argues that genuine theological knowledge involves spiritual senses.21 Rejecting Locke’s privileged intellect, which negated affections, Edwards builds his theory of religious affections in a quest to invalidate the implications of a deistic-filtered Lockean epistemology.22 In the process, Edwards transforms Locke’s argument for a sensitive knowledge of the physical world into a defense of sensitive spiritual knowledge of God. Edwards indicates that God endowed the immortal human soul with understanding and will as part of the imago Dei.23 The “more vigorous and sensible exercises”24 of the will are the affections. As the fountainhead of human actions, affections are vital in knowing God. A person who “has doctrinal knowledge and speculation only, without affection, never is engaged in the business of religion.”25 Influencing affections bridges the gap between knowing about God and knowing God. One critical writing for understanding Edwards’s epistemology, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” analyzes the distinction between these two types of knowledge.26 He distinguishes here between speculative or  Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism, 37.  George M.  Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 1. In spite of John Wesley being older than Edwards by several months, Edwards came to prominence before Wesley. For this reason, Edwards is discussed before Wesley. For a detailed analysis of the relation between Edwards and Wesley, see Richard E. Brantley, “The Common Ground of Wesley and Edwards,” HTR 83.3 (1990):271–303. 21  Yet, as Brantley comments, their understanding of experience is broader than Locke’s, as it “enlists spirit in the catalogue of experience” (ibid., 303). 22  Michael J. McClymond, Encounters with God: An Approach to the Theology of Jonathan Edwards, Religion in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 15–16. 23  Jonathan Edwards, “Discourse on the Trinity,” in Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith, ed. Sang Hyun Lee, vol. 21 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 113; henceforward, this multivolume work is abbreviated WJE, and apart from the first citation, the abbreviation, the volume number, and page number are used. 24  WJE 2:97. 25  WJE 2:101. 26  Jonathan Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” in Sermons and Discourses, 1730–1733, ed. Mark Valeri, vol. 17 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 405–26. 19 20

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

19

notional knowledge and spiritual knowledge. The first is rational, involving understanding, hence “rests only in the head.”27 The second is experiential, involving the will, thus concerning the affections. Knowing God is more than having a rational belief in his attributes. It means having a sense of the beauty of these attributes in one’s heart.28 God is the author of both types of knowledge. Rational knowledge is mediated by humans yet caused by God. Spiritual knowledge results from the light imparted directly by the Holy Spirit to the regenerate.29 The bestowal of this knowledge resides solely in God’s decision. Edwards embraced the Reformed infralapsarian view of election. According to it, God decided to create humans as imago Dei, allowed the fall, and elected only some for salvation.30 Ensuing from the divine sovereign decision, the salvific knowledge—received through divine illumination only by the elect in the process of regeneration—is a result of the special grace of God. This special grace involves the operation of the Holy Spirit “in the minds of the godly, by uniting himself to them, and living in them, and exerting his own nature in the exercise of their faculties.”31 This supernatural spiritual intervention is distinct from the conviction of sin or any other imaginative or affective impression. It is also different from inspiration, as it does not suggest any new propositional truth.32 Instead, in Edwards’s words, it is “a true sense of the divine excellency of the things revealed in the Word of God, and a conviction of the truth and reality of them, thence arising.”33 As a result, the intellect is stimulated and enjoys contemplating God’s revelation. Together with their enhanced apprehension, the regenerate have an “intuitive and immediate evidence”34 of the truthfulness of Scripture. As such, they sense its outstanding quality. This affect, or spiritual sensitivity, is essential for genuine faith. Edwards highlights that while God uses Scripture to convey information about the Godhead, this only results in the formation of rational knowledge. This knowledge is just a natural epistemic mode. Rational knowledge should not be misread as spiritual knowledge, as the Scripture  WJE 17:414.  WJE 17:413. 29  WJE 17:409–10. 30  Peter J. Thuesen, “Election (Doctrine),” JEE, 190. 31  WJE 17:411. 32  WJE 17:410–13. 33  WJE 17:413. 34  WJE 17:415. 27 28

20 

D.-A. PETRE

does not bring the latter. The immediate intervention of the Holy Spirit creates a sense of Scripture’s excellency.35 It leads humans to a knowledge of God, described by Edwards as seeing God. This spiritual perception of God results in “a true and saving belief of the truth of religion.”36 Several traits characterize the Edwardsian spiritual knowledge. First, as its epistemic object is divine glory, it is superior to any other knowledge. Second, it also brings intellectual delight, peace, and tranquility in affliction. Third, it also restores the imago Dei in the human soul. Fourth, it disposes humans toward obedience.37 All these traits constitute an impetus for humans to diligently seek God’s supernatural and spiritual light. In “Dissertation I: Concerning the End for Which God Created the World,” Edwards explains why epistemic growth is necessary. God endowed human beings with understanding and will, the highest creaturely faculties. Their active use in knowing and loving God’s glory represents their most excellent use.38 As God’s glory—the quintessential expression of God’s character—is “the supreme and ultimate end of the work of creation,”39 it follows that knowing and loving God fulfills the divine intention. The equilibrium between notional knowledge and spiritual knowledge in influencing affections is thus a central tenet of Edwards’s epistemology. The other founding father of evangelicalism, John Wesley, was more concerned about preaching than theologizing. However, favoring the sermon genre does not preclude systematic theology. One theologian called Wesley a “systematic theologian strongly grounded in pastoral care.”40 It follows from here that his theological epistemology is present throughout

 WJE 17:416.  WJE 17:417–18. In another of his sermons, Edwards describes rational knowledge as natural and spiritual knowledge as practical (Jonathan Edwards, “The Importance and Advantage of a Thorough Knowledge of Divine Truth,” in Sermons and Discourses, 1739–1742, ed. Harry S. Stout, Nathan O. Hatch, and Kyle P. Farley, vol. 22 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 87). 37  WJE 17:424–25. 38  Jonathan Edwards, “Dissertation I: Concerning the End for Which God Created the World,” in Ethical Writings, ed. Paul Ramsey, vol. 8 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 454. 39  WJE 8:527. 40  Thomas C. Oden, God and Providence, vol. 1 of John Wesley’s Teachings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 29. 35 36

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

21

his oeuvre.41 Wesley’s epistemology must not be filtered by any adventitious paradigm, like the Wesleyan quadrilateral and the empiricist-­ rationalist perspectives. One needs to start with Wesley’s terms in his context to hear Wesley’s voice.42 For Wesley, the Bible represents the fundamental epistemic source, the authority which judges everything else.43 The Scripture agrees with “genuine reason,” which makes Christianity a “religion founded on reason.”44 In this context, reason can be seen either from a metaphysical or an epistemological standpoint. The metaphysical reason involves “the nature of God and the nature of man, with the relations necessarily subsisting.”45

41  The edition is John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, ed. Frank Baker, Richard Heitzenrater, and Randy L. Maddox, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984–). This work is henceforward abbreviated WJW. Prominent among the writings offering details about Wesley’s epistemology are John Wesley, “An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion (1743),” in The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related Open Letters, ed. Gerald R. Cragg, vol. 11 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley (1975; repr., Nashville: Abingdon, 1989), 37–94; Wesley, “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Part I (1744),” WJW 11:95–202; sermon 10, Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, I (1746),” in Albert C. Outler, ed., Sermons I, 1–33, vol. 1 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, ed. Frank Baker (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984), 269–84; sermon 11, Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, II (1767),” WJW 1:285–98; sermon 44, “Original Sin (1759),” in Albert C. Outler, ed., Sermons II, 34–70, vol. 2 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, ed. Frank Baker (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985), 170–85; sermon 69, Wesley, “The Imperfection of Human Knowledge (1784),” WJW 2:568–86; sermon 70, Wesley, “The Case of Reason Impartially Considered (1781),” WJW 2:587–600; sermon 85, Wesley, “On Working Out Our Salvation,” in Albert C. Outler, ed., Sermons III, 71–114, vol. 3 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, ed. Frank Baker (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), 199–209; sermon 106, Wesley, “On Faith (1788),” WJW 3:491–501; sermon 116, Wesley “What Is Man? (1788),” in Albert C. Outler, ed., Sermons IV, 115–151, vol. 4 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, ed. Frank Baker (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), 19–27; sermon 117, Wesley, “On the Discoveries of Faith (1788),” WJW 4:28–38; sermon 127, Wesley, “On the Wedding Garment (1790),” WJW 4:139–48; and sermon 132, Wesley, “On Faith, Hebrews 11:1 (1791),” WJW 4:187–200. 42  Randy L. Maddox, “Reclaiming an Inheritance: Wesley as Theologian in the History of Methodist Theology,” in Rethinking Wesley’s Theology for Contemporary Methodism, ed. Randy L. Maddox, Kingswood Books (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1998), 226. 43  Wesley thus expounds “a radical epistemizing of Scripture” (William J.  Abraham, Aldersgate and Athens: John Wesley and the Foundations of Christian Belief [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010], 69), wherein the Bible is norma normans, the rule that rules. 44  Wesley, “An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” §27, WJW 11:55. 45  Ibid., §28–29, WJW 11:55.

22 

D.-A. PETRE

Epistemological reason refers to a faculty of the soul, reasoning.46 Wesley rejects mysticism with its dismissal of reason. Instead, he argues that both Jesus and Paul used reasoning.47 Reason manifests itself “by simple apprehension, by judgment, and by discourse.”48 All three aspects are involved in processing the information received from the senses. Wesley considers the senses the “avenues of our knowledge”49 about the visible realm. However, while the impulse toward knowing is intrinsic to human nature, human knowledge is limited.50 These limitations are evident with regard to the knowledge of God’s nature and activities.51 The “little which we do know of God,” except revelation, “we do not gather from an inward impression, but gradually acquire from without.”52 This “little” knowledge, explains Wesley, includes some notions about “the being and attributes of God.”53 Human faculties cannot truly know God.54 The disease of sin affected in toto human nature. A denial of this biblical fact amounts to paganism, irrespective of any philosophical refinement.55 Only God can heal the sin-­ ridden nature. He does so by the gift of faith, restoring the knowledge of himself in humans.56 For Wesley, faith functions as a God-given sensorium, a spiritual sense, allowing humans to know the invisible realm.57 This realm includes the existence of an immortal soul, angels, the Trinity, eternal life and misery, and spiritual things.58

46  In Wesley’s view, God endowed human beings with an immortal soul, thus sharing the attribute of eternity with them (sermon 54, Wesley, “On Eternity (1786),” §6, WJE 2:361). At the moment of conception, each human being receives a soul (Oden, God and Providence, 38). 47  Wesley, “An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” §30, WJW 11:56. 48  Sermon 70, Wesley, “The Case of Reason Impartially Considered,” §1.2, WJW 2:590. 49  Sermon 117, Wesley, “On the Discoveries of Faith,” §1, WJW 4:29. 50  Sermon 69, Wesley, “The Imperfection of Human Knowledge,” §1–2, WJW 2:568. 51  Ibid., §4, WJW 2:569. 52  Ibid., §1.4, WJW 2:571. 53  Sermon 85, Wesley, “On Working Out Our Salvation,” §1, WJW 3:199. 54  Sermon 44, Wesley, “Original Sin,” §2.3, WJW 2:177. 55  Ibid., §3.1–2, WJW 2:183–84. For a description of how sin affects human nature, see sermon 128, Wesley, “The Deceitfulness of the Human Heart” (1790), WJW 4:149–60. 56  Wesley, “Original Sin,” §3.3, WJW 2:184. 57  Wesley describes faith as “the eye of the new-born soul,” “the ear of the soul,” “the palate of the soul,” or “the feeling of the soul” (Wesley, “An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” §7, WJW 11:46–47). 58  Wesley, “On the Discoveries of Faith,” §4, (WJW 4:30, emphasis original).

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

23

For Wesley, faith collaborates with reason. Assisted by the Holy Spirit, who enlightens it, reason enables humans to understand the revealed divine nature and its attributes.59 However, reason can neither produce faith, hope, and love nor generate virtue or happiness. Hope, love, virtue, and happiness spring from faith, “a divine evidence” which brings “a full conviction of an invisible, eternal world.”60 Faith plays a critical epistemic role in fulfilling the purpose of human life, “to know, love and serve”61 God. For Wesley, faith is not a set of embraced truths. Instead, it is a divinely implanted knowledge in the human heart, acknowledging Christ as a personal Savior. This knowledge is certified by the double testimony of a person’s spirit and the Holy Spirit.62 The Holy Spirit’s prevenient intervention makes known God’s love to a person.63 This knowledge creates an awareness of being loved and enlightens reason to recognize the marks of one’s love for God: “holy tempers and actions.”64 Wesley thus adduces experience as a confirmation of the dual testimony. The biblical basis of the whole process justifies the epistemic role of experience.65 In Wesley’s view, this is not just the experience of one or two but the all-encompassing experience of the children of God.66 This experience is vital for Wesley but always kept in check by Scripture and reason.67 Wesley identifies theological knowledge with knowledge by acquaintance.68 While humans may know an invisible, eternal divine being (cf. Rom 1), it does not follow that they are acquainted with him.69 True religion begins with knowing God, continues with loving him, and ends in

 Wesley, “The Case of Reason Impartially Considered,” §1.6, WJW 2:592.  Ibid., §2.1, WJW 2:593. See §2.1–10 (WJW 2:593–98) for Wesley’s full argument. 61  Sermon 116, Wesley, “What Is Man?” §14, WJW 4:26. 62  Sermon 106, Wesley, “On Faith, Hebrews 11:6,” §1.12, WJW 3:497–98. 63  Sermon 10, Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, I,” §1.8, WJW 1:274. 64  Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, I,” §1.2–6, WJW 1:271–74. 65  Sermon 11, Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, II,” §4.1, WJW 1:293. 66  Wesley, “The Witness of the Spirit, II,” §3.6, WJW 1:290. 67  Jeremy Gregory, “The Long Eighteenth Century,” in The Cambridge Companion to John Wesley, ed. Randy L. Maddox and Jason E. Vickers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 38. 68  Borrowing Paul K.  Moser’s terminology, Abraham calls it “filial knowledge of God” (William J. Abraham, Aldersgate and Athens: John Wesley and the Foundations of Christian Belief [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010], 33). 69  Wesley, “Original Sin,” §2.3, WJW 2:177. 59 60

24 

D.-A. PETRE

obeying his commandments.70 While humans are justified through faith alone, if the good works of love do not follow from it, faith is futile.71 Consequently, faith fulfills God’s plan to “re-establish the law of love”72 lost by sin.

Early Trends in Evangelical Epistemology The evangelical movement is the child of Protestantism, weaned on an Enlightenment epistemology, as reflected by both Wesley and Edwards in the eighteenth century.73 Having in common their attachment to the Bible, the evangelicals uphold the salient characteristics of a genuine religious experience as an echo of Lockean empiricism,74 yet rejecting Humean skepticism and avoiding Kantian agnosticism. David Hume (1711–1776) rejects any appeal to reason to defend Christian belief. Using irony, he writes that “our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure.”75 Hume’s empiricism excludes any supernatural elements and describes knowledge formation in secular terms.76 Reacting to Hume’s skepticism but also influenced by it, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argues that God cannot be known through pure reason, thus rejecting the ontological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God.77 As a substitute for these arguments, Kant proposes a  Wesley, “An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” §28, WJW 11:55.  Sermon 35, Wesley, “The Law Established through Faith, Discourse I,” §2.6, WJW 2:27–28. 72   Sermon 36, Wesley, “The Law Established through Faith, Discourse II,” §2.5, WJW 2:40. 73  Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 50. As Sweeney notes, “evangelicals are a movement of orthodox Protestants with an eighteenth-century twist” (Douglas A. Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], 24). For an in-depth exploration of Bebbington’s connection between evangelicalism and the Enlightenment, see Michael A. G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart, eds., The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008). 74  From what he calls “biblical experientialism” (Noll, “What Is ‘Evangelical’?” 28), Noll identifies three other evangelical traits: (a) rejection of inherited institutions; (b) flexibility concerning various aspects of public life; and (c) personal and social Holiness (ibid.). 75  David Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, ed. Peter Millican (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 94 (10.40), emphasis original. 76  Margaret Schabas, “Hume,” in Gaukroger, Knowledge in Modern Philosophy, 130. 77  Kenny, Modern Philosophy, 323. 70 71

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

25

moral one whereby he proves that morality entails a supernatural lawgiver.78 While both Edwards and Wesley are aware of Hume’s skepticism and reject it,79 Kant did not significantly impact fledgling evangelicalism, the latter being influenced more by Thomas Reid’s approach. Alongside Locke, Thomas Reid’s (1710–1796) common-sense realism influenced the epistemology of the nascent evangelical movement.80 Reid rejected the Lockean theory of perception in favor of direct realism. Hence, it is not just the internal images that are epistemic objects but also the external reality.81 Knowledge of reality forms according to self-evident propositions—called first principles by Reid—or inferred from these.82 Reason plays a crucial role in judging self-evident things or drawing “conclusions that are not self-evident from those that are.”83 Hence, the resulting knowledge is either intuitive or inferred.84 Reid equates intuitive knowledge with common-sense knowledge.85 The Reformed branch of evangelicalism, whose stalwart defender was Charles Hodge (1797–1878), embraced Reid’s classical foundationalist epistemology. In his massive Systematic Theology,86 Hodge argues that the knowledge of God is innate. This does not mean that humans are born with a set of ideas (contra Descartes) or abstract epistemic principles (contra Kant) but that “the mind is so constituted that it perceives certain

78  Immanuel Kant, “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,” in Religion and Rational Theology, ed. Allen W.  Wood and George Di Giovanni (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 59–60 (6:6–7). 79  For Edward, see Jasper Reid, “The Metaphysics of Jonathan Edwards and David Hume,” Hume Studies 32.1 (2006): 55–56, doi:10.1353/hms.2011.0220. For Wesley, consult Laurence Willard Wood, “Wesley’s Epistemology,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 10 [1975]: 50, 54. 80  As Noll points out, the Reidean common-sense realism “provided theologians with an intellectual lingua franca for nearly a century” (Mark A. Noll, America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln [New York: Oxford University Press, 2002], 95). 81  James Van Cleve, “Reid, Thomas,” EP 8:322–23. 82  Ibid., 327. 83  Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, ed. Derek R.  Brookes, The Edinburgh Edition of Thomas Reid (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002), 6.2.5–6 (433). Numbers indicate essay, chapter, and line. The page is in parentheses. 84  Ibid., 6.4.15–16 (452). 85  I follow Wolterstorff’s explanation here (Nicholas Wolterstorff, Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology, Modern European Philosophy [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001], 227). 86  Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1872–1873).

26 

D.-A. PETRE

things to be true without proof and without instruction.”87 Hodge explains that this epistemic innateness is both universal and necessary.88 One major reason is the epistemic principle that “what we are forced [i.e., convinced] to believe must be true.”89 The same “laws of belief” that humans use in their interaction with reality are trustworthy and reliable when it comes to knowing God as they are “impressed upon our nature” by God.90 Consequently, “our conviction that God is what He has revealed Himself to be, rests on the same foundation as our conviction that the external world is what we take it to be.”91 As a result, each human being perceives God as a rational, personal being.92 Knowledge of God, the theistic belief, is the starting point of knowing the personal attributes of God through ratiocination.93 Even though the human knowledge of God is partial, it is nevertheless true. Given that knowledge is the apprehension “of an object as conform to what that object really is,”94 the theological knowledge humans have is true as long as it conforms to the divine revelation in nature, human nature, Scripture, and Christ. Even if sin affects human reason, the latter is necessary for receiving divine revelation. To be received by faith, propositions need to be mentally apprehended. In Hodge’s evaluation, “knowledge is essential to faith” because “in believing we affirm the truth of the proposition believed.”95 Also, reason judges the credibility of a revelation and the weight of accompanying evidence. No person can believe without appropriate and adequate evidence, as the conviction produced by evidence is an integral part of faith’s definition.96 Christianity is thus different from superstition (faith without evidence) and rationalism (faith only with understanding).97 As a result, for Hodge, the “doctrine that God is the

 Ibid., 1:192.  Ibid., 1:200. 89  Ibid., 1:341. 90  Ibid., 1:10. 91  Ibid., 1:340. 92  Ibid., 1:340–41. 93  Ibid., 1:200. 94  Ibid., 1:360. 95  Ibid., 1:49. 96  Ibid., 1:52. 97  Ibid., 1:55. 87 88

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

27

object of certain and true knowledge lies at the foundation of all religion, and therefore must never be given up.”98 In the history of nineteenth-century evangelical epistemology, Hodge’s Reformed emphasis on the role of reason was dazzled by the Wesleyan revivalist emphasis on experience. Through the influence of Charles G. Finney (1792–1875), the Methodist stress on sanctification sprawled into Reformed circles.99 In the case of Methodists, writes David Hempton, “the marginal territory between enlightenment and enthusiasm” envisioned by Wesley “had wider repercussions for the movement he pioneered.”100 Phoebe Palmer (1807–1874) led to the creation of a blend of historic pietism, American revivalism, and Wesleyan perfectionism, the Holiness Movement.101 While Wesley understood the experience of sanctification as a gradual process of replacing sin with love through faith and spiritual disciplines, Palmer introduced a shortcut, explained as an act of total surrender to God, followed by public testimony. According to Palmer, this act of consecration brought complete sanctification.102 The emphasis on the instantaneous experience later gave birth to the Pentecostal movement at the beginning of the twentieth century.103 The burden of proof for an account of the epistemic role of experience fell on Holiness theologians. If Hodge illustrates the Reformed epistemology underlying evangelicalism, H. Orton Wiley (1877–1961), one of the most influential Arminian-Wesleyan theologians in the twentieth century,104 best illustrates the latter tradition’s epistemology. Similar to

 Ibid., 1:345.  George M.  Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 73. 100  David Hempton, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 131. 101  See Melvin E.  Dieter’s description of this threefold blend in Melvin E.  Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century, 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 1996), 2–5. 102  Samuel M.  Powell, “The Theological Significance of the Holiness Movement,” QR 25.2 (2005):127. 103  Geoffrey R Treloar, The Disruption of Evangelicalism: The Age of Torrey, Mott, McPherson and Hammond, A History of Evangelicalism 4 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 61–65. 104  Roger E. Olson, Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology, Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 137. Wiley was part of the Holiness Movement. However, as Olson notes, Wiley’s view on sanctification was closer to the mainstream understanding of sanctification as discipleship (ibid., 139). 98 99

28 

D.-A. PETRE

Hodge, Wiley also wrote a three-volume treatise on systematic t­ heology.105 For Wiley, the authoritative source of theological knowledge is a unity between the objective scriptural self-revelation of God and the subjective church-embodied, faith-nurtured Christian consciousness.106 It reflects the unifying work of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the biblical writers and illuminated, regenerated, and sanctified every reader. Wiley notes that the formal principle (Scripture) supplanted the material principle (spiritual consciousness) from a Protestant historical perspective. Hence, the written text conflated the two principles, leading to a loss of experience, reduced now to reason, hence the nineteenth-century rationalism and its counteraction, mysticism.107 Wiley also accepts four subsidiary sources of theological knowledge: experience, confessions or creeds, philosophy, and nature. The first two are of particular interest here. Through Christ, the Scripture can “so coincide with the material principle of faith as to become the engrafted word which is able to save the soul.”108 The experience of receiving Christ in one’s life involves personal, not propositional, knowledge. This personal knowledge—also called spiritual knowledge—is understood as a filial relationship between Christ and persons following an “awakening into [the] consciousness of a fellowship with God in Christ”; thus, personal knowledge is a result of “right ethical and spiritual relationships,”109 entailing the will through obedience. For this reason, the ensuing experience of an “ethical knowledge growing out of the obedience of faith”110 is a subsidiary source of theology. Additionally, the experience is not just personal but also collective. This “corporate experience, corrected and tested by a wider group of believers”111 is codified in ecclesial confessions or creeds. However, even this collective experience may lose balance when the formal principle rules over the material.112

 H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, 3 vols. (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1940–1943).  This distinction follows Wiley’s understanding of revelation as “every manifestation of God to the consciousness of man, whether through nature and the course of human history, or through the higher disclosures of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Scriptures” (ibid., 1:125–26). 107  Ibid., 1:33–37. 108  Ibid., 1:38, emphasis original. 109  Ibid. 110  Ibid., 1:39. 111  Ibid. 112  For Wiley, creeds begin with individual convictions, of which some are later officially recognized. Hence, they “are not forced upon the Church from without, they grow up from within” (ibid.). 105 106

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

29

As regards the existence of God, this represents a fundamental assumption of human consciousness that does not need a demonstration. In a Reidean manner, Wiley describes God’s existence as an intuitive, self-­ evident truth. Its intuitive character consists of the human “capacity for the knowledge of God which responds in an intuitive manner to revealed truth,”113 similar to the formation of knowledge about the external world through the senses. Moreover, humans know God the same way they know other humans, through what Wiley calls “spiritual contact.”114 Personal knowledge of God results, revealed by Christ through the Spirit. Once obtained, this knowledge of God allows a genuine knowledge of God’s attributes, to which holy love is central. God’s moral attributes, Holiness, and love represent the basis of the divine moral government. It follows that the true knowledge of God, which offers a clear view of the divine character, is a requisite for an enduring human society.115

Locating Contemporary Evangelical Epistemology Situating contemporary evangelical epistemology within the broader field of knowledge formation is necessary before moving on to the presentation of the models chosen here. A general account of any epistemology includes a discussion about knowledge—nature, sources, and limits—and epistemic justification.116 There are three major types of knowledge: knowledge by acquaintance, procedural knowledge, and propositional knowledge.117 The last type is the one usually referred to in epistemological discussions. Hence, the traditional analysis of the nature of knowledge defines the latter as justified true belief.118 As a species of propositional attitude, a belief is a mental representation of the external world in a propositional form.

 Ibid., 1:225.  Ibid., 1:323. Wiley explains spiritual contact as “the mystical contact of [divine] Spirit with [human] spirit,” which results in a knowledge of God that encompasses “an ever deepening and widening concept of the moral attributes” (ibid., 1:370). 115  Ibid., 1:323–24, 365. 116  Paul K.  Moser, “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, ed. Paul K. Moser (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 3. 117  For details, see Louis P. Pojman, What Can We Know? An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001), 2–3. 118  Jack S.  Crumley II, An Introduction to Epistemology, 2nd ed., Broadview Guides to Philosophy (Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 2009), 54. Pritchard gives a formal definition: “An agent S knows that p if, and only if, (i) S believes that p, (ii) S’s belief that p is true, and (iii) S’s belief that p is justified” (Duncan Pritchard, Epistemology, Palgrave Philosophy Today [London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016], 3). 113 114

30 

D.-A. PETRE

This representation aims at depicting truth.119 The correspondence theory gives the classical definition of truth. A proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to a specific world feature. In addition to correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth are also in place. A belief is thus true if it coheres with other beliefs or if it is useful respectively.120 In the justified true belief model, the condition that makes true belief knowledge is justification. Justification refers to a rational person’s grounds for accepting a belief as appropriate. For example, when a person is justified in believing a proposition given a particular informational situation, that person has a justified belief.121 In the classical epistemological foundationalism model, some beliefs are properly basic, and others are inferred from them. The properly basic beliefs are intrinsically and non-inferentially justified. The inferential beliefs receive justification from the basic ones.122 Some philosophers embrace strong foundationalism, considering basic beliefs as infallibly justified. Others, rejecting the infallibility of basic beliefs, accept that these are fallible, embracing thus modest foundationalism.123 Distinguishing between basic and non-basic beliefs is one way of answering the potential threat of infinite regression. The second possibility is a coherentist model. This theory of knowledge justifies a belief when it coheres with a person’s other beliefs.124 It rejects inference as an articulation principle, holistically describing justification by integrating an individual belief into one’s system of beliefs.125 Some proponents of foundationalism and coherentism agree that justification is accessible to the epistemic subject by reflection, thus depending 119  Kirk Ludwig, “Belief,” EP 1:532. As Pojman notes, propositions are “bearers of truth, since a proposition is either true or false” (Pojman, What Can We Know?, 6, emphases original). 120  See Keith Simmons, “Truth,” EP 9:534–37, for a detailed description of these three models. 121  Audi, Epistemology, 3–4. 122  Pojman, What Can We Know?, 102. 123  For a detailed description of strong and modest foundationalism, see Crumley II, An Introduction to Epistemology, 110–19. 124  Audi, Epistemology, 217. 125   Jonathan L.  Kvanvig, “Epistemic Justification,” in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, ed. Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, Routledge Philosophy Companions (New York: Routledge, 2011), 27. Kvanvig points out two fundamental problems facing coherentism: defining the coherence relation and how to base this relation. For an explanation from a modest foundationalist perspective, see Audi, Epistemology, 221–32.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

31

on factors internal to a person.126 In the internalist account, following the best evidence justifies one’s beliefs.127 Taking its name from this central feature, the evidentialist epistemological model proffers justification contingent on evidence alone.128 In contrast, externalists minimize the subject’s internal awareness favoring objective factors such as a reliable epistemic process, which may be accessible to an ideal observer but not necessarily to the epistemic subject.129 Reliabilism and proper functionalism are two important externalist epistemological theories.130 To move beyond the foundationalist/coherentist and internalist/externalist debates, some philosophers changed the emphasis from epistemic duties to epistemic virtues.131 If the epistemic virtues are character traits, the resulting model is responsibilist. The model is reliabilist if the virtues limit to cognitive faculties.132 Both versions focus on epistemic normativity. As such, the value judgments of virtuous persons stand for epistemic justification. Knowledge is then true belief yielded by intellectual virtue.133 The interaction between major versions of foundationalism, coherentism, virtue epistemology, and theology resulted in three theological 126  Kvanvig, “Epistemic Justification,” 25. The structure of justification distinguishes the foundationalism/coherentism categories. The internalist/externalist categories reflect a distinction within the nature of justification itself. 127  Pojman, What Can We Know?, 135. 128  Feldman and Cullison indicate two standard views among evidentialists. First, mental states represent the evidence (like perception, reflection, or introspection). Second, a person must be aware of these mental states (Richard Feldman and Andrew Cullison, “Evidentialism,” in The Bloomsbury Companion to Epistemology, ed. Andrew Cullison, Bloomsbury Companions [London: Bloomsbury, 2014], 105). 129  Pojman, What Can We Know?, 135. 130  Andrew Cullison, “Epistemology: A Brief Historical Overview and Some Puzzles about Methodology,” in The Bloomsbury Companion to Epistemology, 15. 131  Ibid., 198. In his seminal article, Ernest Sosa attaches primary justification to “intellectual virtues, to stable dispositions for belief acquisition, through their greater contribution toward getting us to the truth” (Ernest Sosa, “The Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence versus Foundations in the Theory of Knowledge,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5.1 (1980): 23, doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1980.tb00394.x, emphasis original). Therefore, as Zagzebski defines it, “Epistemology is the study of right and good ways to cognitively grasp reality” (Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, On Epistemology [Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009], 8, emphasis original). 132  Ernest Sosa, Epistemology, Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), 140. 133  John Greco, “Virtue Epistemology,” in A Companion to Epistemology, ed. Jonathan Dancy, Ernest Sosa, and Matthias Steup, 2nd ed., Blackwell Companions to Philosophy (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 76.

32 

D.-A. PETRE

epistemology models. An influential representative stands for each model. Various evangelical theologians echoed the evidentialist foundationalism of Hodge.134 Geisler best represents this epistemological model.135 However, with the demise of classical foundationalism, various modest foundationalist proposals were put forward for discussion.136 Influential among these is the proper functionalism of Plantinga, which integrates aspects of virtue epistemology as reliabilism. Also referred to as Reformed epistemology, Plantinga’s version is the second representative evangelical model. Furthermore, in an effort similar to Wiley’s proposal of moving beyond propositional knowledge, Grenz attempts to outline an epistemology by bridging foundationalism with coherentism. His postfoundationalist model is included here as another representative tendency in evangelicalism.137 His model, Geisler’s, and Plantinga’s follow below. This presentation is mainly descriptive, with an evaluation of each following in Chap. 4.

134  While some consider Hodge a leading exponent of true Reformed theology (Paul Kjoss Helseth, “Charles Hodge,” in The Routledge Companion to Modern Christian Thought, ed. Chad V. Meister and James K. Beilby [London: Routledge, 2013], 38), others appraise him as a harbinger of fundamentalism (Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999], 557). Yet, as Gutjahr indicates, Hodge remains an influential figure in American evangelicalism (Paul C. Gutjahr, Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy [New York: Oxford University Press, 2011], 382). 135  As Boa notes, when it comes to the rational defense of Christianity, Geisler “represents perhaps the ‘purest’ form” (Kenneth D.  Boa and Robert M.  Bowman, Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2005], 49). 136  See the discussion in Steven B.  Sherman, “Revitalizing Theological Epistemology: Holistic Evangelical Approaches to the Knowledge of God” (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2004), 163–253 and Smith, “Non-Foundational Epistemologies,” 831–71. 137  As Jay T. Smith notes, “Grenz’s theological perspective effectively created a fresh, innovative approach” (Jay T.  Smith, “Stanley J.  Grenz: The Evangelical Turn to Postliberal Theological Method,” in Generous Orthodoxies: Essays on the History and Future of Ecumenical Theology, ed. Paul Silas Peterson [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020], 132) has an enduring contemporary influence on evangelicalism.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

33

Evidentialist Foundationalism The prototypical representative of evidentialist foundationalism is Geisler.138 This section analyzes his oeuvre to pinpoint the main characteristics of this model. Its central claim is that a person needs evidence of an ultimate reality before making “an ultimate commitment to it.”139 Evidence is necessary to verify the truth regarding propositions about reality. For Geisler, this test for truth verifies both the overall theistic worldview and the specific truth claims within this worldview.140 The test for truth comprises the first principles of reality. Reality is reduced, not deduced, from them.141 These principles are self-evident and thus known intuitively. Geisler infers the existence of God based upon these first principles. All the basic premises of theism are undeniable. It follows that theism is true. Given the truth of theism, the Christian belief

138  Other evangelicals also share the main thrusts of evidentialist foundationalism. See, for example, John S. Feinberg, Can You Believe It’s True? Christian Apologetics in a Modern and Postmodern Era (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013); Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); and Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville: Nelson, 2017). 139  Geisler and Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, 69. 140  Norman L.  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 120. Geisler analyzes six tests for truth as proposed by rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, pragmatism, and combinationalism. He considers each insufficient because they cannot “definitively establish one worldview over another” (ibid., 123). Geisler detaches himself from the evidentialist position when he states that evidentialism does not provide an adequate test for truth (ibid., 125). For him, evidentialism can refer to either past, present, or future evidence that Christianity has put forth. According to this narrow definition of evidentialism, Geisler is not an evidentialist because he does not start with evidence from within a theistic worldview. However, from an epistemological perspective, evidentialism has a broader definition than Geisler’s. “Evidentialism is the view that religious beliefs, in order to be rationally held, must be supported by other things one knows or reasonably believes to be true,” writes Hasker, pointing out that “evidentialist defenses of religion typically rely heavily on theistic arguments” (William Hasker, “Epistemology, Religious,” EP 3:321). From this perspective, Geisler’s approach falls under evidentialism, even if he might be classified differently from an apologetical perspective (as a classical apologist, e.g.; see Brian K.  Morley, Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015], 256–91). 141  Geisler describes his model as reductive foundationalism, which “begins with reality and proceeds to reduce what we know intuitively about it to self-evident first principles” (Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 128).

34 

D.-A. PETRE

is also true.142 Geisler provides the test of systematic coherence to justify Christian true belief. This systematic and coherent form of theism is epistemically justified, thus constituting theological knowledge. In building his model, Geisler works with several critical ontological and epistemological assumptions regarding reality, perception, reason, truth, and belief. These frame his discussion on the formation of theological knowledge. These assumptions are briefly described in what follows, together with Geisler’s description of epistemic justification, the condition that makes true belief knowledge. Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions Reality. For Geisler, realism “is unavoidable” as reality “is that which is” and “all that is.”143 It refers both to the mind and the realm beyond the mind. Therefore, reality comprises God, the infinite being, as well as creatures who are finite beings. Metaphysics identifies with ontology. However, ontology does not imply only one being (monism) but a plurality of beings.144 The existence of God—theistic belief—is the necessary metaphysical condition of Geisler’s theology. For a possible theistic belief to become viable, solid rational arguments are needed.145 Once the theistic belief is justified, it becomes the “foundation of Christian theology”146 and forms the starting point for justifying Christian beliefs. 142  Ibid., 133. In chapter fifteen of his Christian Apologetics, Geisler offers his proof for the existence of the biblical God. 143  BECA, s.v. “Realism.” 144  Geisler accepts Aquinas’s argument against monism. According to this argument, “there can be only one Being,” that is, “one is Being” (Norman L.  Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume [Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2011], 22). Every other creature “has being” in a complex “mixture of act and potency” (ibid.). 145  Geisler presents four arguments that prove both God’s existence and his attributes. First is the cosmological argument. This has a horizontal and a vertical form. The horizontal form states that (1) everything that began had a cause; (2) there is a beginning of the universe; therefore, (3) the universe is caused to be. The vertical form argues from the contingent present to a necessary cause. The second argument is the teleological argument: (1) all designs entail a designer; (2) the universe is designed; therefore, (3) there must have been a Designer of the universe. The third argument is ontological: (1) if God exists, humans must conceive him as a necessary being; (2) but, by definition, a necessary being cannot nonexist; therefore, (3) if a necessary being can exist, then it must exist. The last argument is moral: (1) moral law implies a moral lawgiver; (2) there is an objective moral law; therefore, (3) there is an objective moral lawgiver. For a detailed discussion, see ibid., 22–31. 146  Ibid., 16.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

35

Intuitional perception. Geisler states that reality is not perceived just through the five senses.147 Some logical aspects of reality are known by intuition, inference, or revelation.148 Intuition—the human mind’s innate ability to pursue truth—is foundational for the evidentialist model. A logical argument cannot prove existence. Instead, existence is an undeniable fact.149 This perception is part of the human noetic structure. The mind directly perceives something that exists because there is a correspondence between the mind and reality. This correspondence is made possible through the first principles, representing knowledge’s basis. From existence, finite or infinite beings are logically inferred.150 Reason. Geisler defines reason as “the God-given means for discovering the truth that God discloses, whether in his world or his Word.”151 Reason accepts the principles of knowledge, playing a pivotal role in knowing the objective reality. Also, it functions according to the laws of logic.152 Without special revelation, reason can know of God’s existence and essential attributes, counteracts the logical attacks against faith, and is used in teaching theology.153 The rational proofs for theistic belief form an objective evaluation base for religious experience.154 As a part of the imago Dei, reason gives “sufficient grounds for belief.”155 Certain rational things surpass human reason (e.g., the Trinity, Incarnation), but these are just beyond reason, not against reason. Hence the need for special revelation.156 Reflecting Aquinas, Geisler argues that  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 30.  BECA, s.v. “Scientism.” 149  BECA, s.v. “First Principles.” 150  BECA, s.v. “Realism.” 151  BECA, s.v. “Rationalism.” 152  For Geisler, logic is “reason looking at itself to see how good reason works. It studies the methods that we use to analyze information and draw valid conclusions” (Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (1990; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 12). Four laws are at the foundation of logic: (1) the law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A); (2) the law of identity (A is A); (3) the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A); and (4) the law of rational inference (ibid., 16). Geisler calls logic the “rational precondition” (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 61) of theology. 153  BECA, s.v. “Holy Spirit, Role in Apologetics.” 154  This is possible because reason “can transcend the subjectivity of pure experience” (Geisler and Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, 79). 155  BECA, s.v. “Apologetics, Need for.” 156  BECA, s.v. “Logic.” For an appreciative description of Aquinas’s view, see BECA, s.v. “Faith and Reason.” 147 148

36 

D.-A. PETRE

reason should not be separated from faith. It does not follow that faith is based upon reason. Without faith, reason “cannot move anyone to believe in God or provide saving knowledge.”157 Truth. For Geisler, the truth has two significant characteristics. First, truth corresponds to reality. As a result, propositions about reality are true when they correspond to “the way things really are.”158 The notions of true or false imply a distinction between the objects of reality and the statements about these objects. If one does not accept the correspondence theory of truth, the possibility of factual communication becomes obsolete. The second characteristic of truth is absoluteness. Truth is absolute in time and space. It also exists at a personal level. What is true for a person at a particular time or place must be true of all persons at all times and places.159 Such absoluteness logically derives from the correspondence theory. If truth corresponds to reality, then truth is what is real. Reality is objective. It follows that truth is objective or absolute. Geisler distinguishes between the nature of truth and the test of truth. Whereas truth is absolute correspondence with reality, the test of truth is actual undeniability.160 The latter is the test for theistic truth. This proven true Christian belief can also be confirmed as true. Belief. Geisler distinguishes between self-evident beliefs and inferential beliefs. A self-evident belief is a truth proposition that does not need justification. For example, the principle of existence, which postulates that being exists, is self-evident. Existence cannot be denied and is evident in itself.161 Geisler builds his argument for God’s existence based on the self-­ evident belief of existence. The latter is an inferential belief because the inference from existence provides its epistemic justification. Like Aquinas, Geisler asserts that belief needs sufficient evidence to be accepted.162 Geisler also separates the belief that God exists from the belief in God.163 The belief that God exists needs rational evidential support based  BECA, s.v. “Holy Spirit, Role in Apologetics.”  BECA, s.v. “Truth, Nature of.” 159  Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 267–68. 160  Geisler, Systematic Theology, 88; Christian Apologetics, 129. 161  BECA, s.v. “Self-Evident Truths.” 162  BECA, s.v. “Fideism.” 163  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 52. Geisler is following here Aquinas’s approach. See Norman L. Geisler, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 20. 157 158

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

37

on cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments. The belief that God exists is the necessary precondition of belief in God. It does not follow that belief in God is based upon reason. Belief in God is identical to faith.164 Reason supports faith, but it is not its fundament. In this sense, even if reason proves that God exists, “it can never in itself persuade someone to believe in God.”165 Consequently, “there is no evidence for belief in God. This is strictly a matter of faith. Nonetheless, there is evidence for believing that there is a God,” as faith is based “in God himself.”166 Formation of Theological Knowledge For Geisler, justification is necessary for true belief to become knowledge. Beliefs receive justification either directly or indirectly. While beliefs directly justified are non-inferential, constituting “direct or immediate knowledge,”167 indirectly justified beliefs become knowledge only when inferred from non-inferential beliefs. For Geisler, only the first principles of reality enjoy direct justification. Theistic and Christian beliefs need justification. They become knowledge when they can be inferred from the first principles.168 Hence, Geisler proposes the first principles of reality as the undeniable test for a theistic worldview. In a given theistic worldview, a Christian belief also receives epistemic justification. When true Christian belief is justified, it becomes knowledge. Test for truth. In Geisler’s evidentialist model, the epistemic justification is identical to the test for truth. If the test for truth is valid, then the tested belief is true. It presupposes an external criterion for evaluation that contains an instrument to assess a specific belief. The first principles of reality represent such a criterion. Reason functions as an instrument to assess the truthfulness of belief. The following three sections explore the 164  Using faith and belief interchangeably, Geisler notes that faith in Jesus “is the kind of belief that has trust and confidence in Christ for salvation and thereby implies a commitment to follow and obey Him” (Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1047). 165  BECA, s.v. “Faith and Reason.” 166  BECA, s.v. “Kierkegaard, Søren.” 167  Norman L.  Geisler and Paul D.  Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (1980; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 152–53. 168  Thus, for Geisler, the non-inferential beliefs constitute a form of intuitive a priori knowledge. For an explanation of intuitive and non-inferential knowledge, see Richard Rorty, “Intuition,” EP 4:723–24.

38 

D.-A. PETRE

first principles of reality and reason’s role in establishing a belief’s undeniability and systematic consistency. The first principles of reality. Geisler merges ontology with metaphysics. Hence, being is identical to reality.169 The first—or basic—principles of reality are ontological principles. The foremost principle of existence is that (1) being is. The second principle is derived from the first by applying the law of identity. If the being is, then (2) being is being. By applying the law of noncontradiction, the third principle results, (3) being is not non-­being. The third fundamental logical law of the excluded middle is used to derive the next principle, (4) either being or non-being. Given the first four principles, the law of causality states that (5) non-being cannot cause being. (6) Being causes being similar to itself (the principle of analogy). Geisler accepts the separation between contingent and necessary beings as proposed by Aquinas.170 Consequently, (7) contingent being cannot cause a similar being (the principle of contingency). Therefore, (8) contingent beings can only be caused by necessary beings (the positive principle of modality). However, (9) a necessary being cannot cause similar beings (the negative principle of modality). Consequently, (10) a necessary being caused every contingent being (the principle of existential causality). In conclusion, (11) a necessary being exists (principle of existential necessity). Therefore, (12) contingent beings exist (principle of existential contingency). Undeniability. For Geisler, all twelve principles share three characteristics. They comprise all reality, are conspicuous, and are undeniable. The last characteristic is of central importance. Statements are undeniable when “any attempt to deny them uses them in that very denial.”171 Given their undeniable character, it follows that “the real test for truth”172 is the principle of undeniability. Undeniability can be direct, indirect, definitional, or existential. Direct undeniability involves a proposition that contains its self-defeat.173 For example, the statement God cannot be known

169  BECA, s.v. “First Principles.” For this reason, the concept of worldview is defined in ontological terms, identifying seven options: atheism, panentheism, finite godism, pantheism, theism, deism, and polytheism (Norman L.  Geisler and William D.  Watkins, Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 16). 170  BECA, s.v. “Thomas Aquinas.” 171  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 128. 172  Ibid., 128–29. 173  Ibid., 130.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

39

directly affirms that humans can know something about God. Hence, the statement God can be known is directly undeniable. Indirect undeniability involves a proposition whose self-defeat is in the manner of its expression.174 For example, the statement God can be known only experientially, not rationally, expresses a rational inference. On the other hand, the statement God can also be known by reason is indirectly affirmed in the first statement. Therefore, it is indirectly undeniable. The definitional undeniability includes undeniability in the definition of a proposition. Geisler argues that the statement “if God exists then God is a necessary being” entails “a definitional necessity in conceiving of God”175 if he exists. The definitional undeniability is only theoretical and vulnerable to falsity because it involves the condition expressed by if. For this reason, Geisler adduces existential undeniability. Existence is necessary to claim nonexistence. Therefore, the statement I exist is undeniable. In other words, existential undeniability is only actual undeniability. If a proposition is definitionally true, then the attached necessary corollary is also true.176 God’s existence is undeniable when it is justified. The justification proves its undeniable principles foundation. Given the true theistic belief, Christian belief is justified. Systematic consistency. The justification of theistic belief also justifies the theistic worldview. Given the theistic worldview, the challenge is to prove that Christianity is true, that is, to demonstrate that it is rational, supported by evidence and that it explains all the data.177 The historical facts are not self-evident. Hence, undeniability cannot justify Christian belief.178 Another type of test is needed. Geisler proposes the systematic consistency test. According to it, the theistic perspective that “explains most facts (comprehensiveness), in the best fashion (adequacy), in a noncontradictory way (consistency), and in a manner that fits with the overall system (coherence) will be true.”179 For Geisler, the Christian perspective

 Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 130.  Ibid., 131. 176  Ibid., 131–32. 177  Norman L.  Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 53–54. Geisler states that if a person does not offer “rational justification for his beliefs, they are simply unproven propositions that no reasonable person should accept” (BECA, s.v. “Wittgenstein, Ludwig”). 178  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 133. 179  Ibid., 292, emphases original. 174 175

40 

D.-A. PETRE

is the only one that passes the systematic consistency test. Therefore, all basic Christian beliefs are true. Justification of theistic belief. Theism is a worldview dealing with the whole of reality. To justify theism, a comprehensive test for truth is necessary. For Geisler, undeniability tests the truth of every worldview.180 The first principles are undeniable, hence form the rational base for theistic justification. A modified cosmological argument articulates this evidentialist model. Geisler adopts Aquinas’s version of the cosmological argument, indicating that its key strength is the centrality of the “principle of existential causality” rather than the “principle of sufficient reason.”181 The law of causality postulates a first cause. This uncaused cause is a personal being, identified with the theistic God. A modified cosmological argument. Geisler starts the argument with “limited existence and by use of the principle of existential causality proceed[s] finally to an unlimited cause of all existence.”182 Hence, his argument is the logical continuation of the first principles.183 The first step refers to (1) the existence of a human being which is both actual and contingent. Contingency implies that existence is not only actual but also possible. Therefore, it (2) is possible for being not to exist. If nonexistence is possible, then (3) a human being is caused by another being. However, (4) the causative regress cannot continue forever. Consequently, (5) an original uncaused being exists. This (6) being must be necessary. This being possesses aseity, pure actuality, simplicity, unchangeability, infinity, unicity, omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection.184 All these attributes (7) describe the theistic God. In conclusion, (8) God exists, and (9) is identical to the biblical God because they share the same characteristics. The law of causality. There are several critical and logical steps in Geisler’s argument. First, the transition from step two to step three presupposes the acceptance of the law of causality integrated into the first principles. This law is the cornerstone of the evidentialist model. Causality describes contingent beings. Contingent beings are also characterized by 180  Geisler and Watkins define a worldview as “a pattern superimposed on the cloth of the world by which one knows where to cut the fabric of experience” (Geisler and Watkins, Worlds Apart, 15). Theism is “the worldview that an infinite, personal God created the universe and miraculously intervenes in it from time to time” (BECA, s.v. “Theism”). 181  Geisler and Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, 175. 182  Ibid., 207. 183  For details on the ten-step theistic argument, see Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 268–79. 184  For details, see ibid., 267–68.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

41

change. Change involves both actuality and potentiality. If a being does not have any potentiality, it is a being of pure actuality, having “unlimited existence.”185 The limited being can or cannot exist. It has, thus, the potential for actualization. Consequently, pure actuality must exist to explain the contingent being. The potential for actualization does not become actualized by itself as it represents only “the mere capacity to have a certain kind of existence.”186 The first cause. The second important transition in Geisler’s argument is between steps three and four. It refers to the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes. Geisler defines causes as originative, not resultative. The former is “a necessary and sufficient condition”187 for potentiality to become actual. An infinite regress implies a series of infinite existent-­ dependent causes. A singular cause in the series must cause itself, which is impossible because it would imply that this self-caused being has both existence—prior to actualization—and nonexistence. Therefore, a first non-caused cause must exist. This first cause is a necessary actual being, the only one that “can cause the existence of a contingent being.”188 The analogy of being. The analogy of being is the third crucial logical transition between steps five and six. According to this principle, “an effect must be similar to its cause.”189 Hence, human attributes are analogous to their divine cause if the effect is a human being. Geisler uses teleological and moral arguments to prove that the causative being is all-knowing and perfectly good. Because contingent human beings can know, it follows that a divine knower created it purposefully. The Creator is also perfectly and infinitely good compared to limited human goodness. Given the personhood of human beings, the first cause is also a personal being.190 The theistic God. The fourth important logical transition in the modified cosmological argument is between steps six and seven. It also uses the principle of analogy. If the all-good, infinitely perfect, personal being created the world, human beings included, then this being deserves human worship. Geisler states that this being “is appropriately called ‘God’” and is “the ultimate ground and source of all value.”191 Since the Bible depicts  Geisler and Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, 188.  Ibid., 181. 187  Ibid., 182. 188  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 275. 189  BECA, s.v. “Analogy, Principle of.” 190  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 276–78. 191  Ibid., 278, emphasis original. 185 186

42 

D.-A. PETRE

God with the same attributes as the cosmological argument, the biblical God is identical to the philosophically inferred being. Therefore, theistic belief is justified. As a result, humans can know that God exists. Justification of Christian belief. If theistic belief is true, then theistic worldview is also true. As mentioned above, the test for truth within a worldview is different from the test of truth between worldviews. Systematic consistency is necessary in order to justify Christian belief.192 For this, one must accept all theistic implications. Two major logical transitions are at the basis of the theistically inferred argument for Christianity. The first transition refers to the reality of miracles. A theistic worldview accepts miracles as true. The second transition concerns historical objectivity. Historical events can be known as meaningful but only within a meaningful worldview structure, as objectivity is worldview-dependent.193 Two implications result. First, it confirms the reliability of the NT. Second, it affirms Jesus’s authority and divine character. These two implications justify the Bible as historical truth; hence, all its teachings are justified. Therefore, Christian beliefs have epistemic justification and hence qualify as knowledge.194 The argument for Christianity. The theistic belief justifies Christian belief. Given (1) God’s existence, (2) miracles are possible. Possibility implies actualization: hence, (3) actual miracles are confirmations of divine messages. In addition, (4) the NT is a reliable historical document. However, (5) the NT states that Jesus is God. (6) This claim is supported by many miracles culminating with resurrection. Therefore, (7) Jesus Christ is God. As God, Jesus embodies all truth. All (8) his teachings are true. One of these teachings is that (9) the Bible is the revelation of God. In conclusion, (10) the Bible is God’s word.195 Miracles. The first crucial logical transition is the acceptance of miracles. These are foundational for the epistemic justification of Christian 192  Geisler borrows this expression from Edward John Carnell (BECA, s.v. “Carnell, Edward John”). See also Edward John Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics: A Philosophical Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith [1948; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007], 59. 193  BECA, s.v. “History, Objectivity of.” 194  For Geisler, inspiration implies inerrancy. He reasons that if God inspired the Bible— and God cannot commit errors—the Bible itself cannot contain errors. Thus, even when it touches on science or history, “the Bible speaks inerrantly” (Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible [Chicago: Moody Press, 1974], 26). 195  This summary is presented in Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 293.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

43

belief. A miracle is a “special act of God that interrupts the natural course of events.”196 It has four qualities: unusualness, immediateness, purposefulness, and moral goodness.197 These traits distinguish true miracles from other abnormal events. Each of the four elements is inferred from one or more divine attributes. As a result, miracles have the theological, moral, doctrinal, and teleological dimensions necessary to justify Christian belief.198 Historical objectivity. The second crucial logical transition in Geisler’s argument is historical objectivity. One can know the facts of history with a high degree of objectivity. History needs interpretation to have meaning. Geisler points out three hermeneutical criteria.199 First, every historian has a certain referential standard. Second, all data has a logical structure. Third, humans achieve knowledge when their worldview contributes with meaningful input. Within a theistic worldview, “each fact of history becomes a theistic fact”200 with objective meaning. Reliability of the New Testament. Once the meaning of historical events can be known, historical evidence carries the weight of the epistemic argument. One cannot merely assert a belief but must justify it. Justification is a two-step process.201 First, one establishes the authenticity of the NT documents. Second, one shows the reliability of the NT writers. When Geisler justifies the historical reliability of the NT, he is also justifying the historicity of christological events. A historical documentary method proves the authenticity of the NT writings. The NT has unrivaled manuscript evidence in number, accuracy, and translations compared to other ancient documents.202 Internal and external evidence demonstrate the reliability of the historical reports of the biblical writers. First, the number and the eyewitness character of the NT writers support the accuracy of their writers. Geisler  BECA, s.v. “Miracle.”  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 309. 198  BECA, s.v. “Miracle.” For more on miracles, see Norman L. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). 199  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 338. 200  BECA, s.v. “History, Objectivity of.” 201  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 342. 202  For a detailed presentation of NT manuscripts, see BECA, s.v. “New Testament Manuscripts.” For a broader discussion on the transmission of the Bible, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 321–489. 196 197

44 

D.-A. PETRE

presents many examples of direct authorial internal witnesses. The internal evidence includes historical dates and persons known from other antiquity documents. Second, the external evidence points to the accurate reliability of scriptural documents. Archeological findings, ancient historical witnesses, and contemporary approval are all argument’s external evidence. Geisler concludes that the NT is the “true story”203 of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Authority and divinity of Jesus. If the NT is both authentic and reliable, then its propositional content is true in its affirmations and negations. A fundamental claim refers to the divine nature and character of Jesus Christ. Geisler examines the christological statements about divine nature. Jesus used the OT name for God, claimed equality with God in words and actions, used messianic titles and divine roles, and accepted and encouraged worship. The disciples accepted that Jesus was God and recognized his authority. The internal (biblical) and external (historical) evidence Geisler offers prove it.204 Jesus is God, sharing all the divine attributes. For this reason, all his teachings are true propositional statements. Hence, Christian beliefs are justified, offering thus a genuine knowledge of God.

Proper Functionalism The second major evangelical epistemological model is proper functionalism. Plantinga developed this model, which is currently an accepted explanatory paradigm in evangelical circles.205 While Geisler considers justification the condition for true belief to become knowledge, Plantinga focuses on warrant.206 The warrant is the trait that differentiates knowledge from true belief. This belief must be “produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a congenial epistemic environment according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth.”207 When the cognitive faculties function properly, a belief has rationality and becomes knowledge.  Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 372, emphasis original.  See ibid., 374–92. 205   See, for example, Tyler Dalton McNabb, “Proper Functionalism,” in Debating Christian Religious Epistemology: An Introduction to Five Views on the Knowledge of God, ed. John M. DePoe and Tyler Dalton McNabb (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), 107–22. 206  The three major books in which Plantinga’s argument is presented are Warrant and Proper Function; Warrant: The Current Debate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Warranted Christian Belief. 207  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 204. 203 204

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

45

Plantinga questions the reason for which rational justification needs evidence. While rejecting strong foundationalism, his approach accepts that human “noetic structures do have a foundational character.”208 He thus outlines a model for the rationality of theistic belief called the Aquinas/Calvin model. Such a model states that there is in the human being a sensus divinitatis, a “disposition or set of dispositions to form theistic beliefs in various circumstances, in response to the sorts of conditions or stimuli that trigger the working of this sense of divinity.”209 Hence, belief is epistemically justified, even if it is not based on any experiential proposition. Plantinga notes that this is the main difference between his and the Christian evidentialist position. In other words, a belief has warrant “whether or not it is evidentially supported by propositions about my immediate experience.”210 Several ontological and epistemological assumptions underlie Plantinga’s approach. Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions Reality. Plantinga assumes realism. Therefore, things “can be a certain way even if neither I nor any other human being knows whether they are that way or not.”211 As a theological realist, for Plantinga, believing in a personal God is essential to reality. God is a reality open to human cognition and predication. Consequently, when speaking about rationality, epistemological concerns are only external; the basis is ontological and theological.212 Another vital aspect of reality concerns human beings, who are simply the reflection of their Creator, both in a broad and a narrow sense.213 In a broad sense, a human being is a person, as God is a person. Therefore, the person possesses intellect, which helps form beliefs and causes understanding. Moreover, a person has a will, the basis of affection, goal-setting, and  Paul Helm, Faith with Reason (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 27.  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 173. The name of the model is based on the fact that both Aquinas and Calvin agree that there is a natural knowledge of God. 210  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 95, emphasis original. 211  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 48. 212  Ibid., 190–91. 213  This is a basic presupposition in the Aquinas/Calvin model that Plantinga develops. He mainly reflects Calvin’s view and argues that a Christian is warranted to maintain a Christian stance in any dialogue with atheists or agnostics. For details, see Alvin Plantinga, “Advice to Christian Philosophers,” Faith and Philosophy 1.3 (1984):260–64. 208 209

46 

D.-A. PETRE

moving toward fulfilling these goals. In the narrow sense, a human being can know God and have proper affections, that is, affections reflecting God’s design.214 Perception. Perception involves sensory imagery but not necessarily the information perceived by human senses.215 This type of imagery creates a particular experience as the basis of perceptual belief formation. From the human point of view, it can be both sensory and nonsensory. The basic perceptual beliefs are non-inferential, based upon propositional evidence about the experience. A perceptual belief constitutes knowledge if, and only if, “that belief is true, sufficiently strong, and produced by cognitive faculties that are successfully aimed at truth and functioning properly in an epistemic environment.”216 Reason. In a narrow sense, Plantinga defines reason as “the faculty or power whereby we form a priori beliefs” and “detect logical relationships among propositions.”217 It is among the best human cognitive faculties. These faculties are a part “of our total cognitive establishment or total cognitive design,”218 intended to produce true beliefs when properly used. As a result, they have the property of rationality, a “crucially significant notion.”219 While Plantinga mentions five senses of rationality when it comes to theistic belief, as regards the proper function of Christian belief, he focuses on two types.220 The first type is internal rationality, which refers to properly functioning cognitive powers. However, it is not enough because a person can have internal rationality but lack external rationality. External rationality deals with those beliefs that are also “successfully aimed at truth.”221 Therefore, a belief must have both internal and external rationality to be rational. Truth. The statement that “everything really depends on the truth of Christian belief”222 is the foundational starting point. In his Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga presupposes the truth of the Christian belief. He then proceeds with his epistemological investigation since, in a­ greement  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 204.  Ibid., 181. 216  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 89. 217  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 146–47. 218  Ibid., 146. 219  Plantinga, Warrant: The Current Debate, 132. 220  For details, see ibid., 134–36. 221  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 203–04. 222  Ibid., xiii. 214 215

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

47

with Aquinas, “the existence of truth is self-evident.”223 Plantinga does not insist on defining this concept. With the cognitive powers functioning properly, one will believe “not just any true propositions but ones appropriate to the circumstances.”224 By intuition and deduction, a person knows the truth of certain simple propositions along with their logical interconnectedness. While recognizing these simple propositions as true, humans know them only after they deduce them from what is true. For example, a priori belief becomes a priori knowledge.225 The a priori knowledge does not reject experience. However, experience is necessary to grasp the concepts involved.226 Therefore, all the propositions a person believes can be true or false.227 In addition, each person forms beliefs inductively. Given that intuition is the means of understanding—“this is how a properly functioning human being forms beliefs”228—intuition is warranted as a proper manner of forming beliefs. Hence, it validates the belief-forming mechanism. Belief. The propositions accepted or believed by a person in a basic manner represent the foundation of the belief structure. Plantinga calls this noetic structure.229 Every belief is accompanied by experience—sensory or nonsensory—in its perceptual situation.230 In consequence, a belief depends on experience for its formation. Different cognitive faculties contribute to forming beliefs, like perception, memory, introspection, induction, sympathy, testimony, the moral sense, the sensus divinitatis, and the universal inward working of the Holy Spirit.231 Plantinga includes theistic belief in the definition of the noetic structure. In his model, the sensus divinitatis is the “belief-producing process or source of belief”232 designed by God. As properly basic, theistic belief results from a mechanism analogous to all other beliefs. This mechanism aims at producing true beliefs. As a result, “it is entirely rational to  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 110.  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 309n21. 225  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 107. 226  “No particular experience is required, beyond experience sufficient to be enabled to grasp the proposition” (ibid., 104). 227  As a rule of thumb, Plantinga states that a proposition is true “if the object it is about has the property it predicates of that object, false otherwise” (ibid., 117). 228  Ibid., 136. 229  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 83. 230  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 92. 231  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 146–48. 232  Ibid., 199. 223

224

48 

D.-A. PETRE

believe in God without evidence,”233 just like a person believes that the past or other minds exist. Formation of Theological Knowledge The traditional evidentialist epistemology accepts the dichotomy between faith and reason in its presuppositional structure. Evidence is necessary to have justified belief. Plantinga points out that the “connection between justification and evidence has been at the center of the whole justificationist tradition in Western epistemology.”234 He perceives a problem in defining justification in deontological terms. If propositional evidence for belief is lacking, the cognitive powers are not functioning properly. For him, the warrant contains the proper function of these powers or rationality.235 The concept of warrant. Plantinga proposes warrant as a replacement for justification, “which is neither necessary nor sufficient for warrant.”236 To have knowledge, both “true belief and a certain degree of warrant”237 relative to the context are necessary. The concept of warrant differentiates between true belief and knowledge. The warrant is the “quality or quantity … enough of which distinguishes knowledge from mere belief.”238 It resembles “a central picture, a group of central paradigms—clear and unambiguously cases of knowledge—surrounded by a penumbral belt of analogically related concepts, concepts related by different analogies and standing in different degrees of closeness to the aboriginal paradigms.”239 The concept of warrant is characterized by four conditions, as follows. Proper function. The reasoning powers functioning properly always produce a warranted belief. The “proper function is fundamental to our central ways of thinking about knowledge,”240 writes Plantinga, who considers it vital for warrant. However, proper function is different from the epistemic warrant. There “seems to be no discernible functional 233  William J. Abraham, “Epistemology, Religious,” The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, 159. 234  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 88. 235  Ibid., 204. 236  Plantinga, Warrant: The Current Debate, 45. 237  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 9. 238  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 153. 239  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, ix. 240  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 154.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

49

r­ elationship between them,” as the warrant is not just a belief “produced by faculties working properly in an appropriate environment.”241 While Plantinga connects proper function with proper context, the latter “must be similar to that for which my epistemic powers have been designed.”242 Design plan. The second condition for warrant regards the design plan. Plantinga uses the term design with the meaning of purpose or functioning in a specific way. Concerning cognitive powers, it resembles “a set of specifications for a well-formed, properly functioning human being.”243 The design plan fosters the environmental responsiveness of cognitive powers. Plantinga integrates the various circumstances that accompany experience in the belief formation process. The experience thus has an essential epistemic role. When the cognitive powers are functioning “according to the design plan insofar as that segment of the design plan is aimed at producing true beliefs,”244 then belief is warranted. Truth-oriented. Not every part of the cognitive powers necessarily produces true beliefs. When specific “modules” of cognitive powers are “aimed at truth,”245 they work properly. These beliefs are not warranted if the cognitive faculties function properly but do not produce true beliefs. Reliability. The last condition of warrant is the reliability of the design plan. The degree of the probability of the truthfulness of the belief determines the degree of reliability. A good design plan is thus one in which “the objective probability of a belief’s being true, given that it is produced by cognitive faculties functioning in accord with the relevant module of the design plan, is high.”246 After presenting the above four conditions, Plantinga offers his tentative definition of warrant: A belief B has warrant for S if and only if the relevant segments (the segments involved in the production of B) are functioning properly in a cognitive environment sufficiently similar to that for which S’s faculties are designed; and the modules of the design plan governing the production of B are (1) aimed at truth, and (2) such that there is a high objective probability that a belief formed in accordance with those modules (in that sort of  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 8.  Ibid., 11. 243  Ibid., 14. 244  Ibid., 16, emphasis original. 245  Ibid., 16–17, emphasis original. 246  Ibid., 17–18. 241 242

50 

D.-A. PETRE

cognitive environment) is true; and the more firmly S believes B the more warrant B has for S.247

In his second volume, Warrant and Proper Function, Plantinga applies warrant to every epistemic area in which cognitive powers function. However, in the third volume, Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga presents his model of the epistemic warrant of theistic belief. He calls this model the Aquinas/Calvin (A/C) model. An enlarged version, the extended A/C model, comprises the whole of Christian belief.248 The Aquinas/Calvin model. Plantinga shows how theistic belief is true by outlining a model of theistic belief justification. This model is itself another proposition, different from the target proposition (theistic belief). When the model proposition is (1) possible and (2) true, the target proposition is also possible and true.249 Plantinga does not want to prove theistic belief but to show that the Aquinas/Calvin model is true. He addresses the de jure objection to theistic belief, arguing that it is non-viable. As a result, theistic belief is not irrational or unjustified. Only the de facto objection remains.250 At this point, Plantinga states that “very little of what we believe can be ‘demonstrated’ or ‘shown.’”251 As such, attempting to demonstrate such beliefs’ truth may prove futile. Plantinga affirms that the Aquinas/Calvin model has four primary characteristics:252 (1) is epistemically possible, (2) is beyond de jure objections, (3) is verisimilitudinous, and (4) given the theistic belief is true, the model is true. All four characteristics offer warrant to theistic belief for which Plantinga presupposes its truthfulness.253 As mentioned, he is not interested in demonstrating that this belief is true but that it has warrant.

 Ibid., 19.  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 168. 249  Ibid. 250  De jure objections refer to the claim that Christian belief, irrespective of its truth value, is irrational (ibid., ix). De facto objection claims that Christian belief is false (Alvin Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015], 30). 251  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 170. 252  Ibid., 168–70. 253  As Beilby argues, Plantinga’s model is not fideistic. “While he argues that faith should not be based on arguments, he acknowledges that faith can be affected by arguments” (James K. Beilby, “Plantinga’s Model of Warranted Christian Belief,” in Alvin Plantinga, ed. Deane-­ Peter Baker, Contemporary Philosophy in Focus [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007], 129). 247 248

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

51

Aquinas and Calvin’s understanding of the natural knowledge of God stands at the basis of this epistemic model. God implants this knowledge in each human as “an instinct, a natural human tendency, a disposition, a nisus to form beliefs about God.”254 Plantinga describes this “cognitive mechanism”—called by Calvin sensus divinitatis—as “a disposition or set of dispositions to form theistic beliefs in various circumstances, in response to the sorts of conditions or stimuli that trigger the working of this sense of divinity.”255 This belief-producing mechanism has six main features, as follows.256 Basicality. The sensus divinitatis produces beliefs that enjoy the property of basicality. These beliefs arise in certain circumstances, conditioned but not inferred from the latter. It is unnecessary to prove theistic belief, as it arises spontaneously in the mind when, for example, one admires the greatness of nature, its power, or its beauty. The arousal of theistic belief is basic, “in the sense that is not accepted on the evidential basis of other propositions.”257 The same goes for perceptual, memory, and a priori beliefs. Proper basicality with respect to justification. The sensus divinitatis produces and justifies basic theistic beliefs. These beliefs enjoy the property of proper basicality. When a person has a justified belief, it means that “(a) he is violating no epistemic duties and is within his epistemic rights in accepting it then and (b) his noetic structure is not defective by virtue of his then accepting it.”258 The theistic belief can be justified even in this deontological sense without propositional evidence. The conditions in which theistic belief appears form the ground of justification which is also relative to this belief.259 Proper basicality with respect to warrant. Plantinga connects proper basicality with the concept of warrant. He states that a belief “p is properly basic for S in this sense if and only if S accepts p in the basic way, and

 Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 171.  Ibid., 173. 256  For a full description, see ibid., 175–86. 257   Ibid., 175. See also Alvin Plantinga, “On ‘Proper Basicality,’” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75.3 (2007): 612–14. 258  Alvin Plantinga, “Reason and Belief in God,” in Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, ed. Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 79. 259  Ibid., 79–80. 254 255

52 

D.-A. PETRE

furthermore p has warrant for S, accepted in that way.”260 As mentioned above, a belief has warrant when designed, truth-aiming cognitive faculties produce it in a proper cognitive context. The sensus divinitatis is a cognitive mechanism designed by God and aimed at truth. When functioning properly, as per the divine design, it produces true theistic belief. In conclusion, theistic belief or Christian belief has warrant when a reliable cognitive function produces it. Natural knowledge of God. Plantinga differentiates sensus divinitatis from the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit. The latter is a particular divine work upon a postlapsarian human being. The former is “part of our original epistemic endowment”261 received from God. Consequently, the capacity to know God (i.e., forming theistic belief) is natural, a part of cognitive powers like perception and memory. Doxastic experience. The warrant for theistic belief is not perceptual. Plantinga agrees with William Alston that “if there is such a person as God, there could certainly be perception of him, and indeed is perception of him.”262 This perception of God often does not involve sensuous imagery but another kind of perception. Plantinga calls it “doxastic experience,” resembling the “experience one has when entertaining any proposition one believes.”263 Plantinga is reluctant to call this knowledge experiential or consider it a warrant source. Plantinga insists that Christian belief is formed in a certain experiential context under the dual influence of Scripture and Holy Spirit.264 He argues that experience is only “the occasion for the formation”265 of Christian belief. For this reason, evidence for belief is not based upon an argument derived from religious experience or inferred from other beliefs. The latter is the position of Alston, who considers religious experience as the ground of epistemic justification. When a person has the experience of awareness  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 178, emphases original.  Ibid., 180. 262  Ibid., 180–81, emphasis original. Alston argues that “direct experiential awareness of God is a mode of perception (though if it is to be veridical, God must exist and be properly related to the subject). One plausible requirement for veridical perception of God is that God must be among the causes of that experience; it is argued that we have no reason to rule out that possibility” (William P. Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience [1991; repr., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993], 5). 263  Ibid., 183. 264  Ibid., 256. 265  Ibid., 259, emphasis original. 260 261

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

53

or perception of God, that experience becomes the basis for rational justification. Plantinga disagrees with Alston that Christian belief receives warrant from experiential perception. Instead, the warrant comes by faith.266 As a result, theistic belief relates to the doxastic experience.267 Plantinga thus avoids the perceived trap of an evidentialist position and defends his model. The impact of sin. The sensus divinitatis has been affected by sin. As a result, this faculty “may be diseased and thus partly or wholly disabled.”268 Sin has a threefold cognitive impact. First, humans fail to know God. They reject the theistic belief (agnosticism) by replacing it with an incompatible belief (metaphysical naturalism).269 Second, due to hatred, hostility, or resentment, sin affects the capacity to know others. Third, sin affects oneself. Due to pride, humans have a distorted self-image and a perverted perception of their ability, capability, and value.270 The impact of sin extends beyond these three areas. It “induces in us a resistance to the deliverances of the sensus divinitatis.”271 As a result, the cognitive mechanism does not function properly and cannot provide warrant for Christian beliefs. Hence the need for a repairing process to restore the sensus divinitatis.272 In order to warrant specific Christian beliefs, Plantinga develops an extended Aquinas/Calvin model. The extended Aquinas/Calvin model. The Aquinas/Calvin model offers warrant for theistic belief. However, this is insufficient to warrant specific Christian beliefs due to the malfunction of sensus divinitatis. The reflection of imago Dei pales in both intellect and will. In consequence, even if humans have warrant for belief in the existence of God, they cannot know the personal God. In restoring his image, God intends to communicate his plan cognitively to humans. By accepting this plan, humans can have their sensus divinitatis restored. As a result, they can know God and  Ibid., 286–87.  Ibid., 183. 268  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 184, emphasis original. 269  It does not follow that theistic belief is not present: it is there but rejected or replaced. Plantinga deals with agnosticism and skepticism on pages 218–27 and with naturalism on pages 227–40 of his Warranted Christian Belief. For a developed argument against the idea that naturalism can accommodate morality, see Alvin Plantinga, “Naturalism, Theism, Obligation and Supervenience,” Faith and Philosophy 27.3 (2010): 247–72. 270  Plantinga discusses these general effects in Warranted Christian Belief, 213–16. 271  Ibid., 205, emphasis original. 272  Ibid., 240. 266 267

54 

D.-A. PETRE

have epistemic justification for their beliefs. The description of warranting Christian beliefs is part of Plantinga’s extended Aquinas/Calvin model. This model has three fundamental elements: (1) Scripture, (2) Holy Spirit, and (3) faith. These elements form what Plantinga calls a “three-tiered cognitive process.”273 Faith. Because faith is the restorative means of sensus divinitatis, Plantinga gives it prominence. Starting with Calvin’s definition of faith as “a firm and certain knowledge,” Plantinga emphasizes that faith has a cognitive aspect. It allows a person “to know and hence believe something or other.”274 The cognitive aspect of faith allows humans to have their relationship with God restored, as it instantiates the gospel message to them.275 Faith has an affective facet in addition to the cognitive one, which refers to the orientation of the will. Therefore, faith brings not just the belief that God exists but also the belief in God, which entails trust and love.276 As a result, faith “is a belief-producing process,”277 qualifying for knowledge. Scripture. The teachings of the Bible represent the propositional content of faith. The Bible is mainly a divine propositional communication, called a “divine testimony”278 in the extended model. The testimonial propositions are basic beliefs: “on reading or hearing a certain teaching t, one forms the belief that t, that very teaching, is true and from God.”279 Therefore, the truth-aimed cognitive powers functioning properly according to design form Christian beliefs. In this way, Christian belief is warranted. Holy Spirit. Conviction about a true belief appears with the formation of beliefs about specific scriptural propositions. The internal instigation of the Holy Spirit brings this conviction. The Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writers to communicate the revealed propositions. He enables human beings to see the truth of scriptural propositions. In addition, the Holy Spirit restores the divine image affectively and cognitively. He does not only produce Christian knowledge but also imprints this knowledge into

 Ibid., 243.  Ibid., 244, emphasis original. 275  Ibid., 248–49. 276  Ibid., 292–94. 277  Ibid., 256. 278  Ibid., 251. 279  Ibid., 260. 273 274

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

55

the believer’s heart, producing “the right affections.”280 For this reason, faith becomes more than mere knowledge. It moves the will to love God and to manifest this love accordingly.

Postfoundationalism The third representative evangelical epistemological model is postfoundationalism. Its leading proponent, Grenz, profoundly influenced postconservative evangelicalism.281 Grenz’s model is apologetic at heart, as the previous two models also are. He attempts to critically appropriate the postmodern context “by embodying the Christian faith in ways that the new generation can understand.”282 Recognizing the communitarian postmodernist emphasis as a signpost toward what he deems as a better contemporary evangelical epistemology, Grenz makes community central to his proposal.283 In the formation of theological knowledge, there is an interplay of sources (Scripture, tradition, culture) within a Trinitarian structure, having a communitarian focus and being eschatologically oriented.284 For Grenz, the communitarian focus reflects “a more profound understanding of epistemology,”285 as one’s community mediates knowledge formation. The Holy Spirit uses the biblical narrative to inspire an intra-­ communitarian linguistic world that reflects God’s purposes for human life. In consequence, in the process of knowledge formation, Grenz gives primacy to “the world-constructing language of the Christian community.”286 In what follows, before presenting Grenz’s postfoundationalism, his ontological and epistemological assumptions are outlined.

 Ibid., 293.  See, for example, Jason S. Sexton, The Trinitarian Theology of Stanley J. Grenz (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013); Tidball, Harris, and Sexton, Revisioning, Renewing, Rediscovering; and Smith, “Stanley J. Grenz,” 132–49. 282  Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, 10. 283  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 208. 284  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 24–25. 285  Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 73. 286  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 53–54. 280 281

56 

D.-A. PETRE

Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions Reality. While accepting that there is “a certain undeniable givenness” of reality, Grenz does not detach it from the “socially and linguistically constructed reality.”287 However, he does not limit his position to social constructivism. In what he calls eschatological realism, he projects the objectivity of reality into a divinely purposed future. The future reality is more real than the present one. Also, it is a reality in which God invites humans to participate in building a present that reflects his eschatological will.288 Language mediates human participation and receives its impetus from the Holy Spirit’s use of the biblical narrative to create the community which inhabits the created reality.289 In Grenz’s view, God is separate from reality. His otherness is intrinsic, as he would have existed if the world had not existed. Beyond the “unity-­ in-­multiplicity or the multiplicity-in-unity disclosed in the revelational saga of the divine name,”290 one cannot postulate God’s existence. As a result, Grenz sees both divine oneness and otherness as the fundamental principle of reality. Truth. As theology is a quest for truth, theologians attempt to describe it using limited analogical models. Given that “the human mind can grasp something concerning reality,” comments Grenz, “a theological system can to some extent represent truth.”291 Criticizing the foundationalist emphasis on the truth of each proposition about reality yet remaining committed to “the quest for epistemological certainty,” Grenz accepts a basic coherentist premise that truth “is primarily a predicate of the belief system as a whole, rather than of particular assertions in isolation.”292 Truth is also of the future ideal and less of the actual reality, thus having an eschatological character. In both these aspects, Grenz follows 287  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 254. See Stanley J. Grenz, “Beyond Foundationalism: Is a Nonfoundationalist Evangelical Theology Possible?,” CSR 30.1 (2000): 80. Grenz thus accepts the social constructivism thesis critically. For details, see Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 139. 288  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 254. 289  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 53–54. 290  Stanley J.  Grenz, The Named God and the Question of Being: A Trinitarian Theo-­ Ontology, The Matrix of Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 331. 291  Stanley J.  Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 11. 292  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 200.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

57

Pannenberg.293 In addition to coherentism, Grenz describes truth in pragmatic and Wittgensteinian terms, filtered through Lindbeck’s cultural-­ linguistic approach.294 Grenz moves beyond Lindbeck, rejecting a universal religious experience and focusing on the specific milieu of each religious experience. For Grenz, something is true when the ideal is actualized or lived within a local communitarian context.295 Integrating the postmodern sensibilities, Grenz describes truth as having four characteristics.296 First, truth is participatory, involving the entire being, not only the rational part. Second, given that the community represents reality, truth is constructed socially. Third, the truth has a narrative character, and it “emerges as the hearers are drawn into the narrative,”297 inhabiting its world, and, as a result, they receive an impetus to enact it in their lives. Fourth, the truth has a communal, pragmatic nature, consisting “in the ground-rules that facilitate the well being of a community.”298 Belief. For Grenz, the demise of classical foundationalism necessitates another model. However, he does reject the foundationalist concerns. Instead, “the Christian interpretive framework is ‘basic’ for theology.”299 This framework, or belief system, is inherited and shapes human lives as it provides identity and communitarian relatedness. This conceptual mosaic of beliefs facilitates the experience of knowing God.300 By describing the Christian conceptual framework as a mosaic or a web, Grenz embraces a coherentist epistemology. Hence, “beliefs form a system in which each is supported by its neighbors and, ultimately, by its presence within the whole”301 that has meaning. The resulting theological task is

293  Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991–1998), 1:22–23. 294  In Lindbeck’s postliberal view, “A religion can be viewed as a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought” (George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age [1984; repr., Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009], 19). 295  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 203, 211, 224. 296  Stanley J. Grenz, “Participating in What Frees: The Concept of Truth in the Postmodern Context,” RevExp 100.4 (2003): 687–93. 297  Ibid., 691. 298  Ibid., 692. 299  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 211. 300  Grenz, Community of God, 7. 301  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 213, 200.

58 

D.-A. PETRE

apologetic: to explicate this framework and to demonstrate its power to elucidate human existence.302 Epistemic sources. Grenz focuses on Scripture, tradition, and culture as the starting point of knowledge formation. The Scripture forms the cognitive framework of the Christian community’s faith. Nevertheless, Scripture needs interpretation, which, in turn, is influenced by theological, cultural, and historical assumptions.303 Hence, Grenz needs to integrate tradition and culture as sources of theology, with the resulting doctrinal formulations always normed by Scripture.304 Scripture. Grenz insists that rational arguments are not necessary to validate the authorial voice of the Scripture for theology. The Bible functions as a “Spirit-produced document through which the Spirit continues to speak.”305 The fact that the final authority is the voice of the Spirit through the Scripture “does not vitiate against acknowledging that the Bible remains scripture apart from our personal hearing of the Spirit’s voice through it.”306 The authority of the Bible is not dependent on human hearing. Grenz’s statement reflects a particular understanding of the revelation-inspiration process. The Scripture is the witnessing message of God’s self-revelation.307 However, he is critical of attempts to look for a message behind the biblical text, choosing instead to focus on the Spirit’s appropriation of the text to communicate it to the present Christian community.308 Tradition. The second epistemic source of theology is the theological heritage or tradition. Tradition functions both as a hermeneutical context and as a hermeneutical trajectory for the constructive efforts of theologians. Central to this context and trajectory is the “eschatological directedness of the Spirit’s work in guiding the community of faith into the purposes and intentions of God that form a divinely given telos ultimately realized only at the consummation.”309 Tradition is not opposed to Scripture in Grenz’s view. He sees Scripture in “an ongoing and dynamic  Grenz, “Beyond Foundationalism,” 78–79.  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 112. 304  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 353. 305  Grenz, Community of God, 17. See also Stanley J. Grenz, “The Spirit and the Word: The World-Creating Function of the Text,” ThTo 57.3 (2000): 357–74. 306  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 68. 307  Grenz, Community of God, 17. 308  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 74. 309  Ibid., 127, emphasis original. 302 303

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

59

relationship with the Christian tradition, as well as with the cultural milieu from which particular readings of the text emerge.”310 Ignoring the Christian tradition means accepting only one type of tradition: one’s own. The Bible is the final product of a traditioning process, wherein various oral and written sources are recognized as authoritative by the faith community. Hence, Scripture and tradition have their authority derived from the activity of the Spirit.311 Culture. The third epistemic source is the “thought-forms of contemporary culture.”312 Grenz understands culture as “our portrayal of the meaning structure, shared sense of personal identity, and socially constructed world in which we see ourselves living and ministering.”313 Grenz chooses a conversational approach involving three interrelated steps: hearing, scrutinizing, and responding to culture to go beyond correlation and contextualization.314 One needs to interact with culture because the manifestations of the Spirit of God in the world have cultural dimensions. The voice of the Spirit “speaks the Word through the word within the particularity of the hearers’ context.”315 This particularity makes theologies local but united by their Trinitarian content, communitarian focus, and eschatological orientation.316 Formation of Theological Knowledge Grenz accepts the role theological propositions play. However, the doctrinal formulations are second-order propositions offering an analogous representation of reality. The theological propositions orient toward the faith community, having a practical purpose. As such, the task of theology is bifocal: to construct and apply the Christian faith.317 Theology engenders the proclamation and the living of the gospel by the faith community.318 It is from within the faith community that the theologian reflects on the  Ibid., 112; Grenz, Community of God, 19.  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 115, 117. 312  Grenz, Community of God, 19. 313  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 158, emphasis original. 314  Ibid., 159–60. 315  Ibid., 163. Cf. Stanley J. Grenz, “Culture and Spirit: The Role of Cultural Context in Theological Reflection,” AsTJ 55.2 (2000): 46. 316  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 166. 317  Grenz, Community of God, 25. 318  Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 77. 310 311

60 

D.-A. PETRE

community’s faith. The articulation is within the cultural thought-forms to show “the implications, relevance, and application of the Christian confession to life in that society and that historical context.”319 This pragmatic focus frames Grenz’s discussion about theistic and Christian beliefs. God’s existence and knowability cannot be separated. For him, “The experience of knowing God, more so than any intellectual argument, confirms our claim that God exists.”320 Nevertheless, Grenz chooses to start with the reality of God, moving then to his knowability. The reality of God. The contemporary Christian community confesses the divine reality within its historical situatedness, following a biblically derived tradition going back to the NT faith community. Later, during the Christian era, the focus on divine reality was replaced by the rational proofs of divine existence due to the interaction with Greek philosophy. In a veiled criticism of evidentialist foundationalism, Grenz notes that the move of these arguments from the catechetical realm to the apologetic one sowed the seeds of atheism.321 Grenz accepts apologetics but balances it with the personal experience of encountering God. Unless the Christian community embodies a faith commitment, a mere intellectual demonstration is no avail.322 The communitarian warrant of the reality of God is thus the Christian experience. The proclamation of the gospel facilitates this experience, which, in turn, has “a specifically Christian interpretive framework that views the world in connection with the God of the Bible, together with the biblical narrative of God at work bringing creation to its divinely destined goal.”323 Grenz’s final justification for the theistic belief is in the communally embodied biblical narrative. The knowability of God. In addition to the confession that God exists, the Christian community testifies that it knows God. From his coherentist viewpoint, Grenz notes that the knowability of God confirms the questions regarding God’s reality.324 However, the human knowledge of God is partial.325 “Not even revelation dispels the divine incomprehensibility,” writes Grenz, “for even in the divine self-disclosure, God remains  Grenz, Community of God, 12.  Ibid., 29. 321  Ibid., 36. 322  Ibid., 42. 323  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 233. 324  Grenz, Community of God, 43. 325  Ibid., 45. 319 320

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

61

the ­hidden God.”326 Even so, the knowledge humans have is of God himself as he is. Grenz recognizes the rational and experiential approaches to divine knowability, but his argument takes a different path. First, God is not an epistemic object but a subject. This assertion has three implications.327 First, humans cannot know God unless he reveals himself to them. Second, knowing God is more than knowing about God. Third, humans are epistemic objects, not subjects in the divine-human relationship. The second argumentative strand is that God is known in history. Critical to the twentieth-century encounter models for their individualistic and presentist accents, Grenz highlights that “the present encounter is significant insofar as it is connected with the broader sweep of what God is doing in the whole of human history.”328 Given that the divine purpose is both proleptic and eschatological, the present self-disclosure of God is partial, and the future one complete.329 The third one is closely connected to this argumentative strand, focusing on the concept of community. The divine historical telos is the creation of a community, as reflected in the biblical narrative.330 In Grenz’s view, the biblical narrative conferred the first Christian community identity, values, and worldview as it participated in it. This communitarian embodiment was then transmitted until it reached the present community. Each individual who had the experience of being encountered by God participates in the Christian community and shares its transformative framework. As a result, concludes Grenz, “we know that we have encountered God in that we have been brought to share in community.”331 This pragmatic participation warrants God’s existence and his knowability as knowledge. God as community. In Grenz’s argument, the community witnesses the biblical God who reveals himself as a Trinity, thus allowing for a description of God as a community.332 The Trinity forms the core of the Christian testimony and represents its uniqueness in theological  Grenz, The Named God, 327.  Grenz, Community of God, 49–50. 328  Ibid., 50. 329  Ibid., 51. 330  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 232. 331  Grenz, Community of God, 52. Cf. Stanley J. Grenz, “Celebrating Eternity: Christian Worship as a Foretaste of Participation in the Triune God,” AsTJ 60.1 (2005): 51. 332  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 232. 326 327

62 

D.-A. PETRE

conversations.333 The knowledge of God as triune is a specific Christian belief that arose from the experience of the Christian community in the first centuries of the current era. Grenz commends the church for its formulation in the face of various misunderstandings, even if it is not explicit in the Bible. The interplay between the threefold epistemic sources reappears. In its cultural milieu, the faith community accepted the biblical narrative and integrated it with the received tradition regarding the one God, the lordship of Jesus, and the Spirit’s presence.334 The exact process happened generationally, and Grenz himself follows it when tackling the triune nature of God. Divine name as self-disclosure. In his postmodern cultural context, Grenz accepts the demise of onto-theology.335 However, he perceives this as an opportunity for projecting theology as theo-ontology.336 For this, Grenz turns to the biblical witness of God, whose name, I am of Exod 3:14, reveals his triune nature. In the OT, God’s name reveals his active and salvific presence in the narrative of Israel, present in the broader narrative of God’s relationship with the entire world. In the NT, the Johannine literature presents Christ as the incarnate I am, thus opening a broader horizon into what God’s covenantal be-ing or presence means, both for the present and the future.337 The Spirit is also included in the divine name, observes Grenz, as in the biblical book of Revelation, “John lays the groundwork for a Trinitarian understanding of the I am divine self-designation.”338 Divine noetic activity. The revelation of the divine name has critical ontological implications for Grenz. After a detailed discussion of the name in the Matthean baptismal formula, Grenz concludes that the narrative of the divine name “is the saga of the relationships among the three persons of the Trinity.”339 Grenz brings to the fore three aspects of this saga. First, the divine persons share the divine name resulting from the divine self-­ naming, the latter being a triune action. Second, the mutual sharing and acting reflect a communal aspect of the divine name, pointing to the intraTrinitarian eternal be-ing.340 Third, the “dynamic of the divine naming

 Grenz, Community of God, 53.  Ibid., 54. 335  Grenz notes that onto-theology just uses the biblical narrative to reveal its connection with the philosophical being and then deserts it (Grenz, The Named God, 250). 336  Grenz, The Named God, 130. 337  Ibid., 208. 338  Ibid., 237. 339  Ibid., 270. 340  Ibid., 283, 334. 333 334

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

63

becomes the noetic act of the eternal Trinity,” which entails “an eternal dynamic of knowing and being known.”341 Divine agapeic activity. Using Augustine’s triune description of love, Grenz indicates that the Trinitarian love’s mutuality reveals a focus on the other as a person, establishing a personal and intimate relationship.342 Grenz indicates that the placement of the noetic perspective within the agapeic one “prevents the deification of being-as-knowledge.”343 The being-as-knowledge constricts theological knowledge to propositional knowledge, thus giving primacy to philosophy over theology, ending in onto-theology. Understanding God as a community implies that theological knowledge is communitarian. For this reason, argues Grenz, Trinity should be accepted as the structural motif of Christian theology.344 Person-in-community. If the Trinity represents Christian theology’s content or structure, the community represents its integrative motif.345 As reflected in the biblical narrative, the divine intent to create a community indicates the communitarian character of theological knowledge. Central to this narrative is the divine presence with humans to create a community.346 Hence, human nature is essentially relational. Relational self. Grenz perceives the demise of the individual self, replaced in postmodernism with a focus on relationships.347 However, this focus is “highly decentered and fluid … a bundle of fluctuating ­relationships and momentary preferences.”348 As a corrective, Grenz uses the biblical conceptual framework, which describes the human self as oriented toward  Ibid., 334–35.  Ibid., 339. Grenz indicates Emmanuel Levinas as a corrective for the Augustinian approach. The “relationship with the Other as interlocutor,” writes Levinas, “this relation with an existent—precedes all ontology” (Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans. Alphonso Lingis [1969; repr., Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 2007], 48). The knower and the known do not coalesce but remain in a knowledge relationship. 343  Grenz, The Named God, 339. 344  Echoing their threefold epistemic sources, Grenz and Franke argue that “theology must be trinitarian because this structure reflects the biblical narrative, dominates the Christian tradition, and resonates with the cultural moment” (Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 172). 345  See ibid., 203–38. 346  Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 156. 347  Stanley J. Grenz, “The Social God and the Relational Self: Toward a Theology of the Imago Dei in the Postmodern Context,” HBT 24.1 (2002): 41. For a description of the demise of the individual or modern self, see Grenz’s longer work of which this article is a synopsis, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, The Matrix of Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 58–137. 348  Grenz, The Social God, 136. 341 342

64 

D.-A. PETRE

a divinely intended eschatological destiny. This future-oriented human destiny entails a narrative wherein God’s be-ing assists in restoring imago Dei.349 According to Grenz, the two creation stories from Genesis (1:27 and 2:18–25) point to an innate incompleteness of individual sexual existence. It means that sexual differentiation goes beyond the surface of reproduction, indicating “the potential for wholeness in relationship to others that parallels this fundamental individual incompleteness.”350 Consequently, the individual self is relational, yearning to bond with other human beings. Using Bonhoeffer’s analogia relationis via Barth, Grenz notes that the human relational self is analogous to the divine intra-Trinitarian relationality.351 The relational self does not limit to the existential I-thou relationship. According to the biblical narrative, which Grenz frequently adduces in his argument, the relational self is eschatologically oriented. As such, it engenders the concept of community, which in the Scripture is ecclesial.352 Ecclesial self. For Grenz, the imago Dei does not find its complete reflection in the human marital union. Citing the NT as evidence, he indicates that the true likeness manifests itself in the new eschatological humanity, which is represented proleptically by the Christian community.353 Grenz describes the concept of community as “persons-in-­ relationship.”354 It was the original divine intent, but sin disrupted the community intended by God.355 Nevertheless, throughout the biblical narrative, God is described as a community of reciprocal love, always ready to restore love within human relational brokenness. This restoration “is most clearly evident in the love that is evoked in the face-to-face encounter with the Other in the other”356 within the community. “As we embody the biblical vision of God’s new community,” notes Grenz, “we reflect the  Grenz, “The Social God,” 42.  Grenz, The Social God, 278. 351  Ibid., 294. Bonhoeffer argues that “the likeness, the analogia, of humankind to God is not analogia entis but analogia relationis” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3, ed. Martin Rüter, Ilse Tödt, and John W. De Gruchy, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works 3 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004], 65, emphasis original). 352  Grenz, The Social God, 303. 353  Ibid., 321. 354  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 222. 355  Behind the biblical narrative, Grenz pinpoints sin as the shattering of community. For him, “Sin is essentially both the lack of and the loss of community. … In its essence, sin is also whatever disrupts and seeks to destroy the community God intends to establish. Summarily stated, sin is the destruction of community” (Grenz, Community of God, 187). 356  Grenz, The Named God, 338. 349 350

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

65

character of God,”357 the imago Dei. This experience allows humans to participate in the “narrative of the relationality of the Trinitarian persons”358 as seen in Christ’s earthly life. Grenz connects this participation to the Pauline concept of being in Christ. The Holy Spirit constitutes the ecclesial self as each individual participates in the communal relationality in Christ.359 This participation, mediated by the Holy Spirit, results in theological knowledge.

Conflicting Models Each of the above evangelical models, while attempting to proffer a good description of theological knowledge formation, faces its challenges. According to Horace Fairlamb, the presence of ideal certainty, limited range of basic beliefs, and use of derivative deduction discredit evidentialist foundationalism.360 He points out that evidentialist foundationalism entails the concept of the given, thus falling under its criticism.361 The given refers to non-inferential beliefs accepted as basic beliefs. It points to a “potential gap between justification and truth.”362 To avoid this criticism, Geisler argues that some beliefs are self-evident. For example, theistic and Christian beliefs are inferred from self-evident first principles. Nevertheless, the gap remains. Basic beliefs are self-evident to reason, not external to it. Reason becomes the instrument for assessing reason. Therefore, the evidentialist model is perceived as self-refuting, lacking criteria for non-inferential beliefs.363 Representing proper functionalism—a moderate form of foundationalism—Plantinga states that non-inferential beliefs do not need evidential 357  Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 238. Reflecting on the biblical perspective, Grenz notes that “humans fulfill their purpose as destined to be the imago dei by loving after the manner of the triune God” (Grenz, The Social God, 320). 358  Grenz, The Named God, 338. 359  Grenz, The Social God, 331. 360  Horace Fairlamb, “Sanctifying Evidentialism,” RelS 46.1 (2010): 63–64. As Plantinga’s model reveals, not just self-evident beliefs are basic but all properly functional beliefs. 361  Pojman, What Can We Know?, 110. 362  W.  Jay Wood, Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous, Contours of Christian Philosophy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 141. 363  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 93. As a result, the model can lead to skepticism regarding perceptual beliefs (Pojman, What Can We Know?, 107). For a defense of self-­ evident truths and an exposition of self-refuting statements, see Geisler’s articles under the titles “Self-evident Truths” and “Self-Refuting Statements” in BECA.

66 

D.-A. PETRE

support as they are similar to other beliefs individuals have. Given that “when confronted with a certain kind of perceptual display, we immediately and noninferentially form a corresponding belief,”364 it follows that the range of basic beliefs is broader. Therefore, argues Plantinga, theistic belief can also be considered a properly basic belief, as belief in other minds, for example. However, his critics argue that if theistic belief is basic, then any belief can be.365 Moreover, “religious beliefs of the typical Christian are more likely based on a complex mixture of personal, social, and evidential factors”366 in addition to the Holy Spirit. Plantinga seems to ignore, for example, the epistemic role of the Christian community.367 Given the inherent problems of evidentialist foundationalism and proper functionalism, Grenz’s postfoundationalism proposes a coherent model of epistemic justification. Consequently, he offers a prominent epistemic role for the community. Theological knowledge becomes communal. However, in doing so, Grenz’s approach is criticized for giving the interpreter of Scripture—or Scripture’s use by the Spirit—more authority than the divinely inspired authors.368 It reveals that even if the conflict of interpretations is first epistemological in the evangelical crucible, it has theological facets.

 Wood, Epistemology, 94, emphasis original.  John Greco, “Reformed Epistemology,” in Routledge Companion of Philosophy of Religion, ed. Chad Meister and Paul Copan, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2013), 692. This so-called Great Pumpkin objection has several variations. For Plantinga’s refutation, see Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 342–51. The second criticism is that proper functionalism seems to warrant every belief system (Chad V.  Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion [New York: Routledge, 2009], 163). For Plantinga’s defense of exclusivism, see Alvin Plantinga, “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism,” in The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity, ed. Philip L. Quinn and Kevin Meeker (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 172–92. 366  Beilby, “Plantinga’s Model,” 148. As such, Beilby questions the applicability of Plantinga’s model. Connected to this first objection, Beilby also questions the warrant of the internal instigations of the Spirit and points to the potential failure of Plantinga’s extended model. For details, see ibid., 151–56. 367  Although, as Beilby courteously notes, “his silence should not necessarily be taken as an implicit devaluation of the topic” (ibid., 141). 368  A. B. Caneday, “Is Theological Truth Functional or Propositional? Postconservatism’s Use of Language Games and Speech-Act Theory,” in Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times, ed. Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 157. 364 365

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

67

Exploring a Possible Resolution Every approach that claims to treat Scripture as central should give prominence to the Bible. Several theologians indicate that the way forward in finding an epistemological perspective is to include a canonical approach. Two such undertakings illustrate this trend. First, Kevin J. Vanhoozer builds “a canonical linguistic approach to Christian theology.”369 He is critical of evidential foundationalism, explaining that “the tendency to equate propositions with statements leads to a reductionist picture of language,” wherein the theologian attempts to “package the Bible in a conceptual scheme that is tidier than the original.”370 In Vanhoozer’s perception, one needs to redefine the propositional aspect of revelation. While recognizing the importance of cognitive-propositional aspects of evangelical theology, Vanhoozer proposes a theo-dramatic model of knowledge formation that attempts to offer “an integrative perspective within which to relate propositions, experience, and narrative.”371 As a result, Vanhoozer describes the formation of theological knowledge as a proper response to God’s cognitive and covenantal contact, resulting in personal knowledge, which he describes as communion in “an active relationship.”372 Vanhoozer’s approach opens a new way of doing theology, which departs from Grenz’s proposal.373 With Daniel J. Treier, Vanhoozer argues that evangelical theology is “the pursuit of wisdom, via ‘theological interpretation of Scripture,’ in the drama of church’s worship and witness,” thus having “the virtues of being scripturally central and holistically oriented, embracing all the ways in which Christian persons and

 See Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine.  Ibid., 87–88. 371  Ibid., 101. 372  Ibid., 301–02. 373  Vanhoozer focuses his criticism on Grenz’s philosophy of speech acts, indicating that “Grenz mistakenly identifies the Spirit’s illocutionary act as ‘speaking through Scripture,’” resulting in a terminological confusion (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002], 198). Nevertheless, Vanhoozer recognizes that maybe “Grenz does not intend to say that the Spirit performs specific illocutionary acts, but if so, it is not clear how these acts are related to the actual propositional content and illocutionary force of the appropriated human discourse” (ibid., 198n82). 369 370

68 

D.-A. PETRE

congregations are called to mirror the biblical Christ.”374 Vanhoozer and Treier consider that this proposal “requires refining the nuances of our ‘canonical’ commitment to biblical theology, reading with the rule of faith and remembering our ‘creedal’ heritage(s) more faithfully, as well as responding to the ‘cultural’ contexts of our biblical interpretation more discerningly and creatively.”375 As one well-known proposal of the canonical approach in evangelical theology,376 Vanhoozer’s model has several limitations, as Anthony Thiselton indicates.377 From a biblical perspective, Thiselton observes, practice is more than living out doctrine, and while “Vanhoozer offers many constructive insights, … often these lack a wider context and a longer explanation of how they might be followed through.”378 Moreover, Vanhoozer may have overplayed the usage of his metaphor of theology as drama, downplaying other biblical images.379 Second, while agreeing with Vanhoozer that the biblical canon has intrinsic authority, John C. Peckham focuses his canonical methodology upon the context of the text itself to “avoid extracanonical presuppositions.”380 Peckham maintains that “whereas the questions and tools of philosophical analysis may be used, the ‘data’ and ‘answers’ of philosophical systems are not afforded epistemological weight but always subjected to the canon.”381 Peckham’s canonical approach facilitates the

374  Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Daniel J. Treier, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture: A Mere Evangelical Account, Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 40. 375  Ibid., 42. 376  Peckham, Canonical Theology, 73n3. 377  For a presentation and evaluation of Vanhoozer’s model, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 73–80. 378  Ibid., 77. 379  Thiselton affirms that he is “cautious about extrapolating quite so much from a single model or picture, namely that of doctrine as drama. I see this as one picture or resource among many others” (ibid., 104, emphasis original). In Theology and the Mirror of Scripture, with Daniel J. Treier, Vanhoozer attempts to overcome this limitation by using the more biblically grounded metaphor of a mirror for describing theology (Vanhoozer, Theology and the Mirror, 19, 57–63). 380  Peckham, The Love of God, 55–56. His methodology has several steps: (1) identifying the issues; (2) inductive reading of the canon; (3) analyzing the canonical data; (4) constructing a minimal model from the data; (5) systematizing the model by indicating the minimal theo-ontological implications; (6) remaining open to further investigations (Peckham, Canonical Theology, 246–57). 381  Peckham, The Love of God, 57.

2  THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE FORMATION IN CONTEMPORARY… 

69

exploration of the canon to delineate the epistemic categories necessary for a broad description of theological knowledge formation in Scripture. Nevertheless, in his theological study, Peckham realized that he needed to move beyond traditional biblical analysis. Hence, “it became apparent,” he writes, “that I needed to conduct my own semantic analysis more rigorously” by investigating “various terms via a synchronic-canonical approach that considered every usage of every word that was readily identifiable as descriptive of divine love and many others that impinged significantly on the concept or related concepts.”382 While Peckham talks from the traditional standpoint, he nevertheless points to the need to transcend traditional word studies, which he does by using an inductive canonical reading. In addition, Peckham notes that “the abstraction of a canonical conceptual framework” is complex, and he does not “currently see any way to abstract a canonical conceptual framework without careful and ongoing trial and error.”383 The way forward is indeed canonical. Nevertheless, one cannot deny that traditional semantic approaches created “a barrier between semantics and the workings of the mind in general,”384 as Peckham suggests. Therefore, integrating the insights of the traditional semantic analysis with newer methods appears to be beneficial. Such integration may help to connect the conceptual framework of the Bible with the current conceptual framework of the reader without denying the challenges of analyzing languages like biblical Hebrew or Greek. The relatively new field of cognitive linguistics proffers such a conceptual connection. Arguing that “meaning resides in conceptualization”385 yet is not separated from the “‘embodied’ human experience,”386 cognitive linguistics represents the general approach chosen in the present study to explore the biblical canon relative to its

 Peckham, Canonical Theology, 251.  Ibid., 257. 384  Michael D.  Rasmussen, Conceptualizing Distress in Psalms: A Form-Critical and Cognitive Semantic Study of the ‫ צרר‬Word Group (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018), 10. 385  Ronald W. Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 43. 386  Nicole L. Tilford, Sensing World, Sensing Wisdom: The Cognitive Foundation of Biblical Metaphors, AIL 31 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 11. 382 383

70 

D.-A. PETRE

conceptualization of theological knowledge formation.387 A description of the cognitive approach I chose here represents the next chapter’s topic. It includes the application of this approach, using ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω as the two prototypical terms that open a cognitive window into the canonical conceptualization of theological knowledge.

387  As Evans, Bergen, and Zinken indicate, a vital part of a cognitive-linguistic approach is “investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure encoded by language” (Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen, and Jörg Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise: An Overview,” in The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K.  Bergen, and Jörg Zinken, Advances in Cognitive Linguistics [London: Equinox, 2007], 5).

CHAPTER 3

‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω as Prototypical Case Studies for the Formation of Theological Knowledge in the Bible

After I described in the previous chapter the epistemological outlook of Geisler, Plantinga, and Grenz, in this chapter, I present a cognitive analysis of theological knowledge formation in the Bible using ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω as prototypical case studies. Assuming that a canonically derived epistemological framework derives from the biblical text, I need to explore how the Scripture conceptualizes the formation of theological knowledge. This exploration entails analyzing the meaning of the linguistic units used to symbolize the concept. As I explain below, cognitive linguistics provides the tools for grasping the conceptual meaning of a text. The resulting epistemological implications outline a minimal epistemological model derived from the biblical canon. There are three perspectives on the study of meaning.1 The first is the language-world perspective, wherein meaning is the relationship between linguistic units and the world. The second is the language-internal perspective, wherein meaning surges within the relations between linguistics units. The third perspective is the cognitive one, wherein meaning is conceptualization. With semasiological and onomasiological approaches,2 the language-­ world perspective is helpful when dealing with linguistic units designating  John R. Taylor, Cognitive Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 186–87.  As Geeraerts explains, “Semasiology takes its starting point in the word as a form, and charts the meanings that the word can occur with; onomasiology takes its starting point in a 1 2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3_3

71

72 

D.-A. PETRE

actual entities and less valuable when the entities are abstract. Moreover, such an approach tends to minimize the role of mental construal with its embedded assumptions. In addition, it limits meaning to the relation between linguistic units and their referents.3 The language-internal perspective, irrespective of its paradigmatic or syntagmatic approaches,4 faces similar challenges. If meaning is limited to internal linguistic relations, the connection to the conceptual scheme of the world is lost.5 The cognitive-­ linguistics approach manages to integrate the reader’s mental construal— his or her presuppositions—with the conceptual scheme the text conveys, thus bridging the semantics-pragmatics divide.

Introducing Cognitive Linguistics Cognitive linguistics comprises several approaches grouped under cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar, with the latter building upon the conclusions of the former.6 Cognitive semantics focuses on knowledge representation and meaning construction.7 Investigating the construction of meaning entails a study of linguistic units, hence cognitive grammar. As such, cognitive semantics is in a close relationship with cognitive

concept, and investigates by which different expressions the concept can be designated, or named” (Dirk Geeraerts, Theories of Lexical Semantics [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 23). 3  Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 188–89. 4  Paradigmatic relations occur between various linguistic expressions (e.g., synonyms, hyponyms, antonyms, and entailment). The syntagmatic relations co-occur within a linguistic expression (e.g., collocations). For details, see ibid., 190–91. For a detailed description and a criticism of such relations in biblical Hebrew, see Stephen L.  Shead, Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics, BibInt 108 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 13–32. 5  Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 192. 6  Knowledge representation forms the conceptual structure while meaning construction refers to conceptualization (Evans, Bergen, and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise,” 5). The description of cognitive linguistics here is dependent upon Dan-Adrian Petre, “Grasping the Conceptual Meaning of the Biblical Text: A Cognitive Analysis of ‫ידע‬,” DavarLogos 19.2 (2020): 1–8. 7  Evans, Bergen, and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise,” 5. “To take a cognitive approach to semantics,” write Evans and Green, “is to attempt to understand how this linguistic system relates to the conceptual system, which in turn relates to embodied experience. The concerns of cognitive semantics and cognitive (approaches to) grammar are thus complementary” (Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 49).

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

73

grammar.8 For this reason, the present cognitive approach integrates elements from both aspects. Essential for cognitive linguistics are generalization and cognitive commitments.9 Generalization refers to “common structuring principles that hold across different aspects of language.”10 The second commitment points to the integrative character of cognitive linguistics as it reflects the insights of other cognitive sciences.11 As a result of these two commitments, cognitive linguistics does not explore the mind separately from the body but the embodied experience. This embodied experience implies that “we can only talk about what we can perceive and conceive, and the things that we can perceive and conceive derive from embodied experience.”12 Perception assumes a mind-independent reality, yet a reality that language does not reflect directly but rather construes.13 Consequently, the epistemic objects do not directly or mechanically structure the cognitive experience “but are partly dependent on the human ability to construe or to impose alternate structures on the perceived, experienced, or conceived phenomenon.”14 Mediating the knowledge of the world, language is “a structured collection of meaningful categories”15 used for the epistemic construal. Language symbolizes concepts by connecting semantic structures with phonological structures.16 For example, in biblical Hebrew, the linguistic unit ‫ ידע‬does not only designate the semantic structure know or the  Evans, Bergen, and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise,” 21.  Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 27. 10  Ibid., 28. 11  Evans, Bergen, and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise,” 5–6. 12  Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 46. Geeraerts and Cuyckens agree, pointing out that “the conceptualizations that are expressed in the language have an experiential basis, that is, they link up with the way in which human beings experience reality, both culturally and physiologically” (Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, “Introducing Cognitive Linguistics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens [New York: Oxford University Press, 2007], 14). This is called the embodiment hypothesis, defined as “the claim that human physical, cognitive, and social embodiment ground our conceptual and linguistic systems” (Tim Rohrer, “Embodiment and Experientialism,” in Geeraerts and Cuyckens, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 27, emphasis original). 13  Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 48. 14  Ellen van Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 27–28. 15  Geeraerts and Cuyckens, “Introducing Cognitive Linguistics,” 5. 16  Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 15. 8 9

74 

D.-A. PETRE

­phonological structure ydʿ but the relationship between the two. This relationship represents a schematic type prototypically coded in contextdependent usage events.17 Therefore, in cognitive linguistics, “meaning is identified as the conceptualization associated with linguistic expressions,” comprising the “conceptual content and a particular way of construing that content.”18 Every written text evokes a particular cognitive representation in the reader’s mind. This mental image can be more abstract or schematic and is instantiated in more specific units. The schema-instance relation, known as categorization, explains cognitive processes as being conditioned by schema-assumptions, derived from one’s historical, geographical, and cultural positionality.19 In forming a mental representation, the reader classifies the meaning potential of the written text according to specific cognitive categories.20 These categories “are stored in our mind as mental concepts and [are] signalled by the words of a language.”21 A system of categories, organized according to a specific motivating context, represents a domain.22 For example, using the concept bird, one may speak about land birds (e.g., grouse) when these are distinguished from sea birds (e.g., pelican) or about ground birds (e.g., kiwi) when these  Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 35.  Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 43. Therefore, according to Talmy, “conceptual content is understood to encompass not just ideational content but any experiential content, including affect and perception” (Leonard Talmy, Concept Structuring Systems, vol. 1 of Toward a Cognitive Semantics [Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000], 4). 19  Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 24–25. 20  These categories are distinguished prototypically. For example, the category bird reflects specific salient prototypes (e.g., robin, sparrow, dove), which are distinguished by fuzzy borders from members of other categories (e.g., bats), who share a small number of attributes (e.g., flying). For this and other examples, with a detailed explanation, see Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jörg Schmid, An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2006), 7–33. 21  Ibid., 23. 22  Regarding typographical conventions, I follow here Ungerer and Schmid (ibid., ix). Hence, the cognitive categories and concepts are indicated with small capitals (e.g., bird). Domains are written in small capitals in brackets (e.g., [land]). To these, I am adding the conventions for profiles (trajectors), which are placed within backslashes written in small capitals (e.g., \feather\); for bases (landmarks), which are written in small capitals within slashes (e.g., /bird/); and for the profiled relation, which is written in small capitals within vertical bars (e.g., |location|). The lexemes are indicated in italics in English (e.g., feathers) but not in Hebrew or Greek, where the regular typeface is kept. Phrases or sentences offered as examples are also written in italics. 17 18

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

75

are contrasted with birds that spend their time mainly in the air (e.g., swift). The terms [land] and [ground] indicate two different semantic domains against which the lexeme evoking the concept bird can be profiled.23 These two domains can be grouped with other relevant ones to form a domain matrix.24 In addition, there is another level of profiling. Suppose a person is interested in an attribute of a bird, like its feathers. In that case, when using the lexeme feathers, the chosen attribute, \feathers\, comes into focus or becomes a profile against the conceptual background (base) represented by /bird/.25 The profile-base relation represents the semantic value of a linguistic unit.26 Each linguistic unit has a specific type of profile. For example, in a sentence like The swan flies over the lake, the lexemes swan and lake have a nominal profile, indicating specific things. The preposition over profiles the spatial relation between the swan and lake; hence, it has a relational profile. In cognitive linguistics, the lexeme swan is the trajector of the relational profile, as it has a primary focus. In contrast, the lexeme lake is the landmark, as its focus is secondary.27 In this example, over designates multiple locations; hence, it profiles not a simple but a complex relationship.28 In addition to simple or complex relations, two other types of relations occur in cognitive analysis: temporal and atemporal.29 Temporality pertains to verbs, while atemporality refers to prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives, adverbs, participles, and some infinitive constructs (ICs). A 23  Charles J.  Fillmore, “Frame Semantics,” in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. Dirk Geeraerts, Cognitive Linguistics Research 34 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 381–82. The semantic domain reflects an encyclopedia-type of cultural knowledge of one’s reality (John I. Saeed, Semantics, 4th ed. [Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016], 35). 24  Langacker writes that “an expression is said to invoke a set of cognitive domains as the basis for its meaning” (Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 44). Specifically, a profile-­ base relationship is conceptualized against a domain matrix (Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 197). 25  A base “is the conceptual content that is inherently, intrinsically, and obligatory invoked by the expression” (e.g., |bird|; ibid., 195). A domain “is a more generalized ‘background’ knowledge configuration against which conceptualization is achieved” (e.g., [land]; ibid.). 26  Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 194. See also William Croft and D. Alan Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 15. 27  Although the example used here is different, it follows Taylor’s. The terminology is borrowed from him. See Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 205–08. 28  Ibid., 217–18. A simple relation is profiled by the lexeme above in The branch is above the lake. 29  Ibid., 216–17.

76 

D.-A. PETRE

temporal relation implies “a span of time over which the relation holds,”30 while an atemporal relation does not include evolution over time.

Applying Cognitive Linguistics to the Bible Biblical studies tend to follow the major trends in linguistics. When analyzing specific biblical concepts, various authors use cognitive linguistics to describe the respective concepts for biblical Hebrew or Greek.31 The application of cognitive analysis used here is an adaptation of the methodology proposed by Ellen van Wolde for biblical Hebrew, which she characterizes as a “cognitive relational approach.”32 Her methodology has three stages.33 The first is a preliminary stage, wherein one explores the cultural categories forming the background of the analyzed linguistic unit in the secondary literature. She mentions that the categories identified can be 30  Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 216. An atemporal relation can be simple or complex. A simple atemporal relation indicates “a single consistent configuration,” as opposed to a complex atemporal relation, which points to a “multiple consistent configuration” (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 111). For temporal relations, stative verbs indicate a simple temporal profile, while dynamic verbs signal a “temporal process that involves a change over time” (ibid.). 31  As regards biblical Hebrew, Merwe writes that “although often a few steps behind, developments in BH [biblical Hebrew] tend to follow trends in general linguistics” (Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “An Overview of Recent Developments in the Description of Biblical Hebrew Relevant to Bible Translation,” AcT 22.1 [2002]:231). What Merwe states about biblical Hebrew applies to Greek also. For the OT, see Tiana Bosman, “Biblical Hebrew Lexicology and Cognitive Semantics: A Study of Lexemes of Affection” (PhD diss., Stellenbosch University, 2011); Wendy L. Widder, “To Teach” in Ancient Israel: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of a Biblical Hebrew Lexical Set, BZAW 456 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014); Marilyn Burton, The Semantics of Glory: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning, SSN 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2017); Rasmussen, Distress in Psalms; Carsten Ziegert, “What Is ‫?חסֶ ד‬ ֶ ֫ A Frame-Semantic Approach,” JSOT 44.4 (2020): 711–32, https://doi. org/10.1177/0309089219862806. For the NT, see Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen, Prepare the Way of the Lord: Towards a Cognitive Poetic Analysis of Audience Involvement with Characters and Events in the Markan World, BZAW 180 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012); Christian Stettler, Das Endgericht bei Paulus: Framesemantische und exegetische Studien zur paulinischen Eschatologie und Soteriologie, WUNT 371 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017); Steffi Fabricius, Pauline Hamartiology: Conceptualisation and Transferences, HUT 74 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018). 32  See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 201–05. Her method follows Ronald Langacker’s approach and integrates elements from John R. Taylor (Taylor, Cognitive Grammar). A valuable synthesis of Langacker’s system is Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. 33  Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 201–03.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

77

“translated” into the cognitive domains that frame the Israelite “horizon of the mind.”34 The insights from the secondary literature can function as a starting point, or the cognitive analysis results can evaluate such literature.35 In this book, I start with the biblical canon, not with the results of the analysis of the evangelical models. I thus use the results of the cognitive analysis of the biblical canon as the standpoint of assessing the evangelical models. The second stage is vital for this research. As Wolde indicates, this is “the actual starting point of cognitive analysis” as the focus is “on the mental processes expressed by words embedded in the usage events of the Hebrew Bible.”36 As words symbolize concepts,37 cognitive analysis reveals the conceptual background reflected in the linguistic units under analysis. Wolde mentions five significant steps, followed by two supplementary ones.38 The first step is to analyze the occurrence texts from a literary and logical perspective. The second is the analysis of the unit’s profile-base-­ cognitive domain relationships of each occurrence. The third step is unifying the profile-base relations to determine the nuclear semantic value within a matrix of cognitive domains. The fourth is to analyze the prototypical scenarios in which the linguistic units appear. The fifth is to construct the mental image emerging from the usage events, to outline the schematic meaning of the instantiated type.39 Given the delimitations I mentioned previously, there is no literary and logical analysis of biblical texts. The third stage of Wolde’s methodology focuses on a singular usage event and analyzes its compositional structure.40 However, I only aim to offer a broad survey of a concept throughout the Bible, I do not follow this stage here. As I mentioned above, cognitive linguistics explores the conceptual structure symbolized by a linguistic unit. Therefore, aiming to identify the  Ibid., 204.  Ibid., 201–02. 36  Ibid., 202. 37  Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 15. 38  See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 204. 39  The additional two steps are (6) incorporating a reconstruction of the historical development of the unit’s conceptualization, together with a proposal for dating the biblical text based on the linguistic study. (7) An analysis of ANE words reflecting a similar concept may follow. However, given the purpose of the present book, these steps are unnecessary. 40  The third stage has four steps: (1) lexical analysis; (2) analysis of nominal and relational profiles; (3) analysis of the compositional substructural correspondences; and (4) construal of textual meaning (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 205). 34 35

78 

D.-A. PETRE

contours of theological knowledge formation in the biblical canon, I do not attempt to proffer an exhaustive cognitive analysis of the biblical conceptualization. The cognitive analysis here only covers the prototypical linguistic units that symbolize the concept knowing god. A prototype is considered the best exemplar of a specific category.41 Consequently, membership in a category results from the set of shared characteristics with the prototype, rather than a shared set among all members.42 For example, for the conceptual category bird, the prototypical bird may refer to a small, flying, and singing bird that lays eggs in nests built in trees (e.g., robin or sparrow).43 Hence, a cognitive category, or concept, is defined with a prototype and contains members that “can be rated on a typicality scale ranging from good to bad examples.”44 By analyzing the prototypical member of a category, one can grasp the primary conceptual meaning of the category that can be further nuanced by analyzing other members.45 The “goodness-of-exemplar”46 criterion describes what prototypicality means. This criterion has five features.47 The first is the frequency of use and, closely connected with it, the order of mention. The second feature is the learning order, as a person acquires a language by first learning the prototypical units. The family resemblance is the third feature, indicating that the prototype has a higher number of traits in common with other category units. The fourth feature is the speed by which one recognizes a unit as pertaining to a category. Finally, the fifth feature is priming, wherein a given category (e.g., bird) speeds up a prime answer (e.g., sparrow). However, while these features are helpful for the languages in use, they cannot be applied fully to biblical Hebrew or Greek. Hence, one needs to rely on the frequency of use and the distribution of the linguistic unit.48 Consequently, to grasp the meaning of the concept knowing god, one needs to analyze the prototypical linguistic units most often used to  Croft and Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics, 77.  John R.  Taylor, Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 54. 43  Burton, The Semantics of Glory, 12. 44  Ungerer and Schmid, Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 23. 45  As Wolde notes, “The prototypes or prototypical representations of the categories are in fact the points of reference in the formation of meanings that are culture-dependent, context-­ dependent, and mind-dependent” (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 26). 46  Croft and Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics, 77. 47  These five characteristics are taken from Croft and Cruse (ibid., 78–79). 48  Bosman, “Biblical Hebrew Lexicology,” 104. 41 42

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

79

s­ymbolize this concept throughout the biblical canon. In the OT, the prototypical linguistic unit is the verb ‫“( ידע‬to know”).49 The verb γινώσκω (“to know”) fulfills the same prototypical role in the NT.50 Both terms are selected here as prototypical case studies to access the conceptual structure of theological knowledge formation. This fact does not deny that many other linguistic units symbolize knowing god. The conceptual analysis of ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω outlines only the minimal criteria for a canonical theological epistemology open to further development through a similar analysis of all linguistic units that symbolize the concept. Given that the linguistic units under analysis here are verbs, they have a relational profile that connects what is profiled—the trajector—with its background base, the landmark. The trajector refers mainly to human beings—either as an individual or a group—or to God or a divine intervention that triggers knowledge formation. A direct or indirect manifestation of the divine realm represents the landmark. When ‫ ידע‬or γινώσκω profile the relationship between the trajectors and landmarks, those occurrences become part of the cognitive analysis done here. Trajector and landmark are cognitive-linguistic terms overlapping semantic roles like agent/effector and experiencer/patient/benefactive/recipient, 49  Other lexical units convey the concept knowing god (e.g., ‫“[ ראה‬to see”]; ‫“[ ׁשמע‬to listen”]; ‫“[ בקׁש‬to discover”]; ‫“[ אור‬to enlighten”]; ‫“[ דעה‬to search for”]; ‫“[ בין‬to understand”]; ‫“[ נכר‬to regard, recognize”]; or ‫טעם‬, [“to taste”]). These units are members of the same conceptual category, but their membership results from the set of shared characteristics with the prototype. As such, one needs to start with the prototype in order to grasp the primary concept ual meaning of knowing god. The verb ‫ ידע‬is the most common linguistic unit used to convey the meaning to know. See Michael Carasik, Theologies of the Mind in Ancient Israel, Studies in Biblical Literature 85 (New York: Lang, 2006), 17–32; Johnson, Knowledge by Ritual, 17; James L. Crenshaw, “Knowledge,” NIDB 3:539; William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 37; Gregory Vall, “An Epistemology of Faith: The Knowledge of God in Israel’s Prophetic Literature,” in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God, ed. Mary Healy and Robin Parry (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 24; M. H. Cressey, “Knowledge,” NBD3, 657–58; and Gregory Mobley, “Know, Knowledge,” EDB, 777. 50  For example, Silva notes that at the core of the semantic field of to know is γινώσκειν. For details, see Moisés Silva, “The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: ΓΙΝΟΣΚΕΙΝ and Related Verbs,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday, ed. Donald A.  Hagner and Murray J.  Harris [Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 187. Consequently, γινώσκω is most often used to symbolize knowing god. Various authors assume its prototypical character. See, for example, Ernst Dieter Schmitz, “γινώσκω,” NIDNTT 2:392–406; Gregory Mobley, “Know, Knowledge,” EDB, 777; and Tucker S. Ferda, “Knowledge: New Testament,” EBR 15:421–23.

80 

D.-A. PETRE

respectively.51 Nevertheless, given the “great deal of disagreement over the correct set of thematic role labels,”52 the more general trajector-landmark conceptual relationship is chosen here. Furthermore, even if there is an overlap between this relationship and the subject-object grammatical structure, given the elusiveness of the grammatical structure—an agent may be the grammatical subject when the verb is active and the grammatical object when the verb is passive53—the trajector-landmark is preferred. Instead of translating the cultural categories found in secondary literature into the cognitive domains for the units analyzed here, as Wolde does, I aim to identify the domain contextually for each occurrence. A contextual or cognitive domain is more than a semantic field, referring to “a rich, structured conceptual framework.”54 In the case of the biblical canon, the surrounding contextual and recurring concepts of ‫ ידע‬or γινώσκω identify the cognitive domains.55

Old Testament Cognitive Analysis As regards the OT, the corpus selected for analysis comprises the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible (HB).56 The concept under study, knowing god, is symbolized through various linguistic units. Relevant to the present study is the verb ‫ידע‬, which is the prototypical linguistic unit used to convey the process of theological knowledge formation. Outlining the schematic meaning of knowing god has four steps. The first is analyzing the unit’s profile-base-­cognitive domain relationship for each occurrence. The second is the unification of the profile-base relations to determine the semantic potential of the term within a matrix of cognitive domains. The third is to present the prototypical scenario for theological knowledge

 See Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 113, for a list of typical semantic roles.  Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 112. 53  B.  M. Rocine, Learning Biblical Hebrew: A New Approach Using Discourse Analysis (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 251. 54  Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 49, emphasis original. I prefer domain over frame. 55  Of course, “a degree of subjectivity is most inescapable” (Burton, The Semantics of Glory, 118). 56  This study focuses on “synchronic, intra-lingual analysis of BH, rather than dwelling on pre- or post-biblical development or comparative philology” (Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 185, emphasis original). The cognitive analysis here depends upon Petre, “Grasping the Conceptual Meaning,” 10–34. 51 52

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

81

formation for each e­ lement of the meaning potential. Finally, the fourth step is to outline the schematic meaning of ‫ידע‬. Profile-Base-Cognitive Domain Relations The Hebrew verb ‫ ידע‬occurs 944 times in the HB. Out of these, approximately 35 percent (334 occurrences) are instantiations dealing with knowing something about who God is or what God does (see Table 3.1).57 These instances resulted from carefully reading all occurrences in their context to determine whether they deal with theological knowledge formation or not. The passages selected here profile any form of human knowledge of who God is or what God does. As such, the trajector mainly refers to human beings, God, or a divine action that triggers knowledge formation. The manifestation of the divine realm constitutes the landmark. Appendix B presents a detailed analysis indicating the binyanim, verbal forms, profile, base, profile-base relationship, and cognitive domains. As regards its binyanim, the verb ‫ ידע‬occurs in the HB mainly in the Grund (G) verbal stem (277 times), followed by the hiphil (H) stem (40 times) and the niphal (N) stem (15 times). The verb appears once in both the pual (Dp) and the hithpael (HtD) stems.58 The prevalent form is weqatal (114 times), followed by qatal (77 times), yiqtol (53 times), and wayyiqtol (26 times). Other forms are infinitive construct (IC, 27 times), imperative (imv, 21 times), participle (ptc, 14 times), and infinitive absolute (IA, 2 times). ‫ ידע‬has a relational profile that can indicate either a temporal or atemporal process. The temporal process is dynamic in most cases, with 217 occurrences, while the stative dimension appears 75 times. The atemporal relations are mainly complex (32 times), reflecting the 57  The search was done in the text provided by the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computing (ETCBC), W. T. van Peursen, C. Sikkel, and D. Roorda, Hebrew Text Database ETCBC4b (DANS, 2015). This database, formerly known as WIVU (Werkgroep Informatica Vrije Universiteit), uses Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Adrian Schenker et al., 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). The database can be accessed at https://shebanq.ancient-data.org/hebrew/text. The order of the biblical books and the chapter and verse references are taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV). 58  The terminology is borrowed from Francis I.  Andersen and A.  Dean Forbes, Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). The verbal stems and forms are aggregated from the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB) of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia provided by Logos Bible Software, version 8.15. The morpho-syntactic tagging is based on the WIVU database.

82 

D.-A. PETRE

Table 3.1  ‫ ידע‬in reference to theological knowledge formation in the Hebrew Bible Book

No. References

Gen Exod

4 23

Lev Num Deut Josh Judg 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Kgs 1 Chr 2 Chr Neh Job

1 7 14 10 5 7 3 8 7 5 6 2 19

Pss

48

Prov Eccl Isa

1 3 30

Jer

22

Ezek

82

Hos Joel Jonah Mic Hab Zech Mal Total

8 3 2 2 2 5 1 334

24:14; 24:21; 28:16; 41:39; 5:2; 6:3, 7; 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 11:7; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 18:11, 16; 29:46; 31:13; 33:12, 13[2x], 16; 23:43; 12:6; 14:34; 16:5, 28; 22:19, 34; 24:16; 4:9, 35, 39; 7:9; 8:3, 5; 9:3, 6; 11:2[2x]; 18:21; 29:4, 6; 31:13; 2:9; 3:7, 10; 4:22, 24; 14:6; 22:31; 23:13, 14; 24:31; 2:10; 6:37; 14:4; 16:20; 17:13; 2:12; 3:7; 6:9; 17:46–47[2x]; 18:28; 22:3; 5:12; 7:21; 12:22; 8:43[2x], 60; 17:24; 18:36–37[2x]; 20:13, 28; 2:3[2x], 5[2x]; 5:15; 10:10; 19:19; 14:2; 16:8; 17:19; 28:9; 29:17; 6:33[2x]; 12:8; 13:5; 25:16; 33:13; 6:16; 9:14; 9:28; 10:2; 10:13; 11:6, 8; 18:21; 19:6, 25; 23:3, 5; 24:1; 30:23; 36:26; 37:5, 15–16[2x]; 38:5; 42:2–3[2x]; 4:3; 9:10, 16; 16:11; 20:6; 25:4, 14; 36:10; 39:4[2x]; 41:11; 46:10; 48:3; 51:6; 56:9; 59:13; 67:2; 71:15; 73:22; 76:1; 77:14, 19; 78:3, 5–6[2x]; 79:6; 81:5; 83:18; 87:4; 89:1; 90:11–12[2x]; 91:14; 92:6; 95:10; 98:2; 100:3; 103:7; 105:1; 106:8; 109:27; 119:75, 79, 125, 152; 135:5; 139:14; 140:12; 143:8; 145:12; 147:20; 3:6; 3:14; 11:5, 9; 1:3; 5:5, 19; 12:4–5[2x]; 19:12, 21[2x]; 33:13; 37:20; 38:19; 40:21, 28; 41:20; 43:10, 19; 45:3–6[4x]; 48:6–8[3x]; 49:23, 26; 51:7; 52:6; 60:16; 64:2; 66:14; 2:8, 19; 4:22; 5:4–5[2x]; 8:7; 9:3, 6, 24; 10:25; 11:18[2x]; 16:21[3x]; 24:7; 28:9; 31:34[2x]; 32:8; 33:3; 44:29; 5:13; 6:7, 10, 13, 14; 7:4, 9, 27; 11:10, 12; 12:15, 16, 20; 13:9, 14, 21, 23; 14:8, 23; 15:7; 16:62; 17:21, 24; 20:5, 9, 11, 20, 26, 38, 42, 44; 21:5; 22:16, 22; 23:49; 24:24, 27; 25:5, 7, 11, 14, 17; 26:6; 28:22–24[3x], 26; 29:6, 9, 16, 21; 30:8, 19, 25, 26; 32:15; 33:29; 34:27, 30; 35:4, 9, 11, 12, 15; 36:11, 23, 32, 36, 38; 37:6; 37:13–14[2x], 28; 38:16, 23[2x]; 39:6–7[3x], 22, 28; 2:8, 20; 5:4, 9; 6:3[2x]; 8:2; 11:3; 13:4; 2:14, 27; 3:17; 3:9; 4:2; 4:12; 6:5; 2:14; 3:2; 2:9, 11; 4:9; 6:15; 11:11; 2:4;

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

83

dynamic nature of the verb. A simple atemporal relation is profiled 10 times.59 See Appendix E for the distribution of occurrences. The major lexicons and theological dictionaries describe the meaning of ‫ידע‬.60 Table 3.2 presents a summary of selected lexicons and dictionaries with only the meanings of ‫ ידע‬containing one or more relevant references. For lexicons, the definitions are verbatim and, for theological dictionaries, synthesized. Tables A1 and A2  in Appendix A present a detailed exposition. The definitions reflect the mentioned resources, indicating the placement of the texts relevant to this research. A cursory glance at the resources selected reveals that the lexicon articles on ‫( ידע‬HALOT and DCH), structured alike, face similar challenges.61 First, they offer only glosses without a short definition of what the verb denotes. Such a definition should at least indicate the prototypical meaning within a specific context.62 Second, they have outdated (HALOT) or limited (DCH) semantic exposure to the insights of contemporary linguistics.63 For example, a discussion of cognitive or semantic domains is missing.  As Wolde indicates, the relational profile indicates either an atemporal relation (when ptc or IC are used) or a temporal relation (when stative or dynamic verbs are used). For details, see Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 130–200. As regards its aspect, being a verb of mental perception, ‫ ידע‬has both stative and fientive (dynamic) traits (Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 366). 60  Selected here are HALOT, s.v. “‫ ידע‬I”; DCH 4, s.v. “‫ ידע‬I”; W. Schottroff, “‫ידע‬,” TLOT 2:508–21; and Johannes G. Botterweck and Jan Bergman, “‫יָדַ ע‬,” TDOT 5:448–81. 61  Among the lexicons and dictionaries selected, only DCH explicitly indicates its linguistic framework (DCH 1:14–15). The other three resources were published before cognitive linguistics appeared in biblical studies. Therefore, one cannot expect to find elements of this recent approach in these three resources. Nevertheless, analyzing them from a cognitive-­ linguistic perspective helps highlight some limitations these resources have. For a practical evaluation of the significant Hebrew lexicons, see Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “Towards a Principled Working Model for Biblical Hebrew Lexicology,” JNSL 30.1 (2004): 119–37. 62  I agree with Ziegert here (Ziegert, “What Is 713 ”,?‫)חסֶ ד‬ ֶ ֫ that a dictionary should provide a prototypical definition of the term. Contra Barr (ibid., 713n10). Barr argues that, for biblical Hebrew, a dictionary should provide only glosses, “that is, English words that sufficiently indicate the sort of area in which the Hebrew meaning must lie. The meaning itself, for the user of the dictionary, must remain within the Hebrew” (James Barr, “Hebrew Lexicography: Informal Thoughts,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992], 145). 63  Christo H.  J. van der Merwe, “Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics: A Case Study,” Bib 87.1 (2006): 85. Two projects attempt to take into account semantic domains: Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (http://www.sahd.div.ed.ac.uk) and Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (http://semanticdictionary.org). 59

84 

D.-A. PETRE

Table 3.2  Meaning of ‫ ידע‬as indicated in selected resources Resource

Meaning

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT)

Qal: 1. To notice; 2. Know (by observation and reflection); 3. To know someone/something; 4. Theologically, to take care of someone, with God as object; 5. To understand something; 6. To know, to have experienced; 7. To know, have understanding; Niphal: 1. To make oneself known, reveal; 2. To be known, become known; Pual: what is known; Hiphil: 1. To let someone know something; 2. To make known, inform; 3. To inform someone (of something), to teach; Hophal: to be made known; Hithpael: to make oneself known; Qal: 1. Know (that), realize (that), be aware (that), have knowledge (of); 2. Know, be familiar with, experience something; 3. Know, be acquainted with God; 4. Know, recognize, learn, perceive, understand; 5. Know (how) to do, be skillful in, be knowledgeable about; 6. Know, find out, discover; Niphal: be known, made known or make oneself known; Pual: be made known; Hiphil: cause to know, make known, declare (to), teach; Hophal: be made known; Hithpael: make oneself known; [Section III]: 1.  a. Sensory awareness of something in one’s environment attained through involvement and through the information of others;  b. Recognition that results from the deliberate application of the senses, from investigation and testing, from consideration and reflection;  c. Knowledge that results from realization, experience, and perception and that one can learn and transmit; 2. Not only theoretical but a result of practical involvement with the epistemic object;

Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH)

Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (TLOT)

(continued)

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

85

Table 3.2 (continued) Resource

Meaning

[Section IV]: 1.  a. Description of divine care experienced by a particular person;  b. The Niphal and Hiphil of ‫ ידע‬are used as terms for revelation; 2.  a. Relationship to the deity that includes practical behavior (used of people with God as object, either positively or negatively, with references to covenant in some cases);  b. Human knowledge as the goal of divine self-revelation in historical acts (recognition formula), mainly in oracles of judgment or salvation; Theological 1. Secular knowledge: Dictionary of the Old  a. Visual and auditory perception; Testament (TDOT)  b. Physical apprehension is prerequisite;  c. The heart is the key epistemic organ;  d. Seeking knowledge;  e. Historical knowledge and skill;  f. Emotional and sexual knowledge inclusive of volitional acquaintance and concern;  g. Knowledge of good and evil; 2. Religious usage:  a. God’s knowledge and relationship with humans;  b. Knowledge of God, as practical religio-­ethical relationship (either positive or negative); 3. Revelation:  a. God makes his name known by historical demonstrations of power, which may transmit specific information;  b. The expression ‫כִ ּי אֲ נִ י יְ הוָה ידע‬, know that I am Yahweh, almost always precedes a statement about a divine action;  c. Yahweh’s actions compel recognition (recognition formula) and acknowledgment, functioning also as a reminder of Israel’s beginnings;  d. The recognition statement is also used as parenesis (exhortation to know God as hearing and obeying his commandments);   e. In judgment oracles and salvation oracles refers to prophetic demonstration;   f. Knowledge of God in judgment oracles and salvation oracles;   g. Knowledge of the day of salvation. TLOT

86 

D.-A. PETRE

There are also differences between the two lexicons. HALOT structures the glosses from concrete to abstract, while DCH follows the frequency of the attestation criterion.64 The latter’s approach is helpful as it may point to the prototypical meaning of ‫ידע‬. In DCH, this prototypical meaning appears to be (1) know (that), realize (that), be aware (that), have knowledge (of), as shown in Table 3.2. HALOT does not allow the determination of any prototypical meaning. In addition, having a language-­ internal approach to meaning, DCH includes an extended syntagmatic discussion, indicating the subjects, objects, and collocations of ‫ידע‬. While this syntagmatic overview of the verb may be helpful, it lacks interpretation.65 For example, the selected list—in Appendix A, Table A1—of punctual objects as presented in DCH does not make clear that these are all related to divine activity, hence indicating a potential combination of the senses (2) know, be familiar with, experience something and (3) know, be acquainted with God with sense (1) as prototypical. Regarding TLOT and TDOT, both separate the discussion on ‫ ידע‬into secular and religious knowledge. It may help clarify the contextual frames of reference. However, it also introduces ambiguity, as various references related to theological knowledge are examples for the section on secular knowledge (see Appendix A, Table A2). TLOT provides several short definitions (senses [III.1.a–c] and [III.2]) that may indicate a prototypical meaning of ‫ידע‬, inclusive of awareness and involvement with the known. When dealing with secular knowledge, TDOT is less explicit and focuses more on epistemic conditions (1.a–d in Table 3.2) rather than on defining the meaning of ‫ידע‬. Regarding religious usage, both TLOT (IV.2.a) and TDOT (2.b) emphasize knowledge’s relational and practical aspects. In addition, both indicate the close connection between ‫ ידע‬and the oracles of judgment and salvation. However, neither judgment nor salvation is a cognitive domain, which limits the usefulness of this connection. Furthermore, the covenant—otherwise an important cognitive domain of ‫—ידע‬is mentioned only in TLOT (IV.2.a), which refers to professional priestly knowledge. As a result, the conceptual world of ‫ ידע‬is left uncharted.

 See David J. A. Clines’s introduction to DCH 1:19.  Merwe, “Principled Working Model,” 124–25.

64 65

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

87

Unification of Profile-Base-Domain Relations The analysis I did for the first step and found in Appendix B reveals that the process of knowledge formation expressed by the verb ‫ ידע‬occurs in 14 cognitive domains that I identified and grouped in this study (see Table 3.3). The conceptualization of ‫ ידע‬takes place within these domains. These cognitive domains assume a specific construal of reality. Judgment. The verb ‫ ידע‬occurs most frequently in the [judgment] cognitive domain.66 For example, in the book of Exodus, the relation between the trajectors—\pharaoh\, \egyptians\, or \israelites\—and the various landmarks—aggregated as the /manifestation of divine power/ in the exodus event—profiles the human recognition of something related to Yahweh, as a result of human acquaintance with the manifestation of divine power. Such relation can be described as |recognition by acquaintance with|. Recognition entails acknowledging the existence of divine power that can control and direct natural processes to accomplish specific purposes, as seen in the ten plagues.67 The acquaintance in this context refers to experiencing the manifestation of divine power. In the book of Numbers, the verb profiles |awareness by acquaintance with| (14:34). In addition, it profiles the perception of a fact or a situation by \israelites\ or \balaam\ of a specific thing following a divine intervention, hence |awareness of| following divine intervention (16:5, 22:34). A form of awareness (|discernment of|) with a focus on distinguishing between several options occurs in 16:28, following the divine manifestation of judgment. In 1 Sam 6:9 and 2 Sam 12:22, either the \philistines\ or \david\ is waiting to see a divine sign to distinguish something. The relation profiled is thus |discernment of|. The main trajector in the book of Job is its homonymous protagonist. In his case, ‫ ידע‬mainly profiles the relation between him and the 66  The concept of judgment, a cognitive domain, is pervasive in the OT. Hamilton considers this concept the conceptual foreground of God’s salvific activity. For an overview, see James M. Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 56–59. 67  Sarna notes that the plagues narrative “is a sophisticated and symmetric literary structure” whose purpose is “to emphasize the idea that the nine plagues are not random vicissitudes of nature; although they are natural disasters, they are the deliberate and purposeful acts of divine will—their intent being retributive, coercive, and educative” (Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991], 38).

88 

D.-A. PETRE

Table 3.3  Cognitive domains of ‫ידע‬ Cognitive domain

No. References

116 Exod 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 11:7; Num 14:34; 16:5, 28; 22:34; 1 Sam 6:9; 2 Sam 12:22; Job 11:6, 8; 18:21; 19:6, 25; 23:3, 5; 24:1; 30:23; 38:5; 42:2, 3; Pss 9:10, 16; 76:1; 79:6; 83:18; 92:6; 95:10; 98:2; 109:27; Eccl 11:9; Isa 19:12; 33:13; Jer 4:22; 5:4, 5; 9:24; 10:25; 11:18[2x]; 24:7; 44:29; Ezek 7:4, 9, 27; 11:10, 12; 12:15, 16, 20; 13:9, 14, 21, 23; 14:8, 23; 15:7; 17:21, 24; 21:5; 22:16, 22; 23:49; 24:24, 27; 25:5, 7, 11, 14, 17; 26:6; 28:22, 23, 24, 26; 29:6, 9, 16, 21; 30:8, 19, 25, 26; 32:15; 33:29; 35:4, 9, 11, 12, 15; 38:16, 23[2x]; 39:6, 7[2x], 22, 28; Hos 5:4, 9; 8:2; 13:4; Joel 2:14; 3:17; Jonah 3:9; 4:2; Mic 4:12; Hab 2:14; 3:2; Zech 2:9, 11; Covenant 50 Exod 6:3, 7; 18:16; 29:46; 31:13; 33:12, 13[2x], 16; Deut 4:9, 35, 39; 7:9; 8:3, 5; 9:3, 6; 29:4, 6; 31:13; Josh 2:9; 14:6; 22:31; 23:13, 14; 24:31; Judg 2:10; 2 Sam 7:21; 1 Chr 17:19; Neh 9:14; Pss 81:5l; 89:1; 31:34[2x]; 32:8; Ezek 16:62; 20:5, 9, 11, 12, 20, 26, 38, 42, 44; 36:23, 32, 36, 38; Mal 2:4; Deliverance 37 Judg 14:4; 16:20; Pss 20:6; 36:10; 41:11; 48:3; 56:9; 59:13; 91:14; 140:12; 143:8; Isa 19:21[2x]; 40:21, 28; 41:20; 43:10, 19; 45:3, 4, 5, 6; 48:6, 7, 8; 49:23, 26; 51:7; 52:6; 60:16; 64:2; 66:14; Jer 16:21 [3x]; Ezek 34:27, 30; Providence 25 Gen 24:14, 21; 28:16; 16:6, 12; Lev 23:43; Deut 11:2[2x]; Josh 3:7, 10; 4:24; Judg 6:37; 1 Kgs 17:24; 18:36, 37; 2 Kgs 5:15; Neh 6:16; Pss 4:3; 77:14, 19; 147:20; Prov 3:6; Isa 38:19; Zech 4:9; 6:15; Covenant 19 Job 9:28; 10:2, 13; Isa 1:3; 5:5, 19; Jer 2:8, 19; 8:7; 9:3, 6; Ezek lawsuit 5:13; 6:7, 10, 13, 14; Hos 6:3[2x]; Mic 6:5; Praise 15 Exod 18:11; 1 Chr 16:8; 29:17; Pss 67:2; 71:15; 87:4; 100:3; 103:7; 105:1; 106:8; 135:5; 139:14; 145:12; Isa 12:4, 5; Warfare 12 Exod 14:4, 18; 1 Sam 17:46, 47; 1 Kgs 20:13, 28; 2 Kgs 19:19; 2 Chr 12:8; 13:5; 33:13; Pss 46:10; Isa 37:20; Guidance 11 Pss 16:11; 25:4, 14; 39:4[2x]; 90:11, 12; 119:75, 79, 125, 152; Prophecy 12 Num 12:6; 22:19; 24:16; Deut 18:21; 1 Sam 3:7; 2 Kgs 2:3[2x], 5[2x]; 2 Chr 25:16; Jer 28:9; Zech 11:11; Kinship 9 Josh 4:22; 1 Sam 18:28; 22:3; Ps 78:3, 5, 6; Hos 2:8, 20; 11:3; Sanctuary 9 Judg 17:13; 1 Sam 2:12; 1 Kgs 8:43[2x], 60; 2 Chr 6:33[2x]; Pss 51:6; 73:22; Restoration 7 Jer 33:3; Ezek 36:11; 37:6, 13, 14, 28; Joel 2:27; Rulership 6 Gen 41:39; Exod 5:2; 2 Sam 5:12; 2 Kgs 10:10; 1 Chr 14:2; 28:9; Creation 6 Job 36:26; 37:5, 15, 16; Eccl 3:14; 11:5. Judgment

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

89

convictions or presumptions expressed by his friends or himself.68 The relational profile focuses on Job’s awareness or discernment of specific information resulting from the convictions or presumptions expressed. The |awareness of| profile occurs in 11:6, 8; 23:3, 5 and |discernment of| in 19:6, 30:23, and 38:5. In Job 42:2, 3, Job’s convictions result from the theophany he experiences.69 The relations profiled here are |awareness by acquaintance with| and |discernment by acquaintance with| respectively. Here awareness and discernment overlap, the latter entailing the former with a focus on distinguishing between several options. All three profiles include a specific experience. In Job 19:25, ‫ ידע‬profiles the acceptance of the existence of a redeemer, hence |belief in the truth of|.70 In two other occurrences from Job (18:21, 24:1), the verb profiles the lack or the presence of |personal acquaintance with|. The last relational profile indicates a personal relationship between two personal beings. In the book of Psalms, the verb profiles four types of relations. First, God discloses something about himself or his actions. It forms the |divine self-revelation| profile, which results in positive (76:1, 98:2) or negative (9:16) consequences for humans. The second is |personal acquaintance with| God (9:10, 79:6). The third is |understanding of|, mentally grasping something, referring to an individual (92:6) or a group (95:10) negatively. Fourth is |awareness by acquaintance with| following divine shaming (83:18) or divine deliverance (109:27). The last relation is also profiled in the two occurrences from Isaiah, while in the occurrence from Ecclesiastes |awareness of| also implies a form of acquaintance with divine intervention. Several relational profiles also occur in the book of Jeremiah (|awareness by acquaintance with| in 9:24 and 11:18[2x]; |personal

68  The convictions or presumptions expressed structure of the entire book. As Clines notes, “The one thing Job will not allow is that his suffering proves his guilt. To refuse to acknowledge that presumption in the presence of these friends is a launchpad for controversy” (David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, WBC 17 [Dallas: Word, 1989], 77). 69  When there are different relations profiled in different verses, each verse is indicated, as seen here. 70  Clines perceptively observes that “the fact that Job ‘knows’ something does not prove it is true” (Clines, Job 1–20, 458–59).

90 

D.-A. PETRE

acquaintance with|

in 4:22 and 10:25; |understanding of| in 5:4, 5;71 |recognition by acquaintance with| in 24:7 and 44:29). Within the relevant passages for this study, the book of Ezekiel has by far the largest number of occurrences of 82( ‫)ידע‬, out of which 56 instances have [judgment] as their cognitive domain. Within this cognitive domain, three occurrences profile |divine self-revelation| for Israel (35:11, 39:7a) or the nations (38:23a). In 14:23 the verb profiles |discernment by acquaintance with| following a divine intervention, while in 25:14 |awareness by acquaintance with|. Apart from these 5 instances, all other 51 occurrences profile the trajector’s |recognition by acquaintance with| following a divine intervention.72 The basic formula ‫“( כִ ּי אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬that I am Yahweh”) occurs 45 times within the [judgment] domain. The variation ‫“( כִ ּי אֲנִ י אֲדֹ נָי יְ הוִ ה‬that I am God Yahweh”) occurs five times (13:9, 23:49, 24:24, 28:24, 29:16). The same profile is present in 38:16, although the recognition formula does not appear. In all these instances, recognition refers to acknowledging the divine identity following a divine historical intervention of judgment. In the Minor Prophets, ‫ ידע‬profiles |personal acquaintance with| Yahweh in Hosea, either as lacking (5:4), presumptuous (8:2), or actual (13:4). The last Hosea occurrence within the [judgment] domain profiles the divine |awareness of| a specific thing in 5:9. In Joel, out of the two occurrences, one profiles |discernment of| with a previous implicit acquaintance with the divine character (2:14), while the second profiles 71  The |understanding of| profile entails an analogy between human and divine thinking. As Balentine notes, “To understand that X is like Y does not require divine revelation of unknown information; comprehension does not require unreasoned obedience to divine law” (Samuel E.  Balentine, “Sagacious Divine Judgment: Jeremiah’s Use of Proverbs to Construct an Ethos and Ethics of Divine Epistemology,” in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Jack R.  Lundbom, Craig A.  Evans, and Bradford A.  Anderson, VTSup 178 [Leiden: Brill, 2018], 122). Hence, understanding what God requires is not beyond human reach. 72  Zimmerli’s study of Ezekiel’s recognition formula is unsurpassed. See Walther Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God according to the Book of Ezekiel (1954),” in I Am Yahweh, ed. Walter Brueggemann, trans. Douglas W. Scott (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 29–98. The formula can be seen in the broader context of theodicy, as recognition means humans “telling God that he has been righteous in bringing disaster, in the hope that this recognition will prompt him to reconsider his intentions for the future” (John Barton, “Historiography and Theodicy in the Old Testament,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy Henry Lim, and W. Brian Aucker, VTSup 113 [Leiden: Brill, 2007], 32–33).

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

91

|awareness by acquaintance with| (3:17). Jonah 3:9 profiles |discernment of| with \generic ninivite person\ as trajector. When the trajector is \jonah\, the focus on distinguishing something remains. However, acquaintance is added, hence \discernment by acquaintance with\, as Jonah experienced previously the divine graciousness, compassion, patience, and steadfast love (4:2). In Mic 4:12 and Hab 2:14 |awareness of| is profiled, while in Hab 3:2 the verb profiles |divine self-revelation|. The last two occurrences of this domain occur in Zechariah, both profiling |discernment by acquaintance with|. Covenant. The [covenant] domain is closely related to the [judgment] domain in the OT.73 In the book of Exodus, the verb ‫ ידע‬profiles |recognition by acquaintance with| several times (6:7, 29:46, 31:13), having \israelites\ as trajector. Apart from |divine self-revelation| (6:3) and |personal acquaintance with| (33:13b), the four instances left profile the perception of a situation or a fact following a specific experience, hence |awareness by acquaintance with|. In three cases, God is the cause of experiential awareness (33:12, 13a, 16), and Moses in one case (18:16). In the book of Deuteronomy, all 11 occurrences have as their trajectors \israelites\ or \israelite descendants\.74 In 4:9, the verb profiles |awareness by instruction|, in 8:3 |discernment by acquaintance with|, and in 29:4 and 31:33 |understanding of|. All seven other occurrences profile |recognition by acquaintance with| concerning divine intervention. The intervention mentioned are retrospective—referring either to the exodus, 73  According to Gentry and Wellum, the concept of covenant and especially “the progression of the covenants forms the backbone of Scripture’s metanarrative, the relational reality that moves history forward according to God’s design and final plan for humanity and all creation, and unless we ‘put together’ the covenants correctly, we will not discern accurately ‘the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27)” (Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018], 31, emphasis original). They criticize Hamilton’s focus on judgment and his perceived failure to give prominence to the concept of the covenant (ibid., 20). It appears that the two emphases fail to consider Gerhard F. Hasel’s concept of a “multiplex approach” (Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 206). As Paul R. Williamson observes, the covenant and the judgment concepts are intertwined from the first explicit mention of the covenant in the OT (Paul R. Williamson, “Covenant,” DOTP, 139–40). 74  It reflects Deuteronomy’s focus on the covenant between Yahweh and Israel (Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, AOTC [Nashville: Abingdon, 2001], 17), which required renewal, “not because God changed, but because each generation had to recommit itself regularly in love and obedience to the Lord of the covenant” (Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 37).

92 

D.-A. PETRE

Sinai, or the divine providence in the wilderness—or, in two instances, are prospective (9:3, 6). In the book of Joshua, apart from Rahab’s |discernment by acquaintance with| in 2:9, ‫ ידע‬profiles |awareness of| (14:6, 22:31, 23:13), and |awareness by acquaintance with| (23:14, 24:31). The latter profile occurs in Judg 2:10 about a new generation of Israelites, pointing to an epistemic discontinuity. The following two occurrences represent two parallel passages, 2 Sam 7:21 and 1 Chr 17:19, profiling \david\ as being caused by the manifestation of the divine grace upon him to become |aware by acquaintance with|. In Neh 9:14 |awareness of| is profiled retrospectively about \israel’s ancestors\. The two references from Psalms also focus on awareness, profiled as |awareness by instruction| (89:1; implicit in 81:5). In the book of Jeremiah, ‫ ידע‬profiles the |personal acquaintance with|, following not the biddings of humans but as a result of divine intervention for relational restoration (31:34). The third instance in Jeremiah profiles |recognition by acquaintance with| following a divine sign of prophetic fulfillment (32:8). A high frequency of the verb ‫ ידע‬in the [covenant] domain occurs in the book of Ezekiel (14 times). In ten instances the profiled relation is |recognition by acquaintance with|, with a focus on \israelites\ (16:62; 20:12, 20, 26, 38, 42, 44; 36:38) or their restoration when the trajector is \foreign nations\ (36:23, 36).75 In 20:5, 9 |divine self-revelation| is profiled retrospectively about the exodus event. Verse 11 of the same chapter profiles Yahweh as causing Israel to become |aware by acquaintance with. At the same time, in 36:32, God aims at helping Israel mentally grasp that no human merit caused the divine intervention, hence |understanding of|. This last profile also occurs in Mal 2:4, the last occurrence of the [covenant] domain.

75  As regards the Sabbath as the sign of the covenant with the Israelites, Zimmerli notes that “Yahweh’s actions on behalf of his people live not only in the narrative proclamation of the people of God, but equally in the signs Yahweh has given his people as fixed observances, observances witnessing to his particular actions on behalf of this same people. Recognition and knowledge are revivified ever anew from the perspective of these signs and the people’s encounter with them” (Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God,” 70). For more on the connection between the Sabbath sign and the reality it symbolizes, see Sigve K.  Tonstad, The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 111–23.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

93

Covenant lawsuit. The [covenant lawsuit] domain relates to the [judgand the [covenant] domains.76 The first three occurrences are in Job, profiling |discernment of| (9:28, 10:13) or |understanding of| (10:2). The former profile also appears in Isa 1:3, where Israel’s lack of a clear and distinct discernment of divine ownership implying personal acquaintance results from an attitude of rebellion. The other two references from Isaiah 5:5 and 5:19, profile |awareness of| and |awareness by acquaintance with| respectively. In the book of Jeremiah, the verb ‫ידע‬ profiles |personal acquaintance with| as missing from the Israelites due to their wickedness and apostasy (2:8; 8:7; 9:3, 6). In 2:19, it profiles |awareness by acquaintance with|, pointing to a prospective negative experience. In Ezekiel, all five references of [covenant lawsuit] profile |recognition by acquaintance with|, having ‫“( כִ ּי אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬that I am Yahweh”) placed immediately after ‫ ידע‬in all these occurrences. In Hos 6:3, the verb profiles |personal acquaintance with|, while in Mic 6:5 it profiles |awareness by instruction|. Deliverance, warfare, and restoration. The [deliverance] domain is closely related with [covenant].77 The first two references of this domain, Judg 14:4 and 16:20, profile |awareness of|. In the book of Psalms, |discernment by acquaintance with| occurs twice (20:6, 41:11) having \psalmist\ as trajector. When |personal acquaintance with| occurs, the trajector \godly people\ relates either to the manifestation of divine steadfast love (36:10) or to the divine promise of protection (91:14). The |divine self-revelation| profile occurs in 48:3, whereas in 56:9 |awareness of| occurs. In 59:13 |recognition by acquaintance with| relates \generic persons\ to /divine intervention/, echoing Ezekiel’s recognition formula. The acquaintance of the psalmist with the divine providence profiles either a personal conviction that God delivers, hence |belief in the truth ment]

76  A detailed study of the covenant lawsuit in the OT is Richard M. Davidson, “The Divine Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective,” JATS 21.1–2 (2010): 45–84. Davidson notes that Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant with God triggers divine judgment, thus pointing to the interconnection between covenant, judgment, and covenant lawsuit (ibid., 69). 77  As Harrison observes, the exodus represents the prototypical deliverance event in which God “liberates people, not to enable them to pursue their former way of life, but that they might be free to serve him and him alone. This concept was fundamental to the Sinai covenant and has been an abiding principle of spirituality ever since” (R. K. Harrison, “Deliverance, Deliverer,” EDT, 330).

94 

D.-A. PETRE

of|

(140:12), or a fervent desire to be instructed by God (|awareness by 143:8). The majority of ‫ ידע‬instances occur in the book of Isaiah (21). In Isa 19:21, |divine self-revelation| (21a; also in 64:2) occurs in conjunction with |personal acquaintance with| (21b). |personal acquaintance with| is also present in 51:7. The profiled perception of a situation or a fact often occurs as |awareness of| (40:21, 28; 48:6, 7, 8; 66:14) or |awareness by acquaintance with| (41:20, 43:19, 52:6), with a focus on God’s people, expressed by trajectors like \god’s people\, \israel\, or \zion\. In 43:10, |discernment by acquaintance with| occurs, while 45:3 and 45:4, 5 relate \cyrus\ to /divine favor/ profiling |recognition by acquaintance with| or |personal acquaintance with| respectively. The profile |recognition by acquaintance with| also appears in 45:6; 49:23, 26; 60:16. In the book of Jeremiah, the [deliverance] domain for ‫ ידע‬appears only in 16:21, where the three occurrences of the verb profile |awareness by acquaintance with|. The last two occurrences of this domain occur in Ezek 34:27, 30, profiling |recognition by acquaintance with|. The [warfare] domain is closely related to the [deliverance] and [restoration] domains.78 The bulk of the instances profiles |recognition by acquaintance with|. Two exceptions occur in 2 Chr 12:8 and 13:5, where |discernment by acquaintance with| and |awareness by instruction| respectively occur. In the [restoration] domain, apart from the |awareness of| profile in Jer 33:3, all other six occurrences of ‫ ידע‬profile |recognition by acquaintance with|, with the Ezekiel references using the expression ‫“( כִ ּי אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬that I am Yahweh”) immediately after the verb ‫ידע‬. Providence, guidance, and praise. The first two instances of the verb ‫ידע‬ in the [providence] domain79 occur in Gen 24:14, 21, profiling |recognition by acquaintance with|, where the specific experience is Rebekah’s instruction|,

78  “Warfare in the Bible is more than a sociological category, describing historical events,” notes Longman; “it is an important and pervasive theological theme” (Tremper Longman III, “Warfare,” NDBT, 836). The purpose of such a “Yahweh war,” as Longman calls it, is “the eradication of evil and the punishment of sin” (ibid., 839). For a detailed analysis of the warfare concept in the OT, see Barna Magyarosi, Holy War and Cosmic Conflict in the Old Testament: From the Exodus to the Exile, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series 9 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 2010). 79  Providence refers to divine care and, although inclusive of divine guidance, is treated as a separate cognitive domain according to the results of the cognitive analysis of ‫ידע‬. Providence entails theological knowledge. According to Williams, it conveys three central lessons about God: his government, character, and purpose for human history. For details, see Stephen N. Williams, “Providence,” NDBT, 711–13.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

95

hospitality. In 28:16, the relation between the trajector \jacob\ and the landmark /divine presence/ is profiled as |awareness by acquaintance with|. The two occurrences from Exodus have |recognition by acquaintance with| (16:6, 12), while in Lev 23:43, the future generations of Israel experience booths-living, hence |awareness by acquaintance with|. Deuteronomy 11:2 has two occurrences that profile the same relation: |recognition by acquaintance with|. The same relational profile occurs in Josh 3:10 and 4:24 but is nuanced in 3:7, where |discernment of| with an implicit experiential acquaintance occurs. In Judg 6:37, |belief in the truth of| is profiled following a specific divine sign. The same profile occurs in 1 Kgs 18:37 and 2 Kgs 5:15. In 1 Kgs 17:24 and 18:36, as a result of a divine miracle, |recognition by acquaintance with| occurs. In Neh 6:16, the relation of \judah’s enemies\ to /reports of finishing the rebuilding of jerusalem’s walls/ appears as |awareness of|. A similar profile is in Ps 77:14 (|awareness by acquaintance with|) while |awareness of| occurs in 4:3 and 147:20. In 77:19, a subtle form of awareness is present, |perception by physical sight|. In the sole occurrence from Proverbs (3:6), |awareness of| is present, with the intended result of obedient behavior. In Isa 38:19 |awareness by instruction| occurs following a divine miracle. The last two instances are from the book of Zechariah (4:9, 6:15) and profile |discernment of| following the fulfillment of divine promises. The [guidance] domain appears only in the book of Psalms and profiles nuances of awareness. |awareness of| follows divine revelation (16:11, 39:4[2x], 90:11, 119:152), involves divine instruction (|awareness by instruction|, 25:4, 90:12, 119:125) or a specific experience (|awareness by acquaintance with|, 25:14; 119:75, 79). The [praise] domain is closely related to [providence] and [guidance].80 In Exod 18:11, the profiled relation is |recognition by acquaintance with|, also profiled in Ps 100:3. In 1 Chr 16:8 and 1 Chr 29:17 |awareness of| and |acquaintance with| 80  The cognitive domain of [praise] expresses the human reaction of thanksgiving following a divine intervention of deliverance, restoration, or salvation. It has the character of a confessional testimony that does not limit to mere ahistorical witness, as Brueggemann seems to imply (Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], xvi–xvii). As Childs notes, “To hear the text as witness involves identifying Israel’s theological intention of bearing its testimony to a divine reality which has entered into time and space” (Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 98). Consequently, the confessional testimony is always historically derived.

96 

D.-A. PETRE

respectively are present. The majority of instances occur in the book of Psalms. In 67:2 |divine self-revelation| is profiled. ‫ ידע‬as awareness occurs in several verses, as |awareness of| (71:15; 135:5), |awareness by acquaintance with| (87:4; 103:7; 106:8; 139:14; 145:12), or |awareness by instruction| (105:1). The last two instances of [praise] occur in Isa 12:4, 5, profiling |awareness of|. Prophecy and sanctuary. In the first reference of the [prophecy] domain, the verb ‫ ידע‬profiles |divine self-revelation| (Num 12:6). The following two references from Numbers profile |awareness by instruction| (22:19) and |awareness of| (24:16) about \balaam\. In Deut 18:21, the verb profiles |discernment of| when a criterion for identifying a presumptuous prophet appears. This passage echoes Jer 28:9, where the verb profiles |recognition by acquaintance with|. Next, the lack of young Samuel’s acquaintance with God takes the form of |personal acquaintance with| in 1 Sam 3:7. Prior to Elijah’s ascension to heaven, Elisha’s |awareness of| is profiled four times in 2 Kgs 2:3, 5. Finally, another prophet’s awareness is nuanced as |discernment of| in 2 Chr 25:16, a profile that also appears in Zech 11:11. In the [sanctuary] domain, the first occurrence of the verb ‫ ידע‬profiles Micah’s assumed divine blessing as |awareness of| in Judg 17:13. The same profile appears in Ps 51:6. In 1 Sam 2:12 \sons of eli\ are related to /wickedness/ as the verb profiles |personal acquaintance with| representing their lack of piety. In Ps 73:22, another lack occurs, the verb profile negated here being |understanding of|. The rest of the occurrences within this domain profile |recognition by acquaintance with| either about /answered prayers of foreigners/ (1 Kgs 8:43; 2 Chr 6:33) or /divine judgment in favor of solomon and israel/ (1 Kgs 8:60). Kinship, creation, and rulership. The first occurrence of the [kinship] domain appears in Josh 4:22, where the verb ‫ ידע‬profiles |awareness by instruction|. The same relational profile is in Ps 78:5. The general |awareness of| profile occurs four times within this domain (1 Sam 18:28, 22:3; Ps 78:3, 6), while |awareness by acquaintance with| is present only in Hosea (2:8, 20; 11:3). The |awareness of| also occurs in the [creation] domain (Eccl 3:14 and 11:5). The second profile that appears within this domain is |understanding of|, negated in all its four references (Job 36:26; 37:5, 15, 16). In the [rulership] domain, the first relational profile is |awareness of, and occurs in Gen 41:39, following the divine revelation to Joseph of Pharaoh’s dream. Next, the verb profiles |personal acquaintance with|

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

97

either in negative (Exod 5:2) or favorable terms (1 Chr 28:9). The |belief in the truth of| relational profile occurs in two parallel passages (2 Sam 5:12, 1 Chr 14:2) as a result of divine election. The last profile in the [rulership] domain is |recognition by acquaintance with|, in 2 Kgs 10:10. Matrix of domains. As regards theological knowledge formation, ‫ידע‬ profiles a rich palette of trajector-landmark relations, wherein the explicit or implicit knower is represented by a human group in the majority of cases (235 times), while a person occurs 93 times.81 The profile-base-­ domain relations outline the meaning potential of ‫ידע‬,82 which encompasses |personal acquaintance with|, |awareness of|, |awareness by acquaintance with|, |awareness by instruction|, |belief in the truth of|, |discernment of|, |discernment by acquaintance with|, |divine self-­ revelation|, |perception by physical sight|, |recognition by acquaintance with|, and |understanding of|. The prototypical meaning cannot be described by only one of these aspects but rather by a fusion of them.83 In the human-divine interaction, the linguistic unit ‫ ידע‬is used to profile the embodied human awareness of something about the divine realm by acquaintance with a divine revelatory action against a matrix of 14 cognitive domains: [judgment], [covenant], [covenant lawsuit], [deliverance], [warfare], [restoration], [providence], [guidance], [praise], [prophecy], [sanctuary], [kinship], [creation], and [rulership]. Prototypical Scenario Indicating a process, the verb ‫ ידע‬is inseparable from other elements of the mentally construed experience of theological knowledge formation. As such, ‫ ידע‬figures in a prototypical scenario that is particularized within each 81  There are six cases where the knower is not specified (Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9; Hab 3:2; Pss 48:3, 77:19; Jer 28:9). 82  Hence, as Allwood notes, “No attempt is made to distinguish between lexical and encyclopedic information in terms of the kind of information that is contained in the meaning potential” (Jens Allwood, “Meaning Potentials and Context: Some Consequences for the Analysis of Variation in Meaning,” in Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, ed. Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven, and John R. Taylor, Cognitive Linguistics Research 23 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003], 43). 83  In Wolde’s example, a singular relational profile represents the meaning of the chosen term (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 258). Widder’s case is similar to the one present in this study; hence, she presents a synthesis of her chosen term’s meaning potential (Widder, “To Teach,” 159).

98 

D.-A. PETRE

cognitive domain by its meaning potential. The basic steps of this prototypical scenario are Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Manifestation of the divine realm; Step 3: Human embodied awareness by acquaintance with the divine realm; Step 4: Human knowledge of the divine realm. Each of the profiled relations of the meaning potential of ‫ ידע‬reflects this scenario, either in a three-step or four-step scenario (see Table 3.4). The Schematic Meaning of ‫ידע‬ The analysis above shows that the linguistic unit ‫ ידע‬is a schematic type, designating the external relation between the semantic structure |embodied awareness by acquaintance with| and the phonological structure ‫ידע‬. In addition, it designates the internal relationship within the semantic structure between the general landmark /divine revelatory action/ and the general trajector \human group or individual person\. The linguistic unit is instantiated in larger configurations of meaning—namely, 14 cognitive domains.84 In coding this schematic type as instances of meaning within specific cognitive domains, the knowledge formation is construed using specific cognitive categories. The basic meaning |awareness by acquaintance with|, which originates in the sensory embodied experience, is reflected in various instantiations, indicating that belief, discernment, recognition, or understanding entail experience. In ‫’ידע‬s semantic structure, the general trajector \human group or individual person\ reveals that the process of knowledge formation is not abstracted from human life but rather part of it. The prevalence of human groups in knowledge formation reflects the importance given to the community in the HB. However, this does not mean that theological knowledge formation is only communitarian, as the individual focus shows. Without denying the role of the trajector, the mental image evoked by ‫ ידע‬depends on its landmark structure, which connects it to specific usage events and cognitive domains. The /divine revelatory action/ general base is detailed as, for example, /divine answer/, /divine deliverance/, 84  I am following Wolde’s formulation here, although the data are different. See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 264.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

Table 3.4  Prototypical scenarios of the meaning potential of ‫ידע‬ Meaning potential |recognition by

No. Prototypical scenario

130 Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine intervention; Step 3: Acquaintance with the divine intervention; Step 4: Human recognition of the divine. |awareness of| 52 Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human awareness of divine action. |awareness by 43 Step 1: State of unknowing; acquaintance with| Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human acquaintance with the divine action; Step 4: Awareness of the divine. |personal 28 Step 1: State of unknowing; acquaintance with| Step 2: Divine revelation; Step 3: Human acquaintance with the divine revelation; Step 4: Personal acquaintance with God. |understanding of| 16 Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human understanding of the divine action. |discernment of| 15 Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human discernment of the truth of something related to the divine action. |divine self-revelation| 15 Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine revelatory action; Step 3: Human acquaintance with the divine revelatory action. |awareness by 14 Step 1: State of unknowing; instruction| Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Instruction; Step 4: Awareness of the divine. |discernment by 11 Step 1: State of unknowing; acquaintance with| Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human acquaintance with the divine action; Step 4: Human discernment of the truth of something related to the divine action. |belief in the truth of| 7 Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human reaction as belief in the truth of something related to the divine action. |perception by physical 1 Step 1: State of unknowing; sight| Step 2: Divine intervention; Step 3: Human perception of the divine intervention by physical sight. acquaintance with|

99

100 

D.-A. PETRE

/divine election/, /divine favor/, /divine glory/, /divine grandeur/, /divine holiness/, /divine intervention/, /divine judgment/, /divine love/, /divine providence/, /divine presence/, /divine punishment/, /divine promise/, /divine revelation/, /divine restoration/, /divine signs/, /divine wrath/, or /divine warfare/. It points to the dynamic and the historical character of the known.85 All landmarks are in a close relationship with their cognitive domains. God is central in each of the 14 cognitive domains identified. God judges Israel or the foreign nations, enters into a covenant with Israel, files a covenantal lawsuit against his people, creates, provides, guides, delivers, restores, answers prayers from his sanctuary, and is praised. In most cases, ‫ ידע‬designates a dynamic temporal process. Initially, the trajector is construed as separate from the landmark, in a state of unknowing. After the manifestation of the divine realm, the trajector becomes acquainted with the divine action and, as a result, aware of it. Such awareness is embodied and results in the human knowledge of the divine realm. For example, in Exod 33:13, ‫ ידע‬occurs twice as fientive, highlighting Moses’s desire to become aware of God’s ways and thus deepen his personal acquaintance with God. As such, ‫ ידע‬profiles a dynamic epistemic process. When ‫ ידע‬occurs as stative, the relational profile does involve a change over time. For example, in 1 Sam 2:12, the sons of Eli are described as not knowing God. The lack of |personal acquaintance with| is a simple unchanged temporal relation, as the passing of time does not alter the ungodliness of Eli’s sons.86 While profiling a multiple consistent configuration, a complex atemporal relation does so without considering time. For example, in Ps 25:14, the IC of ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as making his covenant known to those who fear him. This relational profile indicates multiple |awareness by acquaintance with| structures, constant in time, as no temporal marker occurs. 85  When talking about the recognition formula in Ezekiel, Zimmerli insightfully notes that the knowledge prompted by the recognition formula “always takes place within the context of a very concrete history, a history embodied in concrete emissaries and coming to resolution in them” (Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God,” 63). As a result of such revelation, the knower is not “able to turn away with this knowledge into an ahistorical awareness or into a spiritual sphere that transcends the historical. Rather, precisely this recognition of Yahweh vis à vis the historical encounter will hold the person fast” (ibid., 89–90). 86  In Wolde’s view, a stative verb “profile[s] a relation that is construed as unchanged throughout the duration of the profiled time segment. The profile of these relations, therefore, consists of a single configuration” (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 171).

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

101

Hence, the focus is not on revealing the covenant but on the action of revealing it as a whole.87 A simple atemporal relation profiles a single consistent configuration. In Num 24:16, for example, the participle of ‫ידע‬ profiles Balaam’s |awareness of| about divine knowledge as a simple and consistent configuration—as a state—with ‫ ידע‬used as stative.88

New Testament Cognitive Analysis As regards the NT, the corpus selected for analysis comprises the canonical books of the Greek New Testament (GNT). Like in the OT, various linguistic units in the GNT symbolize the concept knowing god.89 Relevant to this study is the verb γινώσκω, which is the prototypical linguistic unit conveying the formation of theological knowledge.90 87  “Thus,” notes Wolde, “the infinitive construct has a relational profile and scans a relation in summary rather than in sequential fashion” (ibid., 151). 88  As Wolde indicates, the participle “profiles the continuation over time of a stable relation and construes a situation both as internally homogeneous and as progressive or still ongoing” (ibid., 149). 89  Apart from γινώσκω’s verbal cognates (ἐπιγινώσκω [“to know, learn, recognize, understand”], προγινώσκω [“to know beforehand”], and γνωρίζω [“to make known, reveal, know”]), other units conveying the concept knowing god are ἀκούω (“to hear, listen, learn about, understand”), ἐπίσταμαι (“to understand, know”), ἐραυνάω (“to search, examine”), νοέω (“to apprehend, perceive, understand, gain insight into”), οἶδα (“to know, be acquainted with, understand”), and ὁράω (“to see, notice, perceive, experience”). 90  As shown in what follows, γινώσκω occurs 115 times concerning theological knowledge formation. The second most used term is οἶδα, with 101 instances about theological knowledge (Matt 9:6; 22:16, 29; 24:42; 26:2, 70, 72, 74; Mark 2:10; 12:14, 24, 32–33; 13:33; 14:68, 71; Luke 2:49; 5:24; 20:21; 22:34; 23:34; John 1:26, 31, 33; 3:2; 4:10, 22, 25, 32, 42; 5:13; 7:27–28; 8:14, 19; 9:12, 21, 24–25, 29–31; 10:4; 11:22; 13:7, 17; 14:4–5; 15:21; 16:30; 18:21; 20:2, 9, 13–14; 21:4, 12; Acts 2:22, 30; 10:36; 12:11; Rom 2:2; 6:9; 1 Cor 2:2, 12; 3:16; 6:9, 15, 19; 11:3; 2 Cor 4:14; 5:11; Gal 4:8; Eph 1:18–19; 5:5; 6:9; Col 3:24; 4:1; 1 Thess 1:4; 4:2, 5; 5:2; 2 Thess 1:8; 2 Tim 1:12; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:11; 10:30; Jas 4:4; 1 John 2:9; 3:2, 3:5; 5:15, 18, 20; Jude 5). Traditionally, γινώσκω and οἶδα were understood in reference to the acquisition of knowledge and to its sure possession respectively (for Johannine literature, see Ignace de la Potterie, “Oἶδα et γινώσκω les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrième évangile,” Bib 40.3 [1959]:709–25; for Pauline literature, see Donald W. Burdick, “Oἶδα and Γινώσκω in the Pauline Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N.  Longenecker and Merrill C.  Tenney [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974], 344–56). Nevertheless, as Porter indicates, the relation between the two terms should be seen as hyponymous, “in which γινώσκω—the superordinate term—is used of knowledge whether gained by acquisition or not, with two hyponyms: οἶδα of knowledge specifically without reference to acquisition, and γινώσκω of knowledge with reference to acquisition” (Stanley E.  Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with

102 

D.-A. PETRE

As in the case of the OT analysis, outlining the schematic meaning of has four steps. The second is the unification of the profile-­ base relations to determine the semantic potential of the term within a matrix of cognitive domains. The third is to present the prototypical scenario for theological knowledge formation for each element of the meaning potential. Finally, the fourth step is to outline the schematic meaning of γινώσκω, indicating the external and internal relations embedded in this linguistic unit. knowing god

Profile-Base-Cognitive Domain Relations The Greek verb γινώσκω occurs 222 times in the GNT. Approximately 52 percent (115 occurrences) of these are instantiations dealing with knowing something about the divine persons or their activity (see Table 3.5).91 The passages selected here profile any form of human knowledge of who God or Christ is or what they do. As such, the trajector mainly refers to human beings—either as an individual or a group—or to God/Christ or a divine intervention that triggers knowledge formation. The direct or indirect manifestation of the divine realm constitutes the landmark. Appendix D presents the mood and tense of each occurrence, the profile, the base, their relation, and the cognitive domains. As regards its mood, the term γινώσκω occurs in the GNT mainly in the indicative (77 times), followed by the infinitive (11 times), subjunctive (10 times), imperative (9 times), and participle (8 times). The prevalent Reference to Tense and Mood, ed. D. A. Carson, SBG 1 [1989; repr., New York: Lang, 2010], 285). Porter’s statement reflects his monosemic approach (see Stanley E. Porter, Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015], 47–59), an approach that is somewhat different from the polysemic structure implicit in cognitive linguistics (see Fewster’s criticism of Wolde’s approach in Gregory P.  Fewster, “Towards a Model of Functional Monosemy: A Study of Creation Language in Romans,” in Modeling Biblical Language: Selected Papers from the McMaster Divinity College Linguistics Circle, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Gregory P. Fewster, and Christopher D. Land, LBS 13 [Leiden: Brill, 2016], 257). Porter’s view on γινώσκω as a hyponymous superordinate term reflects what cognitive linguistics views as a prototypical term. From a polysemic perspective, Silva indicates that γινώσκειν represents the core of to know, also indicative of the prototypical character of γινώσκω (Silva, “The Pauline Style,” 187). 91  The search was done in Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), provided by Logos Bible Software, version 8.15. The mood and tense of each occurrence are aggregated from this version. The order of the biblical books and the chapter and verse references are taken from the NRSV.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

103

Table 3.5  Γινώσκω in reference to theological knowledge formation in the Greek New Testament Book

No. References

Matt Mark Luke John

5 4 9 39

Acts Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Heb 1 John 2 John Rev

7 5 12 3 3 2 1 2 19

9:30; 12:7; 13:11; 21:45; 24:33; 5:43; 12:12; 13:29; 15:45; 8:10; 10:11, 22; 18:34; 19:44; 20:19; 21:31; 24:18, 35; 1:10; 3:10; 4:53; 6:69; 7:17, 26–27; 8:27–28, 32, 43, 52, 55; 10:6, 14, 38[2x]; 12:16; 13:7, 12, 28, 35; 14:7[3x], 9, 17[2x], 20, 31; 15:18; 16:3; 17:3, 7–8, 23, 25[2x]; 19:4; 1:7; 2:36; 8:30; 17:13, 19, 20; 22:14; 1:21; 2:18; 6:6; 10:19; 11:34; 1:21; 2:8[2x], 11, 14, 16; 8:2[3x], 3; 13:9, 12; 5:16[2x]; 8:9; 2:9; 3:7; 4:9; 3:19; 5:5; 3:10; 3:10; 8:11; 2:3[2x], 4–5, 13, 14[2x]; 3:1, 6, 16, 24; 4:2, 6[2x], 7–8, 13, 16; 5:20;

1

1;

3

2:23; 3:3, 9.

tense is aorist (48 times), with the present (36 times) and the perfect (20 times) coming next. Less frequent are the future (8 times), pluperfect (2 times), and imperfect (1 time). The verb γινώσκω may indicate a stative (50 times) or dynamic (46 times) temporal process or a simple (4 times) or complex (15 times) atemporal relation. See Appendix E for the distribution of occurrences. The meaning of γινώσκω is described variously in the significant lexicons and theological dictionaries.92 A summary of these definitional meanings is presented in Table 3.6, indicating only those meanings of γινώσκω that contain one or more relevant references. Table 3.6 presents the lexicon definitions verbatim and the dictionary definitions or glosses as a synthesis. Finally, Tables C1 and C2 in Appendix 92   Selected here are BDAG, s.v. “γινώσκω”; L&N, s.vv. “γινώσκωa,” “γινώσκωb,” “γινώσκωc,” “γινώσκωd,” “γινώσκωe,” “γινώσκωf”; Rudolf Bultmann, “γινώσκω κτλ,” TDNT 1:689–714; W.  Schmithals, “γινώσκω κτλ,” EDNT 1:248–51; and Moisés Silva, “γινώσκω κτλ,” NIDNTTE 1:575–88.

1. To arrive at the knowledge of someone or something, know, know about, make acquaintance of; 2. To acquire information through some means, learn (of), ascertain, find out; 3. To grasp the significance or meaning of something, understand, comprehend; 4. To be aware of something, perceive, notice, realize; 5. To have sexual intercourse with, have sex/marital relations with; 6. To have come to the knowledge of, have come to know, know; 7. To indicate that one does know, acknowledge, recognize; 1. To possess information about, to know, to know about, to have knowledge of, to be acquainted with, acquaintance; 2. To acquire information by whatever means but often with the implication of personal involvement or experience, to learn, to find out; 3. To learn to know a person through direct personal experience, implying a continuity of relationship, to know, to become acquainted with, to be familiar with; 4. To come to an understanding as the result of ability to experience and learn, to come to understand, to perceive, to comprehend; 5. To indicate that one does know, to acknowledge; 6. To have sexual intercourse with;

BDAG

L&N

Meaning

Resource

Table 3.6  Meaning of Γινώσκω as indicated in selected resources

104  D.-A. PETRE

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT)

(continued)

1. Popular usage:  a. To note, to recognize;  b. To learn;  c. To confirm;  d. To know as awareness, acquaintance, or understanding;  e. To master; 2. The OT usage and its influence:  a. Knowing entails the will that accepts the epistemic consequences;  b. Knowledge of the will of God, including acknowledgment/submission to the epistemic object;  c. Knowledge of God himself;  d. Knowledge may occur prior to acknowledgment;  e. Comprehension;  f. With God as subject it refers to election;  g. Theological knowledge; 3. The influence of gnostic usage:   a. Pauline literature:    i. Theological knowledge is different from speculation—it is correlated with love and finds its fulfillment in brotherly love;   ii. In some cases, theological knowledge is identical with divine election;   iii. Paul subsumes knowledge under love;   iv. Paul projects theological knowledge in human history;   b. Johannine literature:    i. It indicates the personal, reciprocally determined relationship with God;

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

105

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT)

2. Secular use:  a. Learn: to learn or to come to know a fact from information, it becomes (is) known;  b. Notice: to notice or to observe a hidden intent; to conclude and recognize a fact;  c. Ascertain: to ascertain or to seek to learn through investigation, inquiry, and discovery, to come to know through observation;  d. Know: to know (about) on the basis of experience;  e. Of persons: to know someone; to be/become known; to be recognized or to be known;  f. Other uses: to feel, to sense; to perceive; to decide; to understand; to have sexual relations; to be skilled at, to be able; 3. Religious use:  a. OT usage:   i. God knows human thoughts and intentions;    ii. Divine knowledge entails divine care;   iii. God makes known his will through humans;    iv. Divine self-revelation;   v. To acknowledge or to recognize God’s coworkers;   vi. To know, to acknowledge (= to have fear of);   vii. To know, to come to know the divine will;

   ii. Theological knowledge is mode of being;   iii. It overlaps with the concept of love which is a criterion for the former;   iv. Theological knowledge is actualized in historical divine interventions;   v.  Jesus’s obedience points to the importance of the divine commandments, which can also be considered as an epistemic criterion;   vi. Knowledge-as-love also entails the awareness of being loved;   vii. God cannot be known without Christ;   viii. Knowing Christ is knowing his unity with God;   ix. Knowing Christ is not mystical but practical, involving obedience and love;   x. Knowing Christ is also communitarian, under the guidance of the Spirit;   xi. Γινώσκω is not identified with obedience like in the OT but follows it;

Table 3.6 (continued)

106  D.-A. PETRE

(continued)

 b. Apocalyptic literature: to be revealed (of hidden truths); to make known; to understand; to be known; to take notice of;  c. In the Pauline writings (Greek synagogue) the OT aspect of recognition is combined with the Hellenistic theoretical discernment facet of knowledge:    i. Divine knowledge is unattainable by humans;    ii. Divine nature and will are perceptible;    iii. The world does not know nor recognizes him in obedience;   iv. To come to know God means to serve him;   v. Understanding of Scriptures is prerequisite to theological knowledge;  d. Jesus is often presented as the Greek Θεῖος ἀνήρ;  e. Mysticism:   i. Know God/be known by God;    ii. For Paul, being divinely known entails divine election, love, and acceptance;    iii. Description of the intimate unity between God the Father and Christ the Son;  f. Anti-gnostic evidences: allusions to gnostic teachers, yet Christian love supersedes gnostic knowledge;  g. The messianic secret:    i. The disciples need to interpret Jesus’s parables in order to understand;    ii. People are to learn nothing from divine acts;    iii. Disciples do not understand Christ;  h. The knowledge of sin;  i. Johannine literature:   i. Γινώσκω is parallel to believe, love God, or see God;    ii. It also refers to a relationship of, perseverance in, and understanding of faith;    iii. The world does not acknowledge Jesus;    iv. The unity of the Church aims at helping the world recognize Christ, while its obedience leads the world to know the Christian truth;    v. Christ’s own people has known him, recognize him, and know about him;    vi. Abiding in Christ fosters epistemic growth;    vii. The epistemic criterion for theological knowledge is brotherly love;    viii. Sin characterizes those who do not know God;    ix. Those who know God can recognize or distinguish God’s spirit;    x. Those who do not know God do not know his Church;

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

107

New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDNTTE)

2. The NT usage expands the OT conceptualization of knowledge:  a. Relationship between the knower and the known;  b. To have acquaintance with, regard, have to do with (= οἶδα);  c. To know the divine will or law entails recognition and obedience;  d. Theological knowledge is equated with genuine Christian experience:   i. Γινώσκω is used interchangeably with οἶδα;    ii. Theological knowledge entails gratitude and glorification, while epistemic futility means reducing genuine theological knowledge to intellectual activity;    iii. Revelation is prerequisite to recognizing God;    iv. Disobedience blocks genuine theological knowledge;   v. To recognize and to acknowledge are connected to obedience;  e. Γινώσκω also entails theoretical knowledge of God; 3. Incipient pre-gnostic tendencies:  a. Theological knowledge is closely connected to loving obedience:    i. Loving God is a correlative of knowing God or being known by God;    ii. Complete theological knowledge is eschatological;    iii. Theological knowledge consists of acknowledging Christ as Lord after a personal encounter with him, and results in obedience;   b. In Johannine literature, the frequency of γινώσκω may indicate an interaction with pre-gnostic ideas:   i. Γινώσκω reflects mutual relationships in divine or human realms;    ii. There is a dualism between God and the world;    iii. John uses gnostic language to answer gnostic arguments;   iv. Knowledge is of a personal revealed reality as seen in Christ;   v. Theological knowledge is rooted in God’s revelation in history;   vi. Theological knowledge is expressed in love, which entails obedience;   vii. Γινώσκω refers both to the divine love manifested in sending Jesus and to the resulting obedience;   viii. Knowing and believing have equal importance;    ix. John uses gnostic language but reflects a OT background; 4. The terms γινώσκω and οἶδα do not refer to divergent ways of knowing.

Table 3.6 (continued)

108  D.-A. PETRE

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

109

C present a detailed exposition, indicating all relevant texts and their definitional placement. Among the resources selected, BDAG, L&N, and NIDNTTE integrate aspects of contemporary semantics. In the case of the BDAG and L&N, both went beyond simple glosses and included short definitions for γινώσκω.93 Louw and Nida opened the way by offering definitions to help translators understand specific concepts in their language. In addition, they integrated the use of semantic domains, indicating that “differences in meaning are marked by context, either textual or extratextual.”94 Comparing the definitions of γινώσκω provided by BDAG and L&N, one can observe their similarities. Sense (2) of BDAG corresponds to L&N (2), BDAG (5) to L&N (6), and BDAG (7) to L&N (5).95 However, there is some definitional vagueness in BDAG. The BDAG sense (1) overlaps with (2) and (6), while in L&N, the sense (1) is separated from (2) and (3), thus bringing more clarity.96 As regards the biblical references provided, L&N proffers only one or two verses for each definition, while BDAG indicates a lot more. It is not easy to distinguish a prototypical scenario for γινώσκω in L&N. In BDAG, sense (1) is prototypical, but its description is vague. The criticism raised against TDNT by James Barr is familiar to many when it comes to theological dictionaries.97 In the TDNT article on γινώσκω, one can notice how the assumption that the GNT literature 93  Danker enlarged the definitions found in the third edition of BDAG. While he notes that “this revision builds on and expands Bauer’s use of extended definition” (BDAG, viii), he recognizes Louw and Nida’s impact, pointing out that “their forward linguistic thrust has left its mark, along with generously shared verbal echoes” (BDAG, xi). The definitions of γινώσκω from BDAG are similar to those in L&N. For more on L&N’s influence on BDAG, see Terry Roberts, “A Review of BDAG,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 61–62. 94  L&N 1:xvi. 95  The numbers refer to the definitional senses presented in Table 3.6. 96  It may be because Danker’s definitions build upon previous unrevised glosses. For details, see Andrew Bowden, “Excursus: The Third English Edition; BDAG,” in New Testament Lexicography: Introduction–Theory–Method, by Jesús Peláez and Juan Mateos, ed. David S. du Toit, trans. Andrew Bowden, FSBP 6 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 33–34. 97  See James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language ([London]: Oxford University Press, 1961), 206–62. Among the problems Barr enumerates are the pretense connection between the conceptual world of the early Christians and the lexical explanations given by TDNT (ibid., 207), together with a perceived vagueness of the conceptual approach of TDNT (ibid., 209).

110 

D.-A. PETRE

reflects a conflict with Gnosticism becomes the hermeneutical key for understanding both Pauline and Johannine literature.98 Nowadays, such an assumption is discredited.99 Furthermore, both TDNT and EDNT assume a disjunction between Hebrew and Hellenistic epistemic processes,100 resulting in a divorce between the OT and the NT. NIDNTTE moves away from such polarity that also needs to be rejected in light of the results of the present cognitive analysis. Both TDNT and EDNT separate the discussion of γινώσκω into secular and religious usage. It may help clarify the contextual frames of reference. However, it also introduces ambiguity, as various references to theological knowledge overlap with examples for the secular knowledge section (see Appendix C, Table C2). In addition, none of the three dictionaries provide definitions for various meanings. Consequently, one cannot identify a prototypical meaning or a prototypical scenario for γινώσκω except for its revelational content (TDNT 3.b.iv; EDNT 3.a.iii; NIDNTTE 2.d.ii). Besides, various statements indicate the connection between theological knowledge formation and obedience (TDNT 3.b.ix; EDNT 3.i.iv; NIDNTTE 3.e) and less with mission (EDNT 3.i.iv), although both mission and obedience figure prominently as cognitive domains for γινώσκω. Such examples indicate that these theological dictionaries, while proffering several details, leave the conceptual mapping of γινώσκω unfinished. Unification of Profile-Base-Domain Relations The analysis done for the first step and found in Appendix D reveals that the process of knowledge formation expressed by the verb γινώσκω occurs in seven cognitive domains I identified and grouped in this study (see Table  3.7). The conceptualization of γινώσκω takes place within these domains. These cognitive domains assume a specific construal of reality. Mission. The term γινώσκω occurs most frequently in the [mission] cognitive domain.101 In the two references from Luke, the verb profiles 98  It reflects Barr’s observation that TDNT—Barr criticizes here the German edition— focuses excessively “on the theological and philosophical differences” (ibid., 222) with unwanted consequences, like false dichotomies between NT words or the Greek usage of language (ibid., 223). 99  Silva, NIDNTTE 1:584. 100  See Barr’s criticism of this dichotomy in Barr, Semantics, 209. 101  “New Testament theology is essentially missionary theology,” writes Marshall, who considers the NT literature as “the result of a two-part mission, first, the mission of Jesus sent

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

111

Table 3.7  Cognitive domains of Γινώσκω Cognitive domain

No. References

Mission

32

Obedience

30

Teaching

21

Covenant

12

Prophecy

9

Judgment

8

Miracle

3

Luke 10:11, 22; John 1:10; 8:27–28; 13:7, 12; 14:31; 17:3, 7–8, 23, 25a,c; Acts 1:7; 2:36; 8:30; 17:13, 19–20; 22:14; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor 1:21; 2:8[2x], 11, 14, 16; 2 Cor 5:16[2x]; Gal 2:9; Eph 3:19; Mark 15:45; John 7:17; 8:32, 43, 52, 55; Rom 6:6; 1 Cor 8:2[3x], 3; 2 Cor 8:9; Eph 5:5; Phil 3:10; 1 John 2:3[2x], 4, 5, 13, 14[2x]; 3:1b, 6, 16, 24; 4:7, 8, 13, 16; 2 John 1; Matt 12:7; 13:11; 21:45; Mark 12:12; Luke 8:10; 20:19; 24:18, 35; John 3:10; 6:69; 7:26; 10:6, 14b, 38[2x]; 1 Cor 13:9, 12; 1 John 4:2, 6[2x]; 5:20; John 13:35; 14:7[3x], 9, 17[2x], 20; Rom 11:34; Gal 3:7; 4:9a; Heb 8:11; Matt 24:33; Mark 13:29; Luke 18:34; 21:31; John 7:27; 12:16; 13:28; 15:18; 16:3; Luke 19:44; John 19:4; Rom 1:21; 2:18; Heb 3:10; Rev 2:23; 3:3, 9; Matt 9:30; Mark 5:43; John 4:53.

|awareness by instruction| in 10:11 and |personal acquaintance with| in 10:22 for the trajectors \town dwellers\ and \the son\ respectively. The latter profile occurs in the Gospel of John twice about \the world\ negatively (1:10, 17:25a) and once positively (17:3) when relating \generic persons given by god to jesus\ to /god and jesus/. Three times the |understanding of| profile appears, characterizing both the \the jews\ (8:27) and the \disciples\ (13:7, 13) trajectors. In John, γινώσκω profiles |recognition by acquaintance with| only about \the jews\ (8:28) and \the world\ (14:31, 17:23), while |awareness by acquaintance with| characterizes \jesus’s own people\ following their experience of accepting the words entrusted to them by Jesus (17:7–8). All seven references from the book of Acts are about the [mission] domain. There is a focus on awareness which is profiled in a general by God to inaugurate his kingdom with the blessings that it brings to people and to call people to respond to it, and then the mission of his followers called to continue his work by proclaiming him as Lord and Savior, and calling people to faith and ongoing commitment to him, as a result of which his church grows” (I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004], 34–35).

112 

D.-A. PETRE

manner (|awareness of| in 1:7) or more nuanced tones as |awareness by instruction| (17:13, 19)102 and |awareness by acquaintance with| (22:14). Echoing the OT usage, acquaintance also appears as |recognition by acquaintance with| in 2:36. In two cases |understanding of| is profiled to characterize the interest of an individual (8:30) or a group (17:20) to grasp someone’s specific teaching mentally. In the Pauline writings, |understanding of| occurs four times in the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor 2:11, 2:16; 2 Cor 5:16[2x]).103 A related profile, |discernment by acquaintance with|, indicates a certain lack of collective (|rulers of the age|, 1 Cor 2:8[2x]) or individual (|unspiritual generic person|, 1 Cor 2:14) trajectors. In Rom 10:19, \israel\ is profiled in relation to /proclamation of christian gospel/ as |awareness by instruction|. The |personal acquaintance with| profile occurs in the negative in 1 Cor 1:21 (\the world\) or the positive in Eph 3:19 (\ephesians\). The last profile of the [mission] cognitive domain is |recognition by acquaintance with| in Gal 2:9. Obedience. The [obedience] domain is closely related to [mission]. In the Gospel of Mark, the observance of the Sabbath instantiates [obedience] and forms the cognitive background against which |awareness by instruction| is profiled (15:45). In the Pauline literature, |understanding of| is profiled three times in a single verse (1 Cor 8:2),104 while in the next verse—if the perfect is in the middle voice—the |personal acquaintance

102  As used in the present NT cognitive analysis, instruction refers to teaching and providing detailed information about something. 103  As Harris indicates, in 2 Cor 5:16 γινώσκω is synonymous with οἶδα (Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 427). 104  The succession of the verbal forms in the Greek of 1 Cor 8:2 is “εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἐγνωκέναι [perfect infinitive] τι, οὔπω ἔγνω [aorist indicative] καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι [aorist infinitive].” Thiselton explains that there is a progression from the Corinthians’s pretense of achieving a specific definitive revealed knowledge—expressed by the resultative perfect ἐγνωκέναι—to Paul’s denial of such pretense using the ingressive aorist ἔγνω, and highlighting the contrast by using the consummative aorist γνῶναι. For details, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 624–25.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

113

with|

profile occurs (also in Phil 3:10).105 In Rom 6:6106 and Eph 5:5, the verb profiles |awareness by instruction|, while in 2 Cor 8:9 |awareness by acquaintance with|. In John, out of the five occurrences of γινώσκω, four have the same explicit trajector (|the jews|), which is twice negatively portrayed using |understanding of| (8:43) and |personal acquaintance with| (8:55). The divinely intended |awareness by acquaintance with| profiled in 8:32 for the same trajector is neutralized by the |belief in the truth of| regarding Jesus as being demon-possessed in 8:52. In the fifth reference from John, γινώσκω profiles |discernment by acquaintance with| (7:17). More than half of the references associated with this domain occur in John’s epistles. In all instances, the acquaintance with the epistemic object is present. The |personal acquaintance with| is most frequent (1 John 2:3b, 4, 13, 14[2x]; 3:1b, 6; 4:7, 8), followed by |recognition by acquaintance with| (1 John 2:3a, 5; 3:24; 4:13) and |awareness by acquaintance with| (1 John 3:16, 4:16; 2 John 1). Teaching. The [teaching] domain is closely related to the [mission] and the [obedience] domains. In the Synoptic Gospels, the |understanding of| occurs three times, once on Sabbath-keeping (Matt 12:7) and twice regarding Jesus’s parables (Matt 13:11, Luke 8:10). The |discernment by acquaintance with| profile also occurs concerning Jesus’s parables in three parallel passages (Matt 21:45, Mark 12:12, Luke 20:19). The last two occurrences in the Synoptics are in Luke 24, profiling |awareness by acquaintance with| (v. 18) and |divine self-revelation| (v. 35). The former relational profile also occurs in the only two Pauline instances of this domain (1 Cor 13:9, 12).107 105  Pointing out that in 1 Cor 8:3 some older manuscripts omit τὸν θεόν (𝔓46; Cl) and ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ (𝔓46; 33 ;‫ ;א‬Cl), Thiselton argues that the middle voice of ἔγνωσται solved any potential problems raised by a shorter text. The translation he proffers for this verse, “But if anyone loves, he or she has experienced true ‘knowing,’” is accepted here; hence, 1 Cor 8:3 is included in the analysis. For Thiselton’s argument, see ibid., 625–26. 106  That in Rom 6:6 the verb profiles |awareness by instruction| is supported by Moo who explains that, in this verse, “τοῦτο (‘this’) is prospective, its antecedent being the ὅτι (‘that’) clause that follows. What Paul describes in this verse, then, is not known through experience (contra, e.g., Hodge), or reflection on that experience (contra, e.g., Gifford), but through Paul’s own words that follow” (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 372n100). 107  I agree with Fitzmyer that the implied epistemic object has to do with the divine realm in 1 Cor 13:9, 12. For details, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 32 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 500.

114 

D.-A. PETRE

The Johannine literature also dominates this domain, having 11 occurrences of γινώσκω. In the Gospel of John, acquaintance is prominent, figuring as |recognition by acquaintance with| (6:69, 7:26, 10:38b), |awareness by acquaintance with| (10:38a), or |personal acquaintance with| (10:14b). The other two references from John profile |understanding of| negatively concerning \nicodemus\ (3:10) and \the jews\ (10:6) respectively. The four last instances of this domain occur in 1 John and are equally divided between |personal acquaintance with| (4:6a, 5:20) and |discernment by acquaintance with| (4:2, 4:6b), respectively. Covenant. While not figuring as frequently as in the OT, the [covenant] domain is nevertheless pertinent to the process of theological knowledge formation. Most references occur in Jesus’s farewell discourse from John’s Gospel.108 Similar to the previous domain, acquaintance is prominent. The leading profile is |personal acquaintance with|, occurring six times (17:7[3x], 9, 17[2x], 20), whereas |recognition by acquaintance with| appears twice (13:35, 14:20). The former profile also occurs in Gal 4:9a and Heb 8:11, while the latter in Gal 3:7. In the last reference about [covenant], Rom 11:34, γινώσκω profiles |understanding of|. Prophecy. The [prophecy] domain is limited to nine references in the Gospels. In three parallel passages, γινώσκω relates \disciples\ to /signs anticipating the second coming/ profiling |awareness by acquaintance with| (Matt 24:33, Mark 13:29, Luke 21:31).109 The same profile occurs in John 15:18, this time about the opposition from the world that Jesus’s disciples would face. Next comes |understanding of|, profiled as a lack of the trajector \disciples\ (Luke 18:34; John 12:16, 13:28). The verb 108  As Carson observes, “Just as Israel is about to enter the promised land, the departing Moses addresses the covenant community; just as Jesus’ disciples are about to enter the age of the Spirit, the departing Jesus addresses the new covenant community” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, PNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 480). 109  In Matt 24:33 (and Mark 13:29), the verb has an implied subject understood by some commentators as a reference to Jesus Christ. For details, see Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC 33B (Dallas: Word, 1995), 715 and John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 988. Other commentators indicate that the signs preceding the destruction of Jerusalem are in focus. See, for example, R.  T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 538. Nevertheless, taking Luke 21:31 into account, the landmark in all these verses cannot but be /signs anticipating the second coming/. In this regard, see I.  Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 779.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

115

profiles the |personal acquaintance with| on the background of the /father and jesus/ landmark (John 16:3) also as a lack, this time that of \adversaries\. The last profile, |awareness of|, occurs once (John 7:27). Judgment. The first occurrence of the [judgment] domain appears in Luke 19:44, where the verb γινώσκω profiles |discernment by acquaintance with|. The same profile is also present in Rom 2:18. In Rom 1:21, the relation between the \the wicked\ trajector and the /god/ landmark is profiled as |awareness by acquaintance with| regarding the divine attributes revealed in nature.110 In John 19:4, the |awareness by instruction| profile occurs. The |understanding of| profile occurs in Heb 3:10  in ­negative terms and the more general |awareness of| profile in Rev 3:3. Two other occurrences of the [judgment] domain occur in Rev 2:23; 3:9, profiling |recognition by acquaintance with|. Miracles. The final cognitive domain of the verb γινώσκω, [miracles], appears in three passages from the Gospels, all about a miracle done by Jesus. First, in Matt 9:30, when Jesus orders two healed blind men to keep their curing hidden, the |awareness by acquaintance with| profile occurs. Second, the same profile occurs when Jairus’s daughter is resurrected (Mark 5:43). In the third occurrence, in focus is the |discernment by acquaintance with| profile, relating the \royal official\ trajector to the /timing of jesus’s words/ landmark (John 4:53). Matrix of domains. As regards theological knowledge formation, γινώσκω profiles a broad palette of trajector-landmark relations, wherein a human group represents the explicit or implicit knower in the majority of cases (87 times). At the same time, a person occurs 28 times. The profile-­ base-­domain relations outline the meaning potential of γινώσκω, which encompasses |personal acquaintance with|, |awareness of|, |awareness by acquaintance with|, |awareness by instruction|, |belief in the truth of|, |discernment by acquaintance with|, |divine self-revelation|, |recognition by acquaintance with|, and |understanding of|. Like in the case of ‫ידע‬, the prototypical meaning of γινώσκω cannot be described by only one of these profiles but rather by a fusion of them. In the human-divine interaction, γινώσκω profiles the embodied human awareness of something  Cranfield’s analysis confirms that in Rom 1:21, γινώσκω profiles |awareness by acquainHe notes that “in their [human] awareness of the created world it is of Him [God] that all along, though unwittingly, they have been—objectively—aware” (C.  E. B.  Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC [1975; repr., London: T&T Clark, 2004], 1:116). 110

tance with|.

116 

D.-A. PETRE

about the divine realm by acquaintance with a divine revelatory action against a matrix of seven cognitive domains: [mission], [obedience], [teaching], [covenant], [prophecy], [judgment], and [miracle]. While in the OT, the divine realm focuses on God, there is a significant shift in the NT. Most references to the divine realm focus on Christ, indicating his person or activity, including his teaching.111 Theological ­knowledge formation in the GNT, as reflected in the contextual usage events of γινώσκω, has a solid christological character. Prototypical Scenario Indicating a process, the verb γινώσκω is inseparable from other elements of the mentally construed experience of the process of theological knowledge formation. As such, γινώσκω figures in a prototypical scenario that is particularized within each cognitive domain by its meaning potential. The basic steps of this scenario are Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Manifestation of the divine realm; Step 3: Human embodied awareness by acquaintance with the divine realm; Step 4: Human knowledge of the divine realm. Each of the profiled relations of the meaning potential of γινώσκω reflects this scenario, either in a three-step or four-step scenario (see Table 3.8). The Schematic Meaning of Γινώσκω The analysis above shows that the linguistic unit γινώσκω is a schematic type, designating the external relation between the semantic structure |embodied awareness by acquaintance with| and the phonological structure γινώσκω. In addition, it designates the internal relationship within 111  Christ’s person is indicated 29 times (Mark 15:45; Luke 10:22; 24:18, 35; John 1:10; 6:69; 7:26; 8:28, 52; 10:14b, 38[2x]; 14:7a, 9, 20; 15:18; 16:3; 17:3, 8, 23, 25c; 19:4; 2 Cor 5:16[2x]; Eph 3:19; Phil 3:10; 1 John 2:13, 14b; 3:6). Jesus’s activity is referenced 19 times (Matt 9:30; 24:33; Mark 5:43; Mark 13:29; Luke 10:11; 18:34; 19:44; 20:19; 21:31; John 4:53; 13:7, 12; 14:31; 2 Cor 8:9; Gal 2:9; 1 John 3:16; Rev 2:23; 3:3, 9) and his teachings 10 times (Matt 13:11; 21:45; Mark 12:12; Luke 8:10; John 3:10; 7:17; 8:27, 43; 10:6; 12:16). Other passages also refer to Jesus either in Paul’s teachings (Rom 6:6; Eph 5:5), Jesus’s own teaching (John 13:35), or in reference with the latter’s statements (John 13:28).

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

117

Table 3.8  Prototypical scenarios of the meaning potential of Γινώσκω Meaning potential

No. Prototypical scenario

|personal acquaintance with|

30

|understanding of|

23

|awareness by acquaintance with|

20

|recognition by

17

acquaintance with|

|discernment by

12

acquaintance with|

|awareness by instruction|

8

|awareness of|

3

|divine self-revelation|

1

|belief in the truth of|

1

Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine revelation; Step 3: Human acquaintance with the divine revelation; Step 4: Personal acquaintance with a person of the Godhead. Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human understanding of the divine action. Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human acquaintance with the divine action; Step 4: Awareness of the divine. Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine intervention; Step 3: Acquaintance with the divine intervention; Step 4: Human recognition of the divine. Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human acquaintance with the divine action; Step 4: Human discernment of the truth of something related to the divine action. Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Instruction; Step 4: Awareness of the divine. Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human awareness of divine action. Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine revelatory action; Step 3: Human acquaintance with the divine revelatory action. Step 1: State of unknowing; Step 2: Divine action; Step 3: Human reaction as belief in the truth of something related to the divine action.

118 

D.-A. PETRE

the semantic structure between the general landmark /divine revelatory action/ and the general trajector \human group or individual person\. Furthermore, the linguistic unit is also instantiated in larger configurations of meaning—namely, seven cognitive domains.112 In coding this schematic type as instances of meaning within specific cognitive domains, the formation of theological knowledge is construed using specific cognitive categories. The basic meaning awareness by acquaintance with, originating in the sensory embodied experience, is reflected in various instantiations, indicating that processes like belief, discernment, recognition, or understanding entail experience. In γινώσκω’s semantic structure, the general trajector \human group or individual person\ reveals that the process of knowledge formation is not abstracted from human life but rather part of it. The prevalence of human groups in knowledge formation reflects the communitarian focus of GNT.113 Without denying the role of the trajector, the mental image evoked by γινώσκω depends on its landmark structure, which connects it to specific usage events and cognitive domains. The /divine revelatory action/ general base is detailed as, for example, /jesus’s person/, /god the father’s person/, /jesus’s activity/, /jesus’s teaching/, /god the father’s activity/, /spirit/, /spirit’s activity/, /divine assurance/, /divine love/, /divine realm/, /divine scripture/, /divine truth/, or /divine will/. All landmarks are in a close relationship with their cognitive domains. Christ’s person and activity historically manifested are in focus. His mission connects organically with the Father’s and Spirit’s mission in revealing the love-suffused divine character. Through his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and promised return, Jesus Christ galvanized the small group of disciples into a Spirit-filled community of believers that successfully continued his revelatory mission. In 50 occurrences from the GNT, γινώσκω designates a stative temporal process. When γινώσκω occurs as such, the relational profile does not involve change over time. For example, in John 17:7, the genuine followers of Christ know the divine source of what Jesus has, indicative of the latter’s intimate communion with God the Father. The perfect ἔγνωκαν emphasizes a present epistemic state resulting from a christological past 112  Like in the case of ‫ידע‬, I follow Wolde’s formulation here, although the data are different. See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 264. 113  Of course, this does not mean that theological knowledge formation is only communitarian, as the individual focus shows.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

119

revelation.114 Consequently, the |awareness by acquaintance with| profile reveals a simple unchanged temporal relation, as the passing of time does not alter the knowledge of Christ’s people. Forty-six occurrences profile a dynamic temporal process. Initially, the trajector is in a state of unknowing. After the manifestation of the divine realm, the trajector becomes acquainted with the divine action and, as a result, aware of it. Often this divine action is mediated by Christ. Human awareness is embodied and results in knowledge of the divine realm. For example, in Luke 24:35, part of “one of the most vivid appearance accounts in the NT,”115 two disciples recount how Jesus made himself known to the group of believers. The verb γινώσκω profiles |divine self-­ revelation| which reflects a dynamic temporal process that began when \jesus\—the trajector of the relational profile—began progressing toward the /two disciples/ landmark and climaxed with Christ’s self-revelation. A complex atemporal relation occurs in 15 passages. Here γινώσκω has a multiple consistent configuration without considering time. For example, in Phil 3:10, the aorist infinitive of the verb profiles multiple |personal acquaintance with| structures, constant in time, as no temporal marker appears.116 As such, Paul’s desire to know Christ is not presented as a process but emphasizes the epistemic experience as a whole. On the other hand, a simple atemporal relation—occurring four times with γινώσκω— profiles a single consistent configuration. In Rom 1:21, for example, the aorist participle of γινώσκω profiles the human |awareness by acquaintance with| about the divine attributes revealed in nature as a simple and consistent configuration that characterizes the wicked humankind.117 114  Carson notes that the disciples “had come to the deep conviction that Jesus was God’s messenger, that he had been sent by God and that all he taught was God’s truth” (Carson, John, 559). This reflects their maturity in faith (Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. David Smith and G.  A. Kon, 3 vols., Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament [Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK: Burns & Oates; New York: Crossroad, 1982], 3:177). 115  Darrell L.  Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT 3B (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 1922. 116  The infinitive aorist γνῶναι is part of a catenative construction indicating volition (see the two ἵνα-subjonctives κερδήσω and εὑρεθῶ in verses 8 and 9 respectively). For more on the syntactical construction used here, see Gerald F.  Hawthorne and Ralph P.  Martin, Philippians, 2nd ed., WBC 43 (Nashville: Nelson, 2004), 196–97 and John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 522. 117  Although not using a cognitive-linguistics approach, Longenecker is in agreement with this conceptual meaning conveyed by this Pauline usage (Richard N.  Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016], 208–09).

120 

D.-A. PETRE

Conclusions In conclusion, when the linguistic units ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω conceptualize knowing god, a similar mental image emerges from the interaction of four elements.118 First is the contextual usage event. Without a context, one loses the conceptual content communicated by ‫ ידע‬or γινώσκω. The second element—the profile-base relationship—can only occur in a communicative setting. As a verb, ‫ ידע‬has a relational profile that occurs in 334 instantiations in the HB, while γινώσκω occurs 115 times in the GNT. The profile-base relationship represents what ‫ ידע‬or γινώσκω designates in each occurrence. Given that the profile-base is a trajector-landmark relation, the trajector represents a profile with a primary focus, and the base represents a landmark with a secondary focus. The authorial choice to give prominence to some elements in the text focuses the reader’s attention on specific cognitive components and ways to relate to each of them. The third element that contributes to the mental image created by ‫ידע‬ and γινώσκω is the area of contextualization, namely, the 14 and 7 cognitive domains, respectively. These domains function as background knowledge for each instantiation of the two linguistic units. The matrix of these domains provides the background for a synthesized prototypical meaning in each case. Both ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω profile the embodied human awareness of something about the divine realm by acquaintance with divine revelatory action. The divine realm has a distinctive christological character in the case of γινώσκω. The fourth element contributing to creating ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω’s mental image is the four-step prototypical scenario that begins with the state of unknowing and, when the divine realm intervenes, leads to a human embodied awareness by acquaintance with the divine, resulting in the formation of theological knowledge. Consequently, the mental image created by ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω prototypically evokes a temporal process wherein humans personally experience divine historical intervention. The cognitive analysis above has several epistemological implications for a possible model of theological knowledge formation as reflected in the Bible. First, the epistemic process entails embodied awareness, indicative of an indissoluble connection between cognitive and somatic experiences. Second, knowledge formation is relational-participative, necessitating 118  The description of these four elements is adapted from Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 357–60.

3  ‫ ידע‬AND γινώσκω AS PROTOTYPICAL CASE STUDIES… 

121

experiencing or acquaintance with the epistemic subject or object. Third, theological knowledge is revelational, as it is warranted by a divine intervention either directly or indirectly. Without revelation, no theological knowledge is possible. Fourth, such epistemic activity is temporal and develops in history as it is part of human life. Fifth, this process is both communitarian and individual. The following two implications are related to the cognitive domains identified. These domains form two major cognitive clusters for the OT and the NT: mission and covenantal obedience. These two clusters provide the cognitive background for most references, thus fostering the process of knowledge formation. These seven implications outline the minimal criteria for theological knowledge formation in the biblical canon. The next chapter unpacks each implication, and the resulting model becomes a vantage point for evaluating the three contemporary evangelical models presented in Chap. 2.

CHAPTER 4

Towards a Canonical Model of Theological Knowledge Formation

The seven epistemological implications from the previous chapter’s cognitive analysis outline the minimal criteria for a canonical model of theological knowledge formation. These describe the human conceptualization of knowing god relative to the instances of ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω. In this chapter, I explore each implication and provide the theological epistemological standpoint required for a critical dialogue with evidentialist foundationalism, proper functionalism, and postfoundationalism.

Theological Knowledge Formation Entails Embodied Awareness Theological knowledge formation entails embodied awareness, indicative of an indissoluble connection between cognitive and somatic experience. Embodiment means that the human body is “the site of cognitive processes,” an “experiential structure”1 that mediates human-to-human and human-divine interaction. Hence, the biblical perspective on the human being can be described as “self-conscious relationality with its neural correlates and embodied narrativity or formative histories.”2 Humans are 1  Joel B. Green, Conversion in Luke-Acts: Divine Action, Human Cognition, and the People of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 19. 2  Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible, STI (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 179, emphases original.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3_4

123

124 

D.-A. PETRE

not self-contained units, as their formative histories are always socially embedded.3 Furthermore, an inextricable relationship between human identity and physicality4 makes humans holistic beings or “psychophysical unities.”5 Such unity is not simple but complex, as it involves various faculties.6 Various biblical terms reflect these faculties, yet each term preserves the perspective on the whole rather than on separate anthropological compartments.7 For this reason, knowing is associated with the eyes—seeing is knowing—(Gen 24:21; Exod 7:17; Deut 4:9, 11:2, 29:4; Ps 77:19; Isa 5:19, 41:20, 48:6; Jer 2:19; Ezek 14:23; Matt 24:33; Mark 13:29; Luke 21:31; John 14:7, 9, 17; Acts 22:14; 1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:1, 6); ears—hearing is knowing—(Num 24:16; Deut 29:4, 31:3; Pss 78:3, 81:5, 143:8; Isa 33:13; 40:21, 28; 48:6–8; Hab 3:2; Acts 22:14); and with the heart (Deut 4:9, 39; 8:5; 29:4; Josh 23:14; Pss 90:12, 95:10; Jer 24:7; Heb 3:10), where knowing takes place.8 Biblical characters interact with the manifestation of the divine realm within their bodies and through their bodies. Their embodied awareness is of the I can type rather than the I think that one.9 The relational profiles of the linguistic units ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω entail that, as divinely created beings, humans can perceive (|awareness of|, |perception by physical sight|), discern (|discernment of|), learn (|awareness by instruction|) or understand (|understanding of|), and also participate (|awareness by acquaintance with|, |discernment by acquaintance with|, |recognition by acquaintance with|) or relate (|personal acquaintance with|). From a 3  Robert A.  Di Vito, “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity,” CBQ 61.2 (1999):221. 4  Green, Body, 179. Given the reductionist issues entailed by monism (Arthur F. Holmes, “Monism,” NDT, 442) and the Greek source of dualism (Anthony R.  Mills, “Monism, Dualism, Pluralism,” GDT, 583), the terminology preferred here is holism. 5  Nancey Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 22. 6  Di Vito, “Old Testament Anthropology,” 228. 7  Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (1974; repr., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 9, Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 677. 8  Jewett remarks that apostle Paul did not develop a fully fledged anthropology (Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings [Leiden: Brill, 1971], 447). 9  Focusing on doing, I can highlight the embodied nature of knowledge. I think that refers to a dichotomic understanding of awareness, separated from the body. For details, see Yael Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 545 (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 51.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

125

biblical perspective, the awareness of the external world is always contingent on specific sensory experiences in a specific time and place. As such, knowledge does not coalesce into the sensory apparatus but recognizes that knowledge formation is “a historically and socially-situated experience.”10 The Bible also recognizes that the entrance of sin into the human world led to an epistemic distortion that affected the entire human being. As Rom 6:6 indicates, the sinful body (Gr. τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας) “is not merely the material part of a mortal human being, as opposed to the soul, but the whole person considered as earth-oriented, not open to God or his Spirit, and prone to sin.”11 For this reason, the Bible points to the noetic effects of sin in various passages (Jer 2:19, 4:22, 9:3; Heb 3:10; 1 John 3:6). These effects are manifested especially as a lack of love oriented toward others (1 John 4:8) or God (1 Cor 8:3). In the Bible, love is always “expressed outwardly as a commitment to seek the well-being of the other through concrete acts of service.”12 Consequently, sin affects the embodied manifestation of such love in the mentioned relationships. Furthermore, sin distorts the sensorial perception of reality. As a result, human beings can confuse the inculcated impression with reality and err. For example, a person may profess to know God and have a wrong impression if he or she lacks embodied or behavioral obedience to God’s commandments (1 John 2:4). Authentic theological knowledge and seeming real theological knowledge are two possible epistemic results deriving from one’s heed to divine authority.13 Human obedience to divine commandments warrants one’s relationship with God.14 As there is no concept of metaphysical body-soul dualism in the Bible, the body is the locus of the manifestation of the human choice to either remain self-centered or to orient oneself toward others.15 10  Dru Johnson, Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013), 156. 11  Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (1993; repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 436. 12  Laurie J. Braaten, “Love,” EDB, 825. 13  Johnson, Biblical Knowing, 47. 14  Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, PNT (Leicester: Apollos; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 79. 15  Udo Schnelle, Neutestamentliche Anthropologie, BThSt 18 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 75. For the OT, see Bernd Janowski, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments: Grundfragen—Kontexte—Themenfelder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 58.

126 

D.-A. PETRE

Theological Knowledge Formation Is Relational-Participative Theological knowledge formation is relational-participative, necessitating experience or acquaintance with the epistemic subject or object. For example, one can know the divine realm—who God is or what God does. A person’s body enables this epistemic relation.16 Human “relationality is so fundamental that it is rooted in the so-called body terms themselves.”17 Humans know the divine realm by acquaintance with it, that is, by experiencing it through embodied participation. Most biblical references reveal relational profiles that explicitly mention the human participative aspect reflected by acquaintance (|awareness by acquaintance with|, |discernment by acquaintance with|, |recognition by acquaintance with|). Rituals—as qualified below—(Exod 31:13; Lev 23:43; Deut 31:13; John 13:7, 12), the Exodus judgments (Exod 7–11), answered prayers (1 Kgs 8:43), the judgments against Israel or nations in Jeremiah or Ezekiel, the manifestation of divine favor (1 Sam 7:21), deliverance (Ps 109:27), or love in Jesus Christ (2 Cor 8:9, 1 John 3:16) assume human participation in the formation of theological knowledge. Rituals illustrate well what human participation means. As rituals are illocutionary—acts whose fulfillment effects their intended meaning—participating in them is an epistemic activity.18 The ritual itself invites the obvious question of its significance for the participants.19 For example, Sabbath-keeping, “the ritual with the highest recurrence rate” in the OT has an explicit epistemic facet that “forms the knower through habituation.”20 Due to its implicit relational character,21 the Sabbath yields 16  A caveat is necessary here. Murphy notes, “It is not the body qua material object that constitutes our identities, but rather the higher capacities that it enables: consciousness and memory, moral character, interpersonal relations, and, especially, relationship with God” (Murphy, Bodies and Souls, 132). 17  Jan Dietrich, “Human Relationality and Sociality in Ancient Israel: Mapping the Social Anthropology of the Old Testament,” in “What is Human?” Theological Encounters with Anthropology, ed. Eve-Marie Becker, Jan Dietrich, and Bo Kristian Holm (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 25. 18  Gerald A. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, BBRSup 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 205–25. 19  Dru Johnson, Knowledge by Ritual: A Biblical Prolegomenon to Sacramental Theology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 137–38. 20  Ibid., 152. 21  Tonstad, The Lost Meaning, 32.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

127

the temporal space for the divine and human relationship with the world.22 At the crossroads between the past creation week and the coming week of work, the Sabbath invites human beings to participate in the present Sabbath experience to realign themselves with God’s plans.23 While God’s actions can constitute an epistemic object for humans in whose reality they can participate, one cannot dissociate God’s actions from who God is.24 In Exod 33:13, Moses asks for a revelation of God’s ways to know him better. In what is “the earliest extant commentary”25 of this passage, Ps 103:7–8, the divine character intertwines with divine acts. Consequently, the primary epistemic relationship is between two persons, the human being and God, as the |personal acquaintance with| exemplifies, profiling the relational character of human existence.26 In the human-divine interaction, each person is an epistemic subject that participates in the epistemic interaction both as a knower and as a known (Gal 4:9).27 This does not imply that humans are on the same level as God. On the contrary, God is God. Hence, while real, theological knowledge is “only analogously relational and analogously personal.”28 The language of the biblical canon—both accommodative and 22  Terence E.  Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 62–63. It entails the willingness of each epistemic subject to enter into such a relationship. In the OT, the close connection between the weekly Sabbath and the festival calendars indicates that “the Sabbath connects Israel’s life and the large scope of creation, all readily at rest” (Walter Brueggemann, “The God Who Gives Rest,” in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Thomas Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr, VTSup 164 [Leiden: Brill, 2014], 570). Due to its dual theological-historical nature, the Sabbath reflects the unity between theology and history in the Scripture (Richard M. Davidson, “The Genesis Account of Origins,” in The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament, ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2015], 82). 23  Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, The Christian Use of Time (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978), 111. 24  John Goldingay, Biblical Theology: The God of the Christian Scriptures (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016), 19–20. 25  Sarna, Exodus, 213. 26  Given that God is a person, the relational profile |personal acquaintance with| reflects the appropriateness of its homonymic epistemic mode. Cf Olson, Essentials of Christian Thought, 208. 27  Zoltán Szallós-Farkas, Dumnezeu, Scriptura și Biserica. Tratat de teologie, hristologie și spiritualitate [God, the Scripture and the Church. A Treatise on Theology, Christology, and Spirituality] (Bucharest: Universitară, 2013), 30. 28   D.  C. Schindler, “Mystery and Mastery: Philosophical Reflections on Biblical Epistemology,” in Healy and Parry, The Bible and Epistemology, 184, emphases original.

128 

D.-A. PETRE

analogical—indicates Scripture as the proper means of divine-human communication.29

Theological Knowledge Formation Is Revelational Theological knowledge formation is revelational, as it is warranted by divine intervention in human life either directly or indirectly. As indicated by the prototypical scenarios of ‫ ידע‬and γινώσκω, without revelation, no theological knowledge is possible.30 Revelation refers to the manifestation of the divine realm as seen both in the world and in biblical words. The former is sometimes referred to as general revelation, indicating its universal accessibility, as divine revelation “is written into the nature of the world and into the way life works.”31 The latter is known as special revelation, manifested in specific places and for particular groups of people.32 However, such definitional separation faces various challenges as general revelation “is as contextual and particular in other religions as those Christian claims from which it is distinguished and to which it is subordinated.”33 Therefore, a helpful way to describe the category of divine revelation is to see special revelation as prototypical—that is, the most specific example of what a manifestation of the divine realm means—and general revelation as sharing some characteristics with the prototype but not the same degree.34 In what follows, the references to divine revelation refer to this prototypical revelation. As indicated in the previous section, the reality of God is different from and independent of the contingent created reality. The latter comprises the human spatial-temporal reality. Humans refer to the elements that are part of the created reality through specific linguistic units that indicate their conceptualization or beliefs about such reality. Nevertheless, their existence is actual, not apparent, and their actual nature can be known.

 Peckham, Canonical Theology, 244–45.   Murray Rae, “‘Incline Your Ear so that You May Live’: Principles of Biblical Epistemology,” in Healy and Parry, The Bible and Epistemology, 162. 31  Goldingay, Biblical Theology, 84. 32  Millard J.  Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 122. 33  David A. S. Fergusson, “Revelation,” OCCT, 620. See also Robert K. Johnston, God’s Wider Presence: Reconsidering General Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 9. 34  See Clark H. Pinnock, “Revelation,” NDT, 585. 29 30

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

129

Reality is objective as it exists apart from any human conceptualization. Through language, human beings can refer to this reality. God designed and created the world to reflect his attributes purposefully. Hence, the created reality was to reflect God’s character. Guided by God, the first human beings could learn about him through nature35 until the emergence of evil marred the created reality. Romans 1:21 is a crucial text for understanding God’s revelation through nature and the human rejection of this revelation due to the epistemic effects of sin.36 The divine reflection in creation is dimmed but still perceptible despite the mixture of purposiveness and purposelessness that characterizes the postlapsarian world. The objects of reality can still be perceived as they are, but their nature reflects a blend of good and evil. Humanity needs an external standard to assess reality, as they cannot recognize their Creator (John 1:10). The biblical revelation constitutes this standard. 37 In Rom 1:21, Scripture testifies that “the insight written into the world and into human experience is true but incomplete or insufficient.”38 Scripture fulfills the role of the criterion needed to warrant theological knowledge (Deut 31:13, Rom 2:18).39 God dynamically interacts with humans as the biblical verses from the [judgment], [covenant], [deliverance], or [restoration] indicate. This interaction reveals several aspects of divine care, closeness, and participation in human history. It also points out that God acts in the historical flow to bring humanity back to himself. This climaxes in the NT christological revelation of the embodied God, whose mission, covenantal  Ibid., 587.  Given the empirical evidence for the existence of a Creator, to ask for “some sort of absolute proof of God’s existence is simply an indication of the recalcitrant nature of fallen humanity” (Robert H.  Mounce, Romans, NAC 27 [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995], 78). 37  It also includes self-evident beliefs. R. Scott Smith notes that “self-evident beliefs are not undercut by our need to depend upon God for all knowledge of him. They, too, are based upon what God has revealed” (Smith, “Non-Foundational Epistemologies,” 870, emphasis original). 38  Goldingay, Biblical Theology, 103. 39  As Yoder observes, “Modernity views biblical revelation as epistemologically flawed in two ways: biblical critics say claims to revelatory knowledge are expressions of imagination while critics of religion treat these claims as symptoms of pathology” (Douglas Yoder, Tanakh Epistemology: Knowledge and Power, Religious and Secular [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020], 100). Accepting the Scripture as the criterion of warranting theological knowledge rejects these two types of criticisms. 35 36

130 

D.-A. PETRE

obedience, and teaching—as indicated by the references under the [mission], [obedience], [covenant], and [teaching] cognitive domains, respectively—are continued by his disciples. “Because it is revealed, knowledge of God is the gift of divine grace and a participation in God’s self-­ knowledge,”40 involving both the individual human being and the communitarian body of believers. Given that the biblical epistemological process aims at providing an authoritative guide leading humans to know God,41 the community of the disciples becomes the visible embodiment of God’s purposes in the flow of human history for others to join.

Theological Knowledge Formation Is Temporal-Historical Theological knowledge formation is temporal and develops in history as it is a part of human life. As such, it entails individual and collective histories. Any linguistically expressed interpretation of past events is a “meaning-­ creating process”42 that impacts the present. Consequently, the biblical-­ historical descriptions are epistemic at their core, conveying a theological meaning. In the Bible, God acts in the temporal flow of human history, thus reflecting God’s temporal nature.43 As the divine presence in the OT and NT is defined in terms of its actions, the historical significance of the divine interventions is inseparable from its theological meaning. As a result, the theology of the Bible is a theology of history.44 Within the Bible, access to the theological meaning of history is done through remembrance and/or ritual re-enactment following God’s instructions (Lev 23:43; Deut 31:13; 2 Cor 8:9; 1 John 2:3, 3:1). Memory mediates history. However, as Deuteronomy shows—see, for example, 4:9 40  John Webster, The Culture of Theology, ed. Ivor J.  Davidson and Alden C.  McCray (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 119. 41  Dru Johnson, Epistemology and Biblical Theology: From the Pentateuch to Mark’s Gospel, Routledge Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Biblical Criticism (New York: Routledge, 2018), 18. 42  Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. M.  Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 30, emphasis original. 43  Fernando L.  Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness As Primordial Presuppositions, AUSDDS 10 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 393; R. T. Mullins, The End of the Timeless God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 31. 44  John Goldingay, Israel’s Gospel, vol. 1 of Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 869.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

131

or 11:2—memory is not just “a ‘recollection’ of the old, but rather a ‘repetition’ which renews the past in the present.”45 His renewal entails an embodied awareness of the past interventions of God, which, through its participative dimension, actualizes people’s faith in God’s present and future interventions. Consequently, this leads to thanksgiving, as the references from the [praise] domain reveal. Remembering the past divine interventions fosters the present formation of theological knowledge. When announcing that humans will recognize God in a historical event—like in Exodus or Ezekiel, for example—the Bible provides humans with the understanding of the announced divine action, with an apprehension of the importance of that action, and also with proleptic evidence of its truth.46 On a broader scale, through his OT divine interventions, God sketches his answer to the problem of sin, which underlies all historical nuisances.47 Jesus Christ embodies the divine solution, which includes but transcends all previous divine salvific interventions.48 Illustrative here is Luke 24:18, where two disciples, not recognizing the stranger they meet on the road to Emmaus as Jesus, cast a shadow of ignorance over their interlocutor.49 They do so based on their assumed knowledge of the events that occurred in Jerusalem. As Luke admirably narrates, it turns out that the two disciples are ignorant of the christological implications of the OT divine redemptive plan. The stranger, the resurrected Christ, not only knows about God’s plan but embodies it. No wonder that, following the divine self-revelation in the breaking of the bread, the disciples returned to Jerusalem to share the good news with their friends (Luke 24:35). Little did they know that this was just the preamble of a new Christian communitarian identity within their historical narrative, which resulted from the divine calling God gave them.

45  Ryan P.  O’Dowd, “Memory on the Boundary: Epistemology in Deuteronomy,” in Healy and Parry, The Bible and Epistemology, 3. 46  Goldingay, Biblical Theology, 95. 47  Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 41. See also G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 6. 48  Wright, Knowing Jesus, 43. Gulley places Christ’s salvific actions in a cosmic perspective. For details, see Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: God as Trinity (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2011), 277–308. 49  “They are shocked at his ignorance,” notes Bock, as “if the traveler has had his head in the sand” (Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1911).

132 

D.-A. PETRE

Theological Knowledge Formation Is Both Communitarian and Individual Theological knowledge formation is both communitarian and individual. Memory and destiny shape communitarian and individual identities.50 As mentioned above, memory is historical and provides the substratum of present decisions that orient one’s future. “Through election, deliverance, guidance, and revelation,”51 God creates the community of believers (Exod 6:7, Ps 119:79, Isa 43:19, Ezek 34:27). Even when his actions focus on an individual, the community is in focus (Exod 33:13, 1 Chr 14:2, Isa 45:3–5).52 Furthermore, even if the OT and NT center on Israel and the Christian church, God’s purpose for the entire world is not lost but fulfilled through the mission entrusted to the two.53 God’s supernatural interventions create his community—exodus and resurrection. These founding events have unquestionable authority. Consequently, the texts emerging from the divine interventions in the community have the same divine authority.54 Furthermore, the scriptural texts—whose divine authorship is recognized as intrinsic—secure the maintenance of the community.55 For example, in Deut 31:13, the young summon septennially to listen to the law together with all Israel. Listening to the inspired text makes them aware of God’s covenant and connects them with their wider community, whose continuation depends on the new generation’s faithfulness within the covenant.56 Consequently, the

50  Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 13. 51  Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 171. The divine election is understood here as missiological, not soteriological. 52  Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, trans. Leo G.  Perdue, 2 vols., OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995–1996), 1:61. 53  John Goldingay, Israel’s Faith, vol. 2 of Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 173. 54  Craig G. Bartholomew, Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Framework for Hearing God in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 258–59. 55  Cf. Peckham, Canonical Theology, 73. A canonical approach rejects a dialectic like that of Selby, for example, who writes that the Christian church “is founded by and founds its texts” even if accepting that divine intervention is prior to both community and Scripture (Rosalind M. Selby, The Comical Doctrine: An Epistemology of New Testament Hermeneutics [Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006], 52, emphases original). 56  Craigie, Deuteronomy, 371.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

133

Scripture has the role of preserving the God-given communitarian vocation. It creates a relational network conveying communitarian awareness. Each individual assimilates this sense of community, resulting in a collective identity.57 More than the sum of its individuals,58 a community impacts individuals epistemically in at least four ways.59 First, as mentioned above, is the communal memory of experiencing God’s interventions. Humans can proclaim as they remember, as Ps 71:15 indicates. Moreover, specific divine actions are epistemically contingent upon other divine actions. In John 12:16, for example, the parenthetical observation indicates that the disciples understood the full significance of Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem only after Jesus’s glorification. When they participated in Christ’s triumphal entrance, they were aware of the event but misunderstood its significance. Only after the divine intervention manifested in the glorification of Jesus did the community of the disciples grasp the meaning of Christ’s triumphal entrance. Second, the faith-based convictions transmitted from generation to generation are closely related to the scriptural witness of the divine realm. As Ps 89:1 illustrates, behind God’s interventions stand God’s steadfast love and faithfulness which the redeemed proclaim to all future generations. This missionary impetus is present in the NT proclamation of the “word of God” (Acts 17:13), which centers on Christ (Acts 2:36). Third, the divinely established standard practices or rituals of God’s community actualize past communal experiences as illustrated above when talking about the temporal and historical character of theological knowledge formation. Fourth, the divinely established covenantal liability affects both individuals (John 13:28) and the community (Ezek 7:4, 9) as the two are interlinked. This individual-in-community focus entails that the individual also impacts the community epistemically. For example, God can use an individual to confront the apostate community (Elijah; 1 Kgs 18:36–37), to instruct the community in covenantal living (Moses; Exod 18:16), to rule over God’s community (David; 2 Sam 5:12), or to deliver it (Cyrus; Isa 45:3–5).

57  Dietrich, “Human Relationality,” 30. This is different from the now obsolete concept of corporate responsibility (ibid., 31; Di Vito, “Old Testament Anthropology,” 224–25). 58  Preuss, Old Testament Theology, 1:62. 59  These four processes are adapted from Dietrich, “Human Relationality,” 31. Their application to the present discussion is mine.

134 

D.-A. PETRE

In addition, the individual-in-community biblical focus also reveals a specific divine archetype. Central to Christ’s teachings is his intimate union with the Father. John 10:38 describes this union as “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” It means that whoever knows Christ knows the Father also (John 14:7, 9). The reciprocal divine relationship extends to the disciples through Jesus (John 14:20) having a missionary aim (John 17:23). The Spirit is also part of this divine union (1 Cor 2:11).60 The intimate bond between the Spirit, the Son, and the Father has a relational rather than ontological facet.61 Consequently, the divine community, “a community of perfect love,”62 is the archetype of the human community.

Theological Knowledge Formation Is Fostered by Mission The formation of theological knowledge is most frequently profiled on the background of [judgment]-[covenant] in the OT and [mission][obedience] in the NT. The OT [judgment] and [covenant] cognitive domains are closely related, and they correspond to the [mission] and [obedience] NT domains, respectively.63 Given that each of these domains delineates the contextual background against which the formation of theological knowledge takes place, they point to those aspects that may enrich this epistemic process or even indicate why it is needed. The metanarrative of Scripture is one of a cosmic conflict between the forces of good and evil.64 Knowing who God is and what he does to resolve this conflict is paramount. The cosmic controversy also provides the context for understanding God’s everlasting covenant with the created 60  1 Corinthians 2:11 does not display anthropological dualism. Thiselton explains why: “The logic of Paul’s thought is that if, by analogy, one person cannot know the least accessible aspects of another human being unless that person is willing to place them in the public domain, even so we cannot expect that God’s own thought’s, God’s own purposes, God’s own qualities, or God’s own self could be open to scrutiny unless his spirit makes them accessible by an act of unveiling them” (Thiselton, First Corinthians, 258–59). 61  “The Trinity is relational,” writes Gulley, “in an eternal, reciprocal, inner history of love which is revealed in outer history with created beings in the everlasting covenant, everlasting gospel, and everlasting law” (Gulley, God as Trinity, xxv). 62  Ibid., 81. 63  Judgment and covenant are intertwined concepts. See note 73 on page 127 for details. 64  For the biblical framework, see John C. Peckham, Theodicy of Love: Cosmic Conflict and the Problem of Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 55–86.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

135

being.65 God’s love—which characterizes his nature and actions—becomes holy love when creaturely sin breaches the Creator-creature covenant.66 God is involved in the mission of restoring the broken covenant by restoring humans’ inward obedience to God.67 Nevertheless, divine involvement in a sin-ridden world manifests as judgment for disobedient humanity.68 On the background provided by the cosmic conflict metanarrative, one can see the connection between judgment and mission on the one hand and covenant and obedience on the other. Consequently, mission always entails judgment, while covenant and obedience coalesce into covenantal obedience. Mission and covenantal obedience foster theological knowledge formation. As God’s mission reveals his character,69 any manifestation of human presence or involvement in this mission has an epistemic impact. In Ezek 36:23, for example, God points out that his election of Israel—always for partnership in mission—resulted in the profanation of the divine character because Israel failed to remain covenantally faithful and suffered the divine judgment of exile.70 However, despite Israel’s failure, God graciously announces its restoration in “the most systematic and detailed summary of Yahweh’s restorative agenda in Ezekiel, if not in all the prophetical books.”71 As such, through God’s intervention, Israel (Ezek 36:38) and the nations (Ezek 36:23, 36) recognize who God is. This example discloses mission in the OT as both 65  Gulley, God as Trinity, 313; Skip MacCarty, In Granite or Ingrained?: What the Old and New Covenants Reveal about the Gospel, the Law, and the Sabbath (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2007), 77. 66  Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: Creation, Christ, Salvation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2012), 602. 67  Gerald R. McDermott and Harold A. Netland, A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 86; Ross Hastings, Missional God, Missional Church: Hope for Re-evangelizing the West (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 81. 68  James L. Crenshaw, “Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel,” ZAW 82.3 (1970): 390–91. 69  Cristian Dumitrescu, “Cosmic Conflict as a Hermeneutical Framework for Mission Theology in the Old Testament” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2010), 187. 70   Cf. Hans K.  LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, Andrews University Monographs. Studies in Religion 13 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), 83. 71  Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 352–53. This is a reference to Ezek 36:24–30.

136 

D.-A. PETRE

centripetal and centrifugal, as God “sends and attracts”72 simultaneously— he sends Israel into exile to attract the nations to himself. In the NT, the centripetal-centrifugal divine mission continues through Christ and his followers, as Christ’s prayer from John 17 indicates.73 John 17:8 presents the awareness of Christ’s disciples of the fulfillment of his mission following their acquaintance with it. The disciples’ acquaintance is mediated through language, as they receive and believe the words of Jesus, which will later become the content of their kerygma (1 Cor 1:21).74 This mission is not only oriented inwardly to the disciples’ group. In John 17:23, Jesus indicates his centrifugal aim—the world’s recognition of Christ’s mission following its acquaintance with the divine unity reflected among Christ’s people. Through the obedience of Jesus’s followers—itself an epistemic means—theological knowledge formation develops.

Theological Knowledge Formation Is Fostered by Covenantal Obedience Covenantal obedience fosters theological knowledge formation. “The experience of living in covenant relationship with God, accepting and fulfilling all the obligations involved is an essential content and descriptive of what knowing God in the Old Testament means,”75 as reflected in the observance of the Sabbath, for example (Ezek 20:12, 20). The stipulations of the covenant—the law—are given to enrich the life of God’s people, providing the moral basis of the community.76 Acknowledging that God can be trusted and committing oneself to him describes the experience of faith.77 Consequently, the human covenantal faith cannot be expressed otherwise except as covenantal obedience.78 The NT depicts the same perspective. A transformed life characterized by obedience naturally follows one’s acknowledgment of Christ as Lord,  Dumitrescu, “Cosmic Conflict,” 190.  Carson, John, 551. 74  For kerygma as the content and not the act of proclamation itself in 1 Cor 1:21, see Gordon D.  Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 76. 75  Haymes, Knowledge of God, 90. 76  Roy Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 18. 77  Goldingay, Biblical Theology, 97. 78  Waltke and Yu, Old Testament Theology, 145; Gane, Old Testament Law, 18. 72 73

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

137

as 1 John 2:4–5 reveals.79 In John 7:17, one’s discernment of the divine authority of Christ’s teachings derives from an acquaintance with God’s will. Such acquaintance with the divine will “is more than ethical obedience; it involves the acceptance through faith of the whole divine plan of salvation.”80 It entails a “faith commitment,” which is “properly basic”81 for human life. Hence, the acquaintance with God’s will identifies with a person’s faith commitment. The lack of such commitment results in an epistemic blockage, as John 8:43 suggests. In this passage, Jesus identifies the refusal of his words—the rejection of a faith commitment—as the reason behind the epistemic paucity of the Jewish leaders. As mentioned above, theological knowledge formation entails embodied awareness. Such embodied awareness means that the formation of theological knowledge for humans “is very much influenced by the multiple states and activities of their bodies.”82 Whatever affects the body influences one’s relationship with God. Illustrative here is Eph 5:5, which explains that sexual immorality—putting one’s bodily desires even above God’s requirements—is incompatible with God’s kingdom.83 As such, the human beings that reflect God’s character embody his values publicly and privately.84 The NT presents human obedience as emulating Christ’s subservience to the Father. John 8:55 contrasts the Jews’ lack of personal acquaintance with God with Christ’s acquaintance with his Father. The latter is associated with obedience to God’s words. Christ’s faithfulness in the everlasting covenant between God and humanity climaxes in his sufferings and

79  Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 551; Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB 30 (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 279. 80  Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII), AB 29 (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 316. 81  Carson, John, 312; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, NICNT (1971; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 405–06. 82  S.  Tamar Kamionkowski, “Introduction,” in Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible, ed. S. Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil Kim, LHBOTS 465 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 2. 83  Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC 42 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 324. 84  The biblical perspective rejects the Aristotelian dichotomy between theoretical and practical knowledge, a dichotomy residual in contemporary virtue epistemology (Johnson, Knowledge by Ritual, 252).

138 

D.-A. PETRE

death on the cross.85 The awareness of Christ’s faithfulness and acceptance through faith becomes the basis of human obedience (1 John 4:16).86 Like in the OT, “obeying God’s commands is to be like him and know him.”87 Theological knowledge is not divorced from doing. Instead, if the doing is not present, it may well be that one does not know (1 John 2:3). Consequently, humans obey God because they know him and grow in their knowledge of him through obedience.

A Critical Conversation of the Evangelical Epistemological Models The cognitive analysis of the biblical material revealed several epistemological implications that outline a model of theological knowledge formation. Such a model integrates the biblical description of the human conceptualization of knowing god. In addition, it provides a standpoint in the interaction with the evangelical epistemological models, pinpointing the canonically derived epistemological assumptions formulated in the theological parlance needed for such an exchange. The relational-­ participative feature integrates the others and is used here as a descriptor for the entire model. As shown above, relationality and participation— communitarian and individual—entail embodied awareness and are temporal-­historical. Both relationality and participation are warranted by revelation and fostered by mission and covenantal obedience. Hence, in the relational-participative model outlined above, the human embodied awareness by acquaintance with the divine realm initiates the formation of theological knowledge. The embodied awareness means that the perception of the divine realm is psychosomatic. In this model, beliefs form following one’s awareness of the divine realm. These beliefs constitute the conceptual schema a person has. However, knowing what is true involves a faith commitment characterized by relational-participative obedience toward the God who revealed the truth about himself in the Bible. Only 85  As Wright asserts, Jesus fulfilled the God-given covenantal vocation of Israel (N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 2 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 595). 86  Ian W. Scott, Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 152–53. 87  Ryan P. O’Dowd, The Wisdom of Torah: Epistemology in Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature, FRLANT 225 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 24.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

139

when humans participate in a relationship with God do they genuinely know him. In what follows, the relational-participative model enters into a dialogue with the three main evangelical epistemological models chosen here. The seven implications above circumscribe the vantage point for the following discussion. This exchange of views revolves around the features used to organize the presentation of evidentialist foundationalism, proper functionalism, and postfoundationalism: the ontological and epistemological assumptions and the formation of theological knowledge. Comparison of Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions Reality. Evidentialist foundationalism and proper functionalism models accept that reality is the epistemic object of the human mind. Postfoundationalism adds that this reality is not objective, as humans can construct it socially and linguistically.88 The evidentialist-foundationalist position identifies reality with being.89 The reality of God is included, albeit analogously. As such, the onto-theological perspective decided the divine portrayal. This stance “becomes so defined by a specific metaphysics that our speech about God fails because we make God an item in the world.”90 Imposing a human metaphysics on God’s being results in creating God into an image foreign to the biblical one.91 Consequently, the Bible does not warrant the linguistic description of such an image. As such, the evidentialist-foundationalist position appears to reflect non-­ biblical presuppositions in its description of reality.92 For Geisler, the first principles become the litmus test for every aspect of reality. As a result, reason replaces Scripture in the effort to understand reality. Plantinga correctly points out that ontological and theological concerns represent the basis of every theory of knowledge.93 He rejects the  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 254.  BECA, s.v. “Realism.” 90  D. Stephen Long, Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth, Eerdmans Ekkesia Series [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 50. 91  Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 21. 92  BECA, s.v. “God, Nature of.” For a refutation of the Thomistic nontemporality, see Canale, Criticism of Theological Reason, 160–208. For a refutation of the classical theistic understanding of impassibility, see Peckham, The Love of God, 45–247. 93  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 190. 88 89

140 

D.-A. PETRE

possibility of proving God’s reality through rational arguments. Hence, Plantinga finds wanting both natural theology—which postulates arguments for God’s existence—and natural atheology—which states that God is unlikely to exist.94 Instead, Plantinga develops an analogical argument for the existence of other minds—similar to the teleological argument for God’s existence—to show that humans do not have to demonstrate their belief in the existence of God.95 While this may appear similar to Geisler’s modified cosmological argument, Plantinga uses it to prove its uselessness. For Plantinga, “belief in other minds and belief in God are in the same epistemological boat; hence if either is rational, so is the other. However, the former is rational; so, therefore, is the latter.”96 As a result, his model accepts the existence of God, reflecting the biblical view. No rational constraint conditions the existence of the divine reality. Grenz’s postfoundationalism agrees with Plantinga that God cannot be known through demonstration. For Grenz, replacing the focus on the biblical God with the arguments for the existence of God sowed the seeds of subsequent atheism.97 He adds that God is known only through self-­ revelation, as seen in the biblical narrative of the divine name.98 Grenz’s emphasis on community as a reflection of the divine nature comes close to the communitarian implications of the relational-participative model. According to the latter model, theological knowledge formation is individual and communitarian. It describes humans as individuals-in-­ community, for whom past and future shape their identities. In Grenz’s view, when specific doctrinal formulations “withstood the test of time,” they “provide insight into the content of the beliefs of the church.”99 It may or may not be accurate as the community may fail in subjecting its beliefs to the Bible, resulting in various interpretative traditions reflecting cherished formulations rather than biblical perspectives.100 In contrast to postfoundationalism, the relational-participative model 94  Alvin Plantinga, God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (1967; repr., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), vii–viii. 95  Ibid., 268. 96  Ibid., viii, emphasis original. 97  Grenz, Community of God, 36. 98  Grenz, The Named God, 331. 99  Grenz, Community of God, 19. 100  Kevin J.  Vanhoozer, “Scripture and Tradition,” in The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. Kevin J.  Vanhoozer (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 167.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

141

rejects the communitarian approach to the canon for an intrinsic view.101 Consequently, Scripture has preeminence over communal tradition.102 Even if considered a formative, not a normative theological source, the latter needs to be corrected whenever one understands the biblical text better. Perception. Evidentialist foundationalism and proper functionalism models agree that perception involves sensory imagery. However, each approach tackles different data received from the senses. The first model emphasizes intuition and logical inference as foundational in data interpretation. Intuition directly perceives existence due to the direct correspondence between the mind and reality. When humans perceive existence as undeniable, they infer other aspects of reality from it. Proper functionalism highlights the epistemic environment and the proper function of the cognitive faculties. The perceptual experience is central to the epistemic environment.103 Beliefs form in a basic way through one’s experience. There is no need for an assessing rational criterion. When the cognitive faculties function properly, beliefs appear. The postfoundationalist model does not focus on perception as it operates with another epistemological paradigm, coherentism. While the first two models focus on individual perception given their correspondence-to-­ reality approach, Grenz’s approach focuses on “person-in-relationships.”104 Consequently, for Grenz, sensory perception is less important than the linguistic intra-communitarian construction that contributes to the formation of beliefs.105 The linguistic construction is future-oriented for Grenz. He does not deny its objective character nor the possibility of accessing it.106 However, focusing on the future objective reality diminishes the importance of past and present aspects of reality. Past, present, and future equally contribute to the formation of theological knowledge. 101  Stephen J.  Wellum, “Postconservatism, Biblical Authority, and Recent Proposals for Re-Doing Evangelical Theology: A Critical Analysis,” in Erickson, Helseth, and Taylor, Reclaiming the Center, 173. 102  Grenz also accepts the normativity of Scripture (Grenz, Renewing the Center, 353). For Grenz and Franke, it is the Holy Spirit that authorizes both the Bible and tradition (Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 117). 103  Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, 91. 104  Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, 172. 105  Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 73. 106  Smith appears to overreact. See R. Scott Smith, “Language, Theological Knowledge, and the Postmodern Paradigm,” in Erickson, Helseth, and Taylor, Reclaiming the Center, 119.

142 

D.-A. PETRE

In the relational-participative model, theological knowledge formation entails embodied awareness. As such, cognitive and somatic experiences cannot be separated, as Geisler’s model does. For Geisler, the reason appears to embody what human cognitive and perceptual powers are. While he accepts that the somatic experiences are “basic to all understanding of reality,”107 what starts in the senses ends in reason. Plantinga’s model offers more integration between the two, despite the anthropological dualism he also accepts.108 Grenz’s model is similar to the relational-­ participative one proffered here. He accepts the biblical witness on holistic anthropology, rejecting anthropological dualism.109 There is no separation within the human being nor any “aspect of our personal existence that is self-sustaining.”110 Furthermore, each model assumes a certain extent of the epistemic effects of sin. Geisler diminishes the consequences of sin upon perceptual powers. He agrees with Aquinas, stating that reason can support the formation of theological knowledge before accepting beliefs.111 Plantinga partially agrees with Calvin.112 He recognizes the impact sin has on the perceptive human powers. God’s revelation is indispensable in the epistemological endeavor, as his extended Aquinas/Calvin model reveals. The common thread of direct perception runs through the evidentialist-­ foundationalist and the proper-functionalist models. The former model builds its interpretation upon the ontological soul-body dichotomy to address the problem of sin. The soul is the immaterial, rational dimension  BECA, s.v. “Hinduism, Vedanta.”  Plantinga calls his approach immaterialism. Alvin Plantinga, “Against Materialism,” Faith and Philosophy 23.1 (2006): 3. 109  Grenz, Community of God, 161. 110  Stanley J. Grenz, What Christians Really Believe—and Why (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 27. 111  BECA, s.v. “Faith and Reason.” 112  Beversluis criticizes Plantinga for misreading Calvin on the postlapsarian human capacity of knowing God. See John Beversluis, “Reforming the ‘Reformed’ Objection to Natural Theology,” Faith and Philosophy 12.2 (1995): 193–99, https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil19951229. After such criticisms, Plantinga explained in detail the noetic effects of sin in his 2000 Warranted Christian Belief book. Nevertheless, as Oliphint postulates, the standard and the extended Aquinas/Calvin models Plantinga proffers are “more closely akin … than Plantinga himself has indicated” (K. Scott Oliphint, “Epistemology and Christian Belief,” WTJ 63 [2001]: 165–66). One reason is that the standard model, “broadly speaking, accounts for humanity’s prelapsarian condition” (Tyler M. Taber, “Revealed but Hidden? Plantinga, Sin, and the Hiddenness of God,” CTR 12.1 [2014]: 72). 107 108

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

143

of the human being that reflects God’s image.113 According to Geisler’s description, it is only lightly affected by sin without losing its epistemic powers. In the latter model, theology takes priority over ontology. It affirms that sin perverted the perceptual powers of humanity. Therefore, no human being can adequately know without a divine restoration of the cognitive faculties. The evidentialist-foundationalist position appears to depart from a canonical view of the fall. While imago Dei remains reflected in human beings, these cannot properly know God unless the Holy Spirit transforms them. The proper-functionalist position gives more room to the biblical implications of sin, as the postfoundationalist and the relational-­ participative models also do. Reason. As psychosomatic unities bearing the imago Dei, humans have the freedom to think and to draw inferences logically. The concept of reason thus refers to the capacity to think and explore reality and to draw conclusions based on the reasoning process. The models proffered by Geisler and Plantinga agree with this definition.114 However, they differ in their understanding of rationality. The optimistic ontology of the evidentialist-­foundationalist perspective leans toward a rationalistic epistemological approach. The reason is the foundation of certainty. Hence, rational is everything that agrees with the laws of logic.115 This approach diminishes the noetic effects of sin. For example, in John 8:52, the argument of the Jewish leaders may be logical but is not aimed at finding the truth. Hence, in Plantinga’s words, this rationality is only internal to them. As Jesus discloses in the narrative, his opponents’ logic lacks external rationality (John 8:55). Consequently, evil is not just a cognitive element. It brings about a specific epistemic environment wherein reason functions. The evidentialist-foundationalist model minimizes the impact this contextual experience has on reason. The proper-functionalist model comes close to the relational-­ participative model regarding the consequences of sin and the importance of a participatory experience.116 However, it goes beyond rationalism, considering the need for external rationality provided by the divine word. 113  BECA, s.v. “Immortality.” Constrained by the biblical view, Geisler holds that there is a soul-body unity. Criticizing dualism he also exposes a form of it when he writes that “the soul is to the body what form is to matter, or shape is to a vase” (BECA, s.v. “Immortality”). 114  For Geisler, see BECA, s.v. “Rationalism.” For Plantinga, see Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 146–47. 115  Geisler and Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason, 16. 116  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 256.

144 

D.-A. PETRE

Nevertheless, Plantinga’s approach tends to give reason superiority over the will and senses, circumscribing experience.117 This rational priority reflects Plantinga’s anthropological dualism. Joining Plantinga in rejecting the appeal to universal reason in justifying theological knowledge formation,118 Grenz moves a step further, pointing out that the locus of theological knowledge formation is always the community. Grenz indicates several elements that agree with the relational-­participative model. First, God is an epistemic subject rather than an object to be mentally grasped.119 Second, God is known as he reveals himself in human history. The Scripture and the Christian tradition, or the Christian theological heritage, witness the divine self-­ revelation. Third, theological knowledge formation is mainly communitarian.120 The one difference between Grenz’s model and the relational-­ participative version here concerns the role of the Spirit. For Grenz, the Holy Spirit is the authority behind both Scripture and tradition. The relational-­participative model assigns this role to Scripture. It reflects an intrinsic canonicity perspective rather than a communitarian one. The Spirit’s work of illumination is not to guide the community in deciding which text should become part of the canon but to guide the community in understanding the authoritative texts.121 Otherwise, one would blur the distinction between inspiration and illumination122 and find oneself within an infinite regression loop of “whose interpretation and of which community”123 type. Truth. The evidentialist-foundationalist and the proper-functionalist epistemologies define truth in almost identical terms: truth is what corresponds to reality. A proposition is true when it corresponds to the way things are. If the object of knowledge has the predicated property, then 117  Gratian Vandici, “Reading the Rules of Knowledge in the Story of the Fall: Calvin and Reformed Epistemology on the Noetic Effects of Original Sin,” JTI 10.2 (2016): 178. 118  For Grenz’s agreement with Plantinga, see Grenz, Renewing the Center, 208. 119  Grenz, Community of God, 50. 120  Ibid., 17. 121  Caneday, “Theological Truth,” 140; Daniel J.  Treier, Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward Theology as Wisdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 141. 122  Osvaldo Padilla, “Postconservative Theologians and Scriptural Authority,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 655. 123  Peckham, Canonical Theology, 107.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

145

the predication is true. However, as mentioned above, sin led to a perceptional distortion. Illustrative here is John 7:26–27. Standing in front of Christ are some unidentified people of Jerusalem. They witness Christ’s authoritative teaching and are aware of what their religious rulers taught about the coming Messiah. How can they decide whose authority is valid in determining the messianic identity? Both Jesus and the religious rulers predicate something about this identity. It is Christ’s word against the word of the rulers. Behind each speech stands an authority. A speech is not necessarily true, even if it is authoritative. The reliability of a text is contingent upon the reliability of its personal authority.124 In John 7:26–27, only the previous experience or the subsequent reality can reveal whose statements are true. One may add that the antecedent relationship with one of the two personal authorities can internally warrant a specific choice. The religious rulers understood that the Jerusalemite group was at a tipping point regarding their relationship with Jesus and sent the temple police to arrest him. In the postlapsarian context, “we use our reason to rationalize our self-­ interest rather than to come to the truth.”125 It distorts the perception of reality and confuses the appearance of reality with its actuality. Hence, sin affects what both Geisler and Plantinga depict as objective reality. Plantinga recognizes the need for the corrective lens of the Scripture. He also accepts that the personal intervention of the Holy Spirit enables human beings to see the truth of God’s words.126 As a result, his testimonial approach overlaps the participative-relational perspective, which is not the case for the evidentialist-foundationalist model. While Geisler recognizes that sin “affects the whole person—mind, emotions, and will,” it “does not destroy the image of God.”127 As a result, he states that “general revelation alone … is sufficient to reveal God.”128 The implication is that reason can evaluate the truth of God’s words and accept or reject it without needing a personal relationship with divinity. While not denying human access to created reality, Grenz chooses a coherentist model that locates truth in the whole, not in isolated 124  Michael C.  Rea, “Authority and Truth,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 873. 125  Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit: Authority and Method in Theology, Christian Foundations 1 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 58. 126  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 290–94. 127  BECA, s.v. “Noetic Effects of Sin.” 128  Ibid.

146 

D.-A. PETRE

propositions129 and a communitarian context.130 Grenz’s focus on community partly overlaps with the relational-participative model emphasizing the same aspect: truth cannot be ascribed only to propositional statements. It is much broader, having “historical, relational, personal, and participatory”131 facets that involve the entire human being. In theology, knowing what is true involves embodied participation and obedience. This emphasis on participation represents another agreement between postfoundationalism and the relational-participative epistemological model. The biblical narrative draws humans to inhabit it and, as such, be motivated to embody it in their lives. As Scripture draws humans, they bring specific assumptions that the biblical worldview challenges and presumably changes.132 A changed life is an obedient life. In this narrow sense, Grenz’s proposal agrees with the relational-participative model. However, the relational-participative model parts ways with Grenz’s relativism that he infers from the pragmatic nature of the truth. His statement that “truth is what creates a community of truth in which truth comes to expression in the relationship shared by the members of the group”133 is a circular argument. It reflects Grenz’s coherentist approach, which the relational-participative model rejects. The reason is its rejection of the unique normative role of Scripture in the formation of theological knowledge.134 Human obedience and the ensuing community do not warrant theological knowledge formation but foster it. The special—or prototypical—revelation is the epistemic warrant of theological knowledge. As John 8:32 indicates, theological truth exists and waits to be known by humans in a relationship of covenantal obedience. Even if language mediates human access to the objective reality of God, God embodied himself in Christ as a person. Many of the NT authors were personally acquainted with Christ, and the few who were not personally acquainted with him based their writings on the testimony of those who did.135 Hence, the theological truth was not something created within the early community of Christ’s followers but something they witnessed through their acquaintance with Christ.136  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 200.  Ibid., 211. 131  Grenz, “Participating in What Frees,” 688. 132  Ibid., 691. 133  Ibid., 693. 134  Wellum insightfully notes that Grenz and Franke’s approach does not accept Scripture alone as basic. See Wellum, “Postconservatism,” 171. 135  Marshall, New Testament Theology, 19. 136  Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, 291–92. 129 130

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

147

Belief. According to the relational-participative model, beliefs reflect personal convictions or attitudes concerning the divine realm. Beliefs form following one’s awareness of the divine realm by acquaintance with it. They inherently aim at truth and constitute the conceptual schema a person has. The belief-producing mechanism is innate. Beliefs develop in a basic way without a detailed examination of their propositional content. The formation of beliefs depends on the epistemic environment. Like in biblical times, the experience of the divine realm today can be direct or indirect. The divine realm connects inextricably with language. The divine word, either spoken or written, creates the reality that invites humans to form beliefs. Both Geisler and Plantinga accept the existence of self-evident or basic beliefs. Nevertheless, Plantinga’s assertion that most beliefs are properly basic is similar to the relational-participative model.137 Consequently, the evidentialist emphasis on the need for evidential support for beliefs to be justified is fallacious.138 Instead, one needs to consider the embodied human experience with its epistemic orientation for an accurate account of theological knowledge formation. Consequently, unlike Geisler, a belief does not need sufficient evidence to be accepted. 139 In his model, Grenz accepts that one’s belief system influences the formation of beliefs.140 The relational-participative model agrees that coherence with other beliefs is essential.141 As a matter of fact, in recognition of its importance, canonical coherence is one criterion of adequacy used within the relational-participative model. Notwithstanding the importance of coherence, this model adds a second criterion, that of canonical correspondence, making room for a modest form of foundationalism. The modest form of foundationalism rejects the hubris of objectivity, recognizing one’s historical situatedness.142 In accepting that one’s embodied awareness is basic, the relational-participative model squares with Plantinga’s model. The relational-participative model disagrees with the infallibility of basic beliefs, arguing instead that these are fallible and need the corrective lenses provided by the biblical canon. Consequently, the scriptural revelation warrants the formation of theological knowledge.  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 98.  William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 48. 139  BECA, s.v. “Fideism.” 140  Grenz, Renewing the Center, 211. 141  Beilby, “Contemporary Religious Epistemology,” 815–16. 142  Smith, “Non-Foundational Epistemologies,” 869. 137 138

148 

D.-A. PETRE

Comparison of the Formation of Theological Knowledge Theistic belief. The belief that God exists—theistic belief—is approached differently by each model. Geisler states that the existence of God must be rationally proven before any person can believe in him. The cornerstone of the evidentialist-foundationalist model is the principle of existence. Using a modified cosmological argument, Geisler infers the theistic belief from existence. As such, he uses ontology to derive theology. His approach is onto-theological. Moreover, his philosophical argument has ontological presuppositions foreign to the biblical worldview.143 God’s nature is described not in biblically derived terminology but in Aristotelian concepts via Aquinas. Consequently, the assertion that one can demonstrate God’s existence makes the divine reality contingent on human rational ability. If reason functions as an assessor of the truthfulness of the divine reality, then the entire venture falls prey to logic. The evidentialist-­ foundationalist model is thus self-refuting, lacking the necessary criteria for self-evident beliefs. Nevertheless, suppose one accepts that reason has a ministerial rather than a magisterial role.144 In that case, reasonable arguments may create an environment conducive to theistic belief, even if the Bible is essential for having a genuine portrayal of God.145 As the relational-participative model assumes the existence of God, an evidentialist-foundationalist approach would be congruent with the former only when using a witness or testimony to God’s existence idiolect.146 The proper-functionalist position considers theistic belief a natural result of the created epistemic endowment.147 Plantinga accepts Calvin’s terminology of sensus divinitatis to identify human cognitive powers. He considers that human beliefs cannot be demonstrated and finds no real de facto objection to the theistic belief. Consequently, he deals with the objections against the rationality of theistic belief (de jure objection) by  Peckham, The Love of God, 134n71.  Craig’s distinction is useful here. He explains, “The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel” (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 47, emphases original). 145  Beilby, Christian Apologetics, 145. 146  Craig distinguishes between knowing and showing that Christianity is true, in which case showing would be synonymous with testifying about the truthfulness of Christianity using reason. I prefer using testifying or witnessing rather than showing, as the latter term can also indicate rational demonstration, leaving the impression that the divine realm is contingent upon reason. For Craig’s distinction, see Craig, Reasonable Faith, 43–58. 147  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 180. 143 144

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

149

using the Aquinas/Calvin model. In the model he proffers, the belief that God exists appears in response to a doxastic experience. Plantinga avoids the evidentialist-foundationalist position stating that this experience does not justify the theistic belief. Given the design plan of the cognitive faculties, their truth-oriented proper function naturally produces theistic belief in the human being. When assuming the existence of God, Plantinga is in harmony with the relational-participative model. The latter indicates that the theistic belief naturally appears within a doxastic experience. Such belief does not need to be epistemically justified to be accepted. As Plantinga argues, the theistic belief is not only true but also warranted. Consequently, the discussion about the rationality of theistic belief reflects the biblical concern about God’s identity and actions. In the postlapsarian context wherein God’s existence is doubted, focusing only on de jure objections represents a limit Plantinga’s model has. Nevertheless, the evidentialist-foundationalist focus on answering the de facto objections to Christianity may be helpful in contemporary dialogue. 148 The evidence, or proof, “is multifaceted, and varies according to what is proved.”149 The recognition formula in the OT, occurring in the Exodus event or the book of Ezekiel, entails acknowledging Israel’s Yahweh as the God who can control and direct natural processes to accomplish specific purposes. The evidence proffered consists of various events that can be supernatural (e.g., the Exodus plagues) or natural (e.g., military actions). In the NT, Christ’s person and activity come into focus. Recognizing Christ as whom he testifies he is may be supported by miracles (John 4:53) or prophetic interpretation (Luke 24:35), climaxing in the supreme evidence offered by Christ’s death and resurrection (John 8:28, 12:16). Being personally acquainted with Christ is evidenced by one’s obedience (1 John 2:4), while the believers’ unity in truth testifies to the divine character of Christ’s mission (John 17:23). Such embodied evidence represents a powerful witness in favor of theistic belief.150 The postfoundationalist model concurs with the perspective just outlined. As God reveals himself in history, knowing him entails a connection with that history as presented in the biblical narrative. God cannot be known unless he reveals himself. In divine self-revelation, God reveals  Feinberg, Can You Believe?, 247.  Morley, Mapping Apologetics, 351. 150  Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Pictures at a Theological Exhibition: Scenes of the Church’s Worship, Witness and Wisdom (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 243. 148 149

150 

D.-A. PETRE

himself as an epistemic subject that must not be objectified. In the ensuing epistemic relation, humans can know God as he is, even if their theological knowledge is partial. In Grenz’s view, one cannot separate theistic belief from the Christian experience. For him, it is the experience that confirms the theistic belief. A mere rational demonstration is useless if a person does not embody a communitarian faith commitment. While the relational-participative model agrees with Grenz’s overall argument, it does not accept the warrant for theistic belief within the community. Instead, it postulates that divine intervention—directly or indirectly—warrants theistic belief. The transcript of these divine interventions is the Scripture. However, Scripture is “a script that helps orient the church to its present and future.”151 It creates the temporal bridge that connects the past with the future within the present community. Its divine authority warrants theistic belief as a form of divine self-testimony. This divine self-­ testimony is both propositional and manifestational. The former refers to the Bible, which comprises divine speech-acts, while the latter refers to the manifestation of God in various ways (e.g., historical events).152 Consequently, even when the communitarian embodiment of scriptural values is transmitted generationally, each generational community needs the corrective lens of the scriptural worldview. Christian belief. The evidentialist-foundationalist model infers both theistic and Christian beliefs from the self-evident first principles. When theistic belief is justified using the test of undeniability, the theistic worldview is also justified. Geisler uses the test of systematic consistency to justify the Christian theistic worldview with its beliefs. Central to this test are miracles and the objectivity of historical events testifying to the reliability of the NT. Accepting the NT documents as historically reliable justifies the authority and divinity of Jesus and, by inference, his teachings. Taking into account the remarks on the evidentialist-foundationalist description of theistic belief formation, the relational-participative model agrees that theistic belief and theistic worldview cannot be separated. It also agrees with Geisler’s focus on miracles as central to God’s revelational activity. Furthermore, somewhat similar to Geisler’s approach, the

151  Ibid., 58; N. T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 30. 152  For details, see Mats Wahlberg, Revelation as Testimony: A Philisophical-Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 2–3.

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

151

relational-­participative model also focuses on the importance of Scripture for genuine theological knowledge formation. However, there are several areas of disagreement. First, searching for an evidential basis for belief outside God’s word is fallacious. For example, if one demonstrates that the NT documents are reliable does not necessarily convince a skeptic of the reliability of the narrated events. Conversely, “documents which are generally unreliable may contain valuable historical nuggets, and it will be the historian’s task to mine these documents in order to discover them.”153 In the postlapsarian world, human reason needs biblical principles as an external criterion, not vice versa. Second, the evidentialist-foundationalist approach tends to rationalize the relationship with God, reducing it to a cognitive level. From a biblical perspective, truth entails trustworthiness as it has a relational character.154 Minimizing the relational aspect of theological knowledge leads to a third problem. If humans reduce God’s performative word to its propositional content, they subject it to their value judgments. It contrasts with its homonymic model’s relational-participative aspect of theological knowledge formation. The latter assumes God’s revelation is not just propositional but also personal. Fourth, by focusing on the propositional aspect of revelation to the detriment of the personal, Geisler’s approach also detaches reason from faith as if the belief that God and belief in God are separate spheres that need different human faculties. Both belief that and belief in entail a certain propositional attitude that does not fulfill an ideal objective certainty.155 Since theological knowledge formation entails embodied awareness, one cannot fractionate human faculties. The fifth problem concerns the participative aspect of theological knowledge. The evidentialist-­ foundationalist model implies that a person can rationally know whether the Christian worldview is true or false. However, reason cannot be divorced from the rest of one’s epistemic life.156 When humans participate in the Christian community, they foster theological knowledge formation.

 Craig, Reasonable Faith, 11.  Alister E. McGrath, The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2014), 95. 155  C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 196. 156  Beilby, “Contemporary Religious Epistemology,” 816. 153 154

152 

D.-A. PETRE

Consequently, one cannot evaluate the truthfulness of the Christian worldview without first assuming such a worldview.157 The epistemology of the participative-relational model overlaps with the proper functionalism of Plantinga. There are several common elements between these two. First, it assumes the existence of God without the need to demonstrate it.158 Second, it analyzes faith concerning reason and will. Third, it integrates Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and faith into a cognitive process required by the postlapsarian epistemic environment. Fourth, the Bible functions as divine testimony. Fifth, even if Plantinga’s model can be used to give warrant to beliefs of other theistic religions,159 this does not disqualify his approach regarding Christian belief. Similarly, some aspects circumscribing the relational-participative model describe other theistic religions without affecting the integrity of such an approach regarding the formation of Christian theological knowledge. There are two significant areas of disagreement between the participative-­ relational and the proper-functionalist models. First, Plantinga’s model limits the epistemic factors to the Holy Spirit, while other factors may also be involved.160 Closely connected to this is the second difference. While recognizing community, Plantinga’s model has an individualistic focus. As such, it tends to diminish the role of intra-­ communitarian testimony.161 The relational-participative model shares several commonalities with Grenz’s postfoundationalist approach. First, both models are theo-­ ontological. Second, understanding the Godhead as the archetypical community instantiated in human communities, both approaches emphasize the communitarian facet of theological knowledge formation. However, while recognizing that the beginning and the continuation of Christian beliefs are knitted together with the community that facilitates them— thus entailing coherentism—the relational-participative model gives prominence to Scripture. Scripture requires interpretation, a fact recognized by both models. At the same time, there is a difference between the  Boa and Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons, 131.  Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 112. 159  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 350. 160  James K. Beilby, Epistemology as Theology: An Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga’s Religious Epistemology (2005; repr., London: Routledge, 2017), 192–93. Beilby also questions “whether the fact that the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit is a cognitive process and not a cognitive faculty is as benign as Plantinga suggests” (ibid., 199). 161  Beilby, “Plantinga’s Model,” 149. 157 158

4  TOWARDS A CANONICAL MODEL OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE… 

153

intra-communitarian voice of the Spirit identified in a perdurable tradition and the canonical correspondence of the relational-participative model. Consequently, given coherentism, a modest form of foundationalism is also required, as indicated above.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Theological knowledge formation occupies a central place in the evangelical theological pursuit. Three models represent the epistemological tendencies of contemporary evangelicalism: evidentialist foundationalism, proper functionalism, and postfoundationalism. The first describes knowledge as propositional; hence, theological knowledge formation is mainly a rational process needing evidence. The second rejects the need for evidence, grounding epistemology in the proper function of human cognitive faculties. The third describes theological knowledge formation as a linguistic community-bound process, resulting in a socially constructed knowledge. Sharing the evangelical ethos, each model gives prominence to the Bible. Nevertheless, all these models stop short of establishing a canonically based theological epistemology, as the sola scriptura evangelical principle demands. In this book, I outlined the minimal criteria of a canonical model of theological knowledge formation in evangelicalism. For this, I reviewed the early trends of evangelical epistemology and analyzed three representative evangelical approaches to identify the reasons for the contemporary epistemological variance (Chap. 2). Next, following the lead of several evangelical theologians who proffer a canonical approach, I used cognitive analysis to explore the concept of knowing god in the Bible through the cognitive-linguistic window provided by two prototypical terms (Chap. 3). Then I unpacked the cognitive analysis’s epistemological implications, outlining a minimal canonical model to address the evangelical © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3_5

155

156 

D.-A. PETRE

epistemological dissonance (Chap. 4). I then conversed with the three representative evangelical theological knowledge formation models. Applying a canonical-epistemological methodology—consisting of cognitive analysis of two prototypical terms—I outlined seven epistemological criteria of my model. This model contributes to the canonical attunement of evangelical epistemology in several ways. First, the relational-participative model I outlined here agrees with the proper-functionalist model that a modest form of foundationalism best answers the need to recognize the primacy and normativity of Scripture. It contrasts with the evidentialist-foundationalist and postfoundationalist primus inter pares status given to the Bible alongside reason and community. As a modest version of foundationalism, the relational-participative model agrees with evidentialist foundationalism’s emphasis on the importance of miracles in answering the de facto objections to Christianity. The former model adds the embodied witness of human obedience to this emphasis in favor of theistic belief. Second, in agreement with the postfoundationalist model, the relational-­participative model emphasizes that theological knowledge formation is an embodied process. It rejects the anthropological dualism assumed by evidentialist foundationalism and proper functionalism. Third, in agreement with postfoundationalism and contrasting the other two models, this rejection entails that theological knowledge formation has a participatory aspect mediated by human sensory experience, unseparated from cognitive processes. Fourth, whereas evidentialist foundationalism and proper functionalism tend to describe knowledge formation separate from the community, the relational-participative and the postfoundationalist models emphasize the communitarian character of theological knowledge formation. However, given the recognition of the noetic effects of sin, the relational-participative model gives prominence to the need for canonical correspondence over the long-lasting tradition emphasis of postfoundationalism. Fifth, in agreement with postfoundationalism and against the other two models, the relational-participative model points out that the process of theological knowledge formation takes place in history and connects the past to the future through the present covenantal obedience of the community of believers. Nevertheless, while the connection to the past occurs through faithful observance of the God-given ordinances, these cannot be spiritualized as if their meaning resides only in their future fulfillment. Without losing their meaning, one cannot separate the semiotic character

5  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

157

of the divine ordinances from their practical application. It leads to the sixth conclusion of this study. The relational-participative model implies that the symbols characterizing past covenantal obedience (e.g., the Sabbath) can foster present theological knowledge formation. The human covenantal faith cannot be expressed otherwise except as covenantal obedience. In addition to covenantal obedience, the seventh conclusion of this study follows. Theological knowledge formation is also fostered by participating in the centripetal-centrifugal Christian mission framed by a cosmic conflict between good and evil. While partially echoed in the postfoundationalist model, the relational-participative model fully integrates these two aspects of covenantal obedience and mission. I explored theological epistemology from a canonical perspective in this book. Along the way, I discovered various avenues for further research. While each criterion outlining the relational-participative model may be the object of studies using the canonical-epistemological methodology outlined here, I suggest several specific directions. First, given the narrow approach taken in this book, other approaches that integrate, for example, the medieval and continental traditions can be engaged. Second, the embodied aspect of this model has various implications related to health and environmental care. Third, the role covenantal obedience plays in knowledge formation indicates that dialogue with virtue epistemology may prove fruitful. Fourth, the relation between the cosmic conflict and mission as regards theological knowledge formation offers another avenue for research. Fifth, the temporal-historical nature of knowledge formation may be further explored concerning human and divine remembrance as presented in the biblical canon. Sixth, regarding the cognitive analysis of the biblical canon, interested researchers can comprehensively examine all terms used to symbolize the concept of knowing god. It may further nuance and expand the present minimal criteria for theological knowledge formation.



Appendix A: Meaning of ‫ ידע‬in Lexicons and Theological Dictionaries

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

159

b

HALOT

Lexicon

Qal: 1. To notice: 1 Sam 22:3; 2. Hear of, learn; 3. Know (by observation and reflection): Exod 6:7; Deut 8:5; Jer 2:19; Ezek 6:7; 4. To take care of; 5. To know:  a. Someone/something: Exod 33:12;  b. From there: acquaintances, familiar with; 6. To know sexually, have intercourse with, copulate; 7. Theologically, to take care of someone, with God as:  a. Subject, to look after someone; to conclude;  b. Object: Exod 5:2; 1 Sam 2:12; Job 18:21; Ps 79:6; Jer 2:8; 4:22; Hos 2:22; 5:4; 8. To understand something:  a. With accusative;  b. With infinitive and ְ‫( ל‬Jer 4:22) or imperfect and ְ‫( ו‬Job 23:3); 9. To know:  a. To have experienced: Isa 40:21;  b. With two accusatives: 2 Chr 12:8;  c. With imperfect: perhaps 2 Sam 12:22; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9; 10. To know, have understanding—with negation, to be ignorant: Ps 73:22; Isa 1:3; Emendations: Hos 2:22 (‫ ;)ּובְ דַ עַת‬Ps 147:20 (‫;)יֹ ִדעֵם‬ Niphal: 1. To make oneself known, reveal: Exod 6:3; Pss 9:17; 48:4; Isa 66:14; Ezek 20:5, 9; 35:11; 36:32; 38:23; Hab 3:2; 2. To be seen; 3. To become known; 4. To be/become known: Exod 33:16; 1 Kgs 18:36; Pss 76:2; 77:20; Isa 19:21; Jer 28:9; 5. To realize, come to understand; Emendations: Ps 147:20 (‫;)יֹ ִדעֵם‬

Meaning

Table A1  Meaning of ‫ ידע‬in lexiconsa

160  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

(continued)

Piel: 1. To cause to know; Pual: 1. Acquaintance, confidant; 2. What is known: Isa 12:5 (feminine as neuter); Hiphil: 1. To let someone know something—with two accusatives: Gen 41:39; Exod 33:12; 2 Sam 7:21; Pss 16:11; 25:4, 11; 39:4; 143:8; 147:20 (conjectural); Isa 5:5; Jer 11:18; 16:21; 20:11; 2. To make known, inform—with accusative: Exod 18:16; Num 16:5; Deut 4:9; Neh 9:14; 1 Chr 16:8; 17:19; Pss 77:14; 78:5; 89:2; 98:2; 103:7; 105:1; 106:8; 145:12; Isa 12:4; 64:2; Ezek 39:7; Hos 5:9; 3.  a. To inform someone (of something)—with accusative: Deut 8:3; Josh 4:22; Job 10:2;  b. To inform someone about—with ְ‫ ל‬and ‫אֶ ל‬: Isa 38:19; 4. With infinitive and ְ‫ל‬:  a. To teach: Ps 90:12;—to teach to distinguish: Ezek 22:26;  b. To give the signal for; Emendations: Ps 147:20 (‫;)יֹ ִדעֵם‬ Hophal: 1. To be made known—ptc: Isa 12:5 (Qere, ‫;)מּודַ עַת‬ 2. To come to one’s knowledge; Hithpael: 1. To make oneself known: Num 12:6.

  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

161

c

DCH

Lexicon

Qal: 1. Know, realize, be aware, have knowledge (of):  a. With object: Jer 8:7; sometimes specifically legally recognize (Exod 33:12; 1 Sam 2:12; 3:7; 1 Chr 28:9; Isa 19:21; Jer 2:8; 24:7; 31:34; Hos 5:4; 8:2; 13:4; Ps 36:10);  b. Used absolutely: Gen 28:16; Deut 29:3; 2 Kgs 2:3; Isa 1:3; 40:21;  c. Before conjunction and subordinate clause: 2 Sam 12:22 (Qere);  d. Before indirect question: 1 Sam 22:3; Eccl 11:5; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9;  e. Know (that), realize (that), be aware (that):d    i. Before ‫“( כִ ּי‬that”): Gen 24:14; Exod 6:7; 7:5, 17; 8:6, 18; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 18:11; 29:46; 31:13; Lev 23:43; Num 16:28; 22:34; Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9; 8:5; 9:3, 6; 11:2; 29:5; Josh 2:9; 3:7, 10; 4:24; 22:31; 23:13–14; Judg 6:37; 14:4; 16:20; 17:13; 1 Sam 6:9; 17:46–47; 18:28; 2 Sam 5:12; 1 Kgs 8:43, 60; 17:24; 18:37; 20:13, 28; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; 5:15; 10:10; 19:19; 1 Chr 14:2; 29:17; 2 Chr 6:33; 13:5; 25:16; 33:13; Job 9:28; 10:13; 11:6; 19:6; 42:2; Pss 4:3; 20:6; 41:11; 46:10; 56:9; 83:18; 100:3; 109:27; 119:75; 152 (un-less ‫ ידע‬II, “be quiet”); 135:5; 140:12; Eccl 3:14; 11:9; 6:16; Isa 37:20; 41:20;45:6; 49:23, 26; 60:16; Jer 2:19; 16:21; 24:7; 32:8; 44:29; Ezek 6:7, 10, 13–14; 7:4, 9, 27; 11:10, 12; 12:15–16, 20; 13:9, 14, 21, 23; 14:8, 23; 15:7; 16:62; 17:21, 24; 20:12, 20, 38, 42, 44; 21:10; 22:16, 22; 23:49; 24:24, 27; 25:5, 7, 11, 17; 26:6; 28:22–24, 26; 29:6, 9, 16, 21; 30:8, 19, 25–26; 32:15; 33:29; 34:27, 30; 35:4, 9, 12, 15; 36:11, 23, 36, 38; 37:6, 13–14, 28; 39:6–7, 22, 28; Hos 2:8, 20; 11:3; Joel 2:27; 3:17; Jonah 4:2; Zech 2:9, 11; 4:9; 6:15; Mal 2:4;    ii. Before ‫“( אֲשֶ ׁר‬that”): Exod 11:7; Ezek 20:26;    iii. Before -ׁ ֶ‫“( ש‬that”);    iv. Without conjunction: Job 19:25; 30:23; 1. Know, be familiar with, experience something: Num 14:34; 2 Chr 12:8; 2. K  now, be acquainted with (a person, nation) God: Exod 5:2; 33:13; Judg 2:10; 1 Sam 2:12; 3:7; 1 Chr 28:9; Job 18:21; Pss 36:10; 79:6; Prov 3:6; Isa 19:21; 45:5; Jer 2:8; 31:34; Hos 2:20; 3. Know a person carnally, have sexual relations (with); 4. Know, recognize, learn, perceive, understand: Job 11:8; 42:3; 5. Know (how) to do, be skillful in, be knowledgeable about: Jer 4:22; 6. Know, find out, discover—before ‫“( כִ ּי‬that”); before indirect question (Gen 24:21); 7. Pay attention to, be concerned about something; someone; one’s self; before indirect question;

Meaning

Table A1  (continued)

162  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

(continued)

e • Yahweh; • Israel(ites): Exod 10:2; Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9; 8:3, 5; 9:3, 6; 18:21; 29:6; Josh 3:7, 10; 23:13–14; 1 Kgs 20:28; 2 Chr 12:8; 23:5; Ps 78:3; Isa 1:3; 5:19; 40:21, 28; 41:20; 43:10, 19; 46:6; 48:6–8; Jer 2:19; 5:4; 9:3, 5; 16:21; Ezek 14:23; 15:7; 20:12, 38; 34:27, 30; Hos 2:22 (or emendation); 5:4; 6:3 (or ‫ ידע‬II [“be submissive”], VI [“seek”], or deleted); 8:2; Joel 3:17; Zech 2:9; 4:9; 6:15; • Ephraim: Hos 5:4; 11:3; 13:4; Judah: Jer 17:4; Jacob: Ezek 39:28; • Ammonites: Ezek 25:5, 7; Edomites: Ezek 25:14; 35:15; Egypt(ians): Ex 7:5; 14:4, 18; Isa 19:21; Ezk 29:16; 30:19, 25–26; 32:15; Moab(ites): Ezek 25:11; Philistines: 1 Sam 6:9; Ezek 25:17; Sidonians: Ezek 28:22–23; Zion: Isa 49:23; 60:16; ‫“[ עִ יר‬city”]: Ezk 22:16; •‫ם‬  ‫ ַע‬, [“people”]: Josh 4:24; 1 Kgs 8:43; 18:37; 2 Kgs 10:10; 2 Chr 6:33; Pss 79:6; 147:20 (or emendation ‫יְ דָ עּום‬, [“they knew them”] to ‫“[ יֹ ִדעֵם‬he taught them”]); Isa 51:7; 52:6; Jer 4:22; 8:7; 44:29; Ezek 7:27; 12:20; 24:24, 27; Mic 6:5; ‫ּגֹוי‬ (“nation”): Jer 10:25; Ezek 12:16; 36:23, 36; 37:28; 38:16, 23; 39:7; Mic 4:12; Neh 6:16; ‫“( עֵדָ ה‬congregation”): Num 16:28; ‫“( קָ הָ ל‬assembly”): 1 Sam 17:47; ‫“( מַ ְמ ָלכָה‬kingdom”): 2 Kgs 19:19; Isa 37:20; ‫“( בַ ּיִ ת‬house”) of Israel: Ezek 11:10, 12; 12:15; 14:8; 17:21; 20:42, 44; 22:22; 28:24, 26; 29:21; 36:38; 37:13–14; 39:22, 28; ‫“( יֹ שֵ ׁב‬inhabitant”): Ezek 29:6, 9; 33:29; 39:6; Ps 91:14 (unless ‫ ידע‬VIII, “call”); • Ahab: 1 Kgs 20:13; Balaam: Num 22:19, 34; Cyrus: Isa 45:3, 4 (unless ‫ ידע‬II, [“be submissive”]); 45:5; David: 1 Sam 22:3; 2 Sam 5:2; 1 Chr 14:2; 29:17; Elihu: 36:26; 37:5; Elisha: 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Gideon: Judg 6:37; Jeremiah: Jer 11:28; 32:8; 33:3; Jeroboam: 2 Chr 13:5; Jethro: Exod 18:11; Job: Job 9:28; 10:13; 11:6, 8; 19:25; 23:3 (unless ‫ ידע‬VIII, “call”); 23:5; 30:23; 36:26; 37:5, 15–16; 38:5; 42:2 (Qere), 3; Jonah: Jonah 4:2; Joshua: Josh 14:6; Koheleth: Eccl 3:14; Magog: Ezek 39:6; Manasseh: 2 Chr 33:13; Micah: Judg 17:23; Moses: Exod 33:13; Naaman: 2 Kgs 5:15; Oholah and Oholibah: Ezek 23:49; Phinehas: Josh 22:31; Samson: Judg 16:20; Samuel: 1 Sam 3:7; Saul: 1 Sam 18:28; Solomon: 1 Chr 28:9; • ‫“( ִאיׁש‬man”): Gen 24:16, 21; Ps 92:6; ‫“( ִאשָ ּׁה‬woman”): 1 Kgs 17:24; Jer 44:29; • ‫“( אָ ב‬father”): Deut 8:3; Judg 14:4; 1 Sam 2:12; ‫“( אֵ ם‬mother”): Judg 14:4; Hos 2:10; ‫“( בֵ ּן‬son”): Deut 11:2; 31:13; Josh 22:31; 1 Chr 28:9; Pss 4:3; 78:6; Prov 3:6; Ezek 20:20, 26; ‫“( בני‬sons of” [Israel]): Exod 6:7; 11:7; 16:6, 12; 29:46; 31:13; Num 14:34; ‫“( בַ ּת‬daughter”): Ezek 13:21, 23; 26:6; Zech 2:11; ‫“( אָ ח‬brother”): Jer 31:34; • ‫“( מֶ ֶל ְך‬king”): 1 Kgs 20:13; Ezek 7:27; ‫“( ַפ ְּרעֹ ה‬Pharaoh”): Exod 5:2; 7:17; 9:14, 29; ‫“( נ ִָשׂיא‬prince”): Ezek 7:27; ‫זָקֵ ן‬ (“elder”): Josh 23:13–14; 24:31; ‫“( ר ֹאׁש‬head, i.e. leader”): Josh 23:13–14; ‫“( שֹ ׁטֵ ר‬officer”): Josh 23:13–14; ‫“( ׁשפט‬one who judges”): Josh 23:13–14; ‫“( עֶבֶ ד‬servant”): Gen 24:14; ‫“( בָ ּחּור‬young man”): Eccl 11:9; ‫“( זֹונָה‬prostitute”): Ezek 16:62; ‫“( ֵר ַע‬neighbor”): Jer 31:34; friends of Job: Job 19:6;

  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

163

Lexicon

• ‫“( כֹ ּהֵ ן‬priest”): Josh 22:31; Mal 2:4; ‫“( נָבִ יא‬prophet”): 2 Chr 25:16; Ezek 13:9, 14; ‫“( י ֵָרא‬one who fears”) Yahweh: Ps 119:79 (Ketiv); worshipper: 2 Sam 22:44; Pss 18:44; 20:6; 35:10; 41:11; 46:10; 56:10; 71:15; 73:22; 81:6; 119:75; 125, 152 (unless ‫ ידע‬II, “be submissive”); 135:5; 140:13 (Qere); • ַ‫“( מָ ִשׁיח‬anointed one”): Isa 45:4 (unless ‫ ידע‬II, “be submissive”); • ‫“( ע ִָדין‬voluptuous one”): Isa 47:8; ‫“( אֹויֵב‬enemy”): Neh 6:16; Ps 83:18; ‫“( ׂשנא‬one who hates”): Ps 83:18; ‫ׂשטֵ ן‬ (“adversary”): Ps 109:27; • ‫ׂש‬  ‫“( תפ‬one who holds”): Jer 2:8; ‫“( סמך‬one who supports”): Ezek 30:8; ‫“( עָנִ י‬poor one”), apparently Zech 11:11 (or emendation ‫“[ ֵכּן עֲנִ ֵיּי‬so the poor ones of”] to ‫“[ כְ ּ ַנ ֲענֵי‬the traders of the sheep knew”]; ‫“( ָגּדֹול‬great one”): Jer 5:5; 31:34; ‫“( קָ טָ ן‬small one”): Jer 31:34; ‫“( קָ רֹוב‬near one”): Isa 33:13; ‫“( ּדֹור‬generation”): Lev 23:43; Judg 2:10; Pss 78:6; 95:10; • ‫“( ֵל ב‬heart”): Deut 29:3; Jer 24:7; ‫“( ֶנפֶׁש‬soul”): Ps 139:14 (or emendation ‫נַפְ ִשׁי יֹ דַ עַת‬, apparently “my soul knows,” to ּ ָ‫יָדַ עְ ת‬ ‫נַפְ ִשׁי‬, “you care for my soul”); ‫“( בָ ּשָ ׂר‬flesh”): Isa 49:26; Ezek 21:10; ‫“( עֶצֶ ם‬bone”): Ezek 37:6; • ‫“( ֵע ץ‬tree”): Ezek 17:24; • ‫“( הַ ר‬mountain”): Ezek 6:7, 10, 13–14; 35:4, 9, 12, 15; 36:11; ‫“( גִ ּבְ עָה‬hill”)/‫“( ַגּיְ א‬valley”)/‫“( אָ פִ יק‬channel”): Ezek 6:7, 10, 13–14; ‫“( אֶ ֶרץ‬earth”): 1 Sam 17:46; Ps 100:3; Hab 2:14; apparently ‫“( אֲדָ מָ ה‬land”): Ezek 7:4 9; • ‫“( ִמי‬who?”): 2 Sam 12:22; Ps 90:11; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9; ‫“( כֹ ּל‬everyone”): Jer 31:34; • Subject not specified: Num 24:16; Job 18:21; 24:1; Pss 9:10; 36:10; 59:13; 67:2; 87:4; 119:79 (Qere); 140:12 (Ketiv); Eccl 11:5; Isa 51:7; Jer 9:24;

• Yahweh: Exod 5:2; 33:13; Judg 2:10; 1 Sam 2:12; 3:7; Isa 19:21; 45:4 (unless ‫ ידע‬II, “be submissive”) 45:5; Jer 2:8; 4:22; 9:3, 6, 24; 10:25; 24:7; 31:34; Ezek 38:16; Ho 2:20 (or emendation ‫וְ יָדַ ע ְַתּ אֶ ת־י‬′, “and you shall know Y[HWH],” to ‫ּובְ דַ עַת י‬′, “and in the knowledge of Y[HWH]”; manuscripts ‫כִ ּי אֲנִ י י‬′, “that I am Y[HWH]”); 5:4; 8:2; Job 18:21; 24:1; Pss 36:10; 79:6; 87:4; Prov 3:6; 1 Chr 28:9; ‫“( אֱֹלהִ ים‬god”): Hos 13:4; • ‫“( ָי ד‬hand”): Deut 11:2; Josh 4:24; ‫“( זְרֹו ַע‬arm”): Deut 11:2; ‫“( שָ ׂפָה‬lip”): Ps 81:5; ‫“( שֵ ׁם‬name”): 1 Kgs 8:43; 2 Chr 6:33; Pss 9:10; 91:14 (unless ‫ ידע‬VIII, “call”); Isa 52:6; • ‫“( דֶ ֶּר ְך‬way”): Pss 67:2; 95:10; Jer 5:4–5; ‫“( דַ ּעַת‬knowledge”): Num 24:16; ‫“( מּוסָ ר‬discipline”): Deut 11:2; ‫יְ ׁשּועָה‬ (“salvation”): Ps 67:2; • ‫( צְ דָ קָ ה‬plural, “righteous acts”): Mic 6:5; ‫“( ָכּבֹוד‬glory”): Hab 2:14; • ‫“( ִמ ְשׁ ָ ּפ ט‬justice, ordinance”): Ps 147:20; Jer 8:7; ‫“( עֲבֹודָ ה‬service”): 2 Chr 12:8; ‫“( מַ עֲשֶ ׂה‬work”): Josh 24:31; Judg 2:10; Eccl 11:5;

Meaning

Table A1  (continued)

164  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

(continued)

• ‫“( דָ ּבָ ר‬word, matter”): Deut 18:21; Josh 14:6; ‫“( מַ חֲשָ ׁבָ ה‬thought”): Mic 4:12; ‫“( עֶדָ ה‬testimony”): Ps 119:79, 125; • ‫“( נְ קָ מָ ה‬vengeance”): Ezek 25:14; ‫“( ְתּנּואָ ה‬opposition”): Num 14:34; • ‫“( חֲדָ שָ ׁ ה‬new thing”): Isa 43:19; 48:6–7; ‫“( נצר‬hidden thing”): Isa 48:6–7; ‫“( בצר‬fortified,” i.e. “inaccessible thing/ ‫ ָגּדֹול‬, “great thing”): Jer 33:3; ‫ּבּורה‬ ָ ְ‫“( ג‬might”): Isa 33:13; ‫“( עֹ ז‬strength”): Ps 90:11; ‫“( גֹ ּדֶ ל‬greatness”): Deut 11:2; ‫פלא‬ (“wonderful thing”): Job 42:3; ‫“( ְספֹ ָרה‬number”): Ps 71:15; • ‫“( אֲשֶ ׁר‬that which, how (it is that)”): Gen 30:29; ‫“( מָ ה‬what?”): Job 11:8; ‫“( זֶה‬this”): Ps 56:10;

• ּ ְ‫( ב‬of place, “in, among”) + ‫“( ּגֹוי‬nation”): Ps 67:3; ‫“( דֶ ֶּרְך‬way”): Prov 3:6; • ּ ְ‫( ב‬of instrument, “by [means of]”): Gen 24:14; • ּ ְ‫( ב‬of accompaniment, “with”) + ‫“( לֵבָ ב‬heart”)/‫“( ֶנפֶש‬soul”): Josh 23:14; • ‫( ִמן‬of direction, “from”) + ‫עֵדָ ה‬: Ps 119:152 (unless ‫ ידע‬II, “be quiet”); • ‫“( ַע ל‬about, concerning”) + ‫“( ִמפְ לָׂש‬swaying”): Job 37:16 (or emendation ‫ ֶעלֶם‬, “do you know the secret of the swaying of clouds?”); • ‫“( עִ ם‬with”) + ‫“( לֵבָ ב‬heart”): Deut 8:5;

• ‫“( ׁשים לֵב‬place (heart), consider”): Isa 41:20; • ‫“( בין‬understand”): Job 23:5; Ps 92:7; Isa 1:3; 40:21; 43:10; Jer 4:22; Mic 4:12; ‫“( ׂשכל‬understand”): Isa 41:20; Jer 9:24; • ‫“( ראה‬see”): Deut 4:35; 11:2; 29:3; Isa 41:20; Jer 2:19; ‫“( חזה‬see”): Num 24:16; ‫“( גלה‬be revealed”): 1 Sam 3:7; • ‫“( ׁשמע‬hear”): Num 24:16; Deut 29:3; Ps 78:3; Isa 33:13; 40:21, 28; 48:8; • ‫“( ׁשמ ר‬observe”) + ‫( פתח‬of ear, “be opened”): Isa 48:8; ‫“( אמן‬believe”): Isa 43:10; ‫“( עבד‬serve”): 1 Chr 28:9; ‫קרא בְ ּשֵ ׁם‬ (“call upon name”): Ps 79:6; Jer 10:25; ‫“( ׁשוב אֶ ל־לֵבָ ב‬lay to heart”): Deut 4:39; • ‫“( נגד‬be told”): Isa 40:21; ‫“( חׁשק‬cling”): Ps 91:14; ‫“( פעל‬do”): Job 11:8; • Adverb or noun used adverbially: ‫“( ְמאֹ ד‬much”): Ps 139:14 (or emendation, see above); ‫“( עַתָ ּה‬now”): Judg 17:13; ‫ֵכּן‬ (“thus”): Zech 11:11 (or emendations ‫“[ ֵכּן עֲנִ ֵיּי‬so the poor ones of”] to ‫“[ כְ ּ ַנ ֲענֵי‬the traders of the sheep knew”]); ‫אֵ יכָה‬ (“how?”): Deut 18:21; ‫“( הַ ּיֹום‬today”): Deut 4:39; 9:3; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; • ‫“( ידע‬know [how to]”) + ‫“( יטב‬do good”): Jer 4:22; + ‫“( ירא‬fear”): 1 Kgs 8:43; 2 Chr 6:33; • Infinitive absolute + finite form of ‫ידע‬: Josh 23:13; • ‫“( מָ קֹום ל ֹא־יָדַ ע־אֵ ל‬the place of one who does not know God”): Job 18:21; • ‫יֹ ְד ֵעי‬/‫יֹודעֵי‬ ְ (“ones knowing, those who know”) followed by noun(s): ‫“( שֵ ׁם‬name,” Ps 9:11); ‫“( עֵדָ ה‬testimony,” Ps 119:79 [Qere]);

  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

165

Lexicon

Passive: a. Be known; b. Be well known or perhaps be experienced, be proved; 10. Passive ptc as noun: a. One who is known b. One who is well known or perhaps one who is experienced; Niphal: 1. Be known, made known: Ps 48:3; before ‫“( כִ ּי‬that”): Exod 33:16; 1 Kgs 18:36; 2. Make oneself known: Exod 6:3; Ps 9:17; Isa 19:21; Ezek 20:5, 9; 35:11; 38:23; 3. Be found out, discovered; 4. Perhaps be made known;

• Yahweh: Exod 6:3; Pss 9:16; 48:3; 76:1; Isa 19:21; Ezek 20:5, 9; 35:11; 38:23; Hab 3:2 (if emendation, “make known”); • ‫נָבִ יא‬, (“prophet”): Jer 28:9; • ‫יָד‬, (“hand”): Isa 66:14; • Subject not specified: Exod 33:16; 1 Kgs 18:36; Ezek 36:32;

• ְ‫( ל‬of direction, “to”) + Egypt: Isa 19:21; ‫“( בַ ּיִ ת‬house” of Israel): Ezek 36:32; Abraham/Isaac/Jacob: Exod 6:3; ‫ז ֶַרע‬ (“seed, i.e. descendants”): Ezek 20:5; • ְ‫“( ל‬in, before”) + ‫“( עַיִ ן‬eye”): Ezek 20:9; 38:23; • ְּ‫( ב‬of place, time, “in, among, during”) + Judah: Ps 76:2; + ‫“( ּגֹוי‬nation”): Ezek 35:11 (or emendation ‫בָ ּם‬, “among them” to ‫בְ ָּך‬, “among you,” i.e. Edomite[s]); ‫“( אֶ ֶרץ‬land”): Ezek 20:5; 35:11 (or emendation); ‫“( הַ ר‬mountain”): Ezek 35:11 (or emendation); ‫“( בַ ּמֶ ּה‬how?): Exod 33:16; • ‫“( אֶ ל‬to”) + Israelites: Ezek 20:9; • ‫“( אֵ ת‬with, i.e. among”) + ‫“( עֶבֶ ד‬servant”): Isa 66:14; ‫“( בְ ּקֶ ֶרב‬among, within”) + ‫“( שָ ׁנָה‬year”): Hab 3:2 (if emendation, “make known”);

9.

Meaning

Table A1  (continued)

166  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

(continued)

Piel: 1. Cause to know;f 2. Make known; Pual: 1. Be made known: Isa 12:5 (Ketiv); 2. As noun, acquaintance, intimate friend; kinsman; Hiphil:cause to know, make known, declare (to), teach;    i. With ‫ בֵ ּין‬perhaps distinguish;    ii. Before indirect question: Isa 19:12 (if emended); Job 10:2;

• Yahweh: Gen 41:39; Exod 33:12; Num 16:5; 2 Sam 7:21; 1 Chr 17:19; Neh 9:14; Job 10:2; 13:23; Pss 16:11; 25:4, 14; 39:4; 51:6; 77:14; 78:5; 90:12; 98:2; 103:7; 106:8; 143:8; 147:20 (if emended ‫יְ דָ עּום‬, “they knew them,” to ‫יֹ ִדעֵם‬, “he taught them”); Isa 5:5; 64:2; Jer 11:18; 16:21; Ezek 20:11; 39:7; Hos 5:9; Hab 3:2 (or emended ‫ּתֹודי ַע‬, ִ “you make known,” to ‫ת ָוּדֵ ַע‬, ּ ִ “you make yourself known”); • Israel: Deut 4:9; Moses: Exod 18:16; ‫אָ ב‬, (“father”): Isa 38:19; ‫“( בֵ ּן‬son [of Israel]): Josh 4:22; ‫“( חָ ִסיד‬loyal one”): Ps 145:12; worshipper: 1 Chr 16:8; Pss 89:2; 105:1; Isa 12:4; ‫“( מַ עֲשֶ ׂה‬work”): Ps 145:12;

1. Recipient of knowledge:—Israel(ites): Ps 147:20 (if emended); Isa 5:5; Jer 16:21; Ezek 20:11; ‫“( עַם‬people”): Exod 18:16; Jeremiah: Jer 11:18; Job: Job 10:2; Joseph: Gen 41:39; Moses: Exod 33:13; ‫“( בֵ ּן‬son”): Josh 4:22; ‫עֶבֶ ד‬ (“servant”): 2 Sam 7:21; ‫“( ירא‬one who fears”): Ps 25:14; worshipper: Pss 16:11; 25:4; 39:4; 51:6; 143:8; 2. Contents of knowledge: • ‫ׁש‬  ‫“( קָ דֹו‬holy one”): Num 16:5; ‫“( יָד‬hand, i.e. power”): Jer 16:21; ‫“( שֵ ׁם‬name”): Isa 64:2; Ezek 39:7; ‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ (“law”): Exod 18:16; Ps 78:5; ‫“( חֹ ק‬statute”): Exod 18:16; ‫“( ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ordinance”): Ps 147:20 (if emended; see ); Ezek 20:11; ‫“( עֵדּות‬testimony”): Ps 78:5; ‫“( בְ ִּרית‬covenant”): Ps 25:14; ‫“( שַ ׁבָ ּת‬sabbath”): Neh 9:14; ‫“( חָ כְ מָ ה‬wisdom”): Ps 51:6; ‫אֱמּונָה‬ (“faithfulness”): Ps 89:1; ‫“( אמן‬certainty”): Hos 5:9; ‫“( דֶ ֶּרְך‬way”): Exod 18:20; 33:13; Pss 103:7; 143:8; Isa 40:14; ‫אֹ ַרח‬ (“path”): Pss 16:11; 25:4; ‫“( עֹ ז‬strength”): Ps 77:15; ‫ּבּורה‬ ָ ְ‫“( ג‬might”): Ps 106:8; 145:12; Jer 16:21; ‫“( גְ ּדּו ָלּה‬greatness”): 1 Chr 17:19; ‫“( פְ עַל‬deed”): Hab 3:2 (or emended; see ); ‫“( עֲלִ ילָה‬deed”): 1 Chr 16:8; Pss 103:7; 105:1; Isa 12:4; ‫“( יְ ׁשּועָה‬salvation”): Ps 98:2; ‫“( דָ ּבָ ר‬thing”): Deut 4:9; ‫“( ז ֹאת‬this”): Gen 41:39; ‫“( אֲשֶ ׁר‬the one who, that which”): Exod 33:12; Num 16:5; Isa 5:5;

  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

167

• ְ‫( ל‬of direction, “to”) + Moses: Ps 103:7; ‫“( בֵ ּן‬son”): Deut 4:9; Ps 78:5 (of Israel); Ps 103:7 (of man); Ps 145:12; Isa 38:19; ‫“( צַ ר‬adversary”): Isa 64:2; ‫“( ּדֹור‬generation”): Ps 89:1; • ּ ְ‫( ב‬of place, “among”) + ‫“( עַם‬people”): 1 Chr 16:8; Pss 77:14; 105:1; Isa 12:4; ‫“( סתם‬closed place”): Ps 51:6; • ּ ְ‫( ב‬of instrument, “by [means of], with) + ‫“( ֶפּה‬mouth”): Ps 89:2; • ּ ְ‫( ב‬of place, “in, at”) + ‫“( ַ ּפעַם‬time”): Jer 16:21; • ‫“( אֶ ל‬concerning”) + ‫“( אֱמֶ ת‬faithfulness”): Isa 38:19; • ‫“( בְ ּתֹוְך‬among”) + ‫“( עַם‬people”): Ezek 39:7; • ‫“( בְ ּקֶ ֶרב‬among”) + ‫“( שָ ׁנָה‬year”): Hab 3:2 (or emended; see );

• ‫“( גלה‬reveal”): Ps 98:2; ‫“( למד‬teach”): Ps 25:4; • ‫“( ראה‬show”): Jer 11:18; ‫“( צוה‬command”): Neh 9:14; ‫“( חיה‬revive”): Hab 3:2; ‫“( נתן‬give”): Ezek 20:11; • adverb or noun used adverbially, ‫“( ֵכּן‬so”): Ps 90:12; • ‫הֹודיעּו‬ ִ ‫“( בֵ ּין־הַ טָ ּמֵ א לְ טָ הֹור ל ֹא‬they have not taught [the difference] between the unclean and the clean”): Ezek 22:26; Hophal: be made known; : ‫“( ז ֹאת‬this”): Isa 12:5 (Qere); : ּ ְ‫( ב‬of place, “in”) + ‫“( אֶ ֶרץ‬land”): Isa 12:5 (Qere); Hithpael: make oneself known; : Yahweh: Num 12:6; : ‫“( אֶ ל‬to”) + ‫“( נָבִ יא‬prophet”): Num 12:6.

Meaning

a Lexicons present the meanings of a word in a simple manner. Dictionaries add theological aspects (see https://sblhs2.com/2017/04/04/citing-referenceworks-3-dictionaries-word/). For lexicons, the main glosses or definitions are given in boldface. Other glosses are in italics. For dictionaries, the definitions are in boldface. Glosses and translations are in italics. Citations are placed within quotation marks with the volume and page(s) in parentheses. Being easily identifiable, page numbers are not indicated for definitions b HALOT, s.v. “‫ ידע‬I.” Only the verses relevant to the present book are indicated c DCH 4, s.v. “‫ ידע‬I.” Synonyms or antonyms are not included here d The structure is modified so that the roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc.) indicate the various definitions that come under the main sections of the lexicon. The same applies to dictionaries e Only the subjects (and objects) relevant to this discussion are selected f Polel, “cause to know” is a variation but is not relevant for the present discussion

Lexicon

Table A1  (continued)

168  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

1. [Section III]  a. P  rimarily the sensory awareness of objects and circumstances in one’s environment attained through involvement with them and through the information of others:     i. Qal—to become conscious of, become aware of, observe, perceive, realize, experience: 1 Sam 22:3; Ezek 25:14;     ii. To be resolved (Niphal or Qal): Ps 77:20;     iii. The availability of the epistemic object is prerequisite for perception, not inaccessible (Jer 33:3), hidden (Isa 48:6); the sensory organs, eyes and ears;    iv. should be open (Deut 29:4; Num 24:16; 1 Sam 3:7; Isa 48:8);    v. ‫ ידע‬is parallel to ‫“( ׁשמע‬to hear”): Deut 29:4; Neh 6:16; Ps 78:3; Isa 33:13; 40:21, 28; 48:6–8;    vi. ‫ יד ע‬is parallel to ‫“( ראה‬to see”): Exod 6:3; Deut 4:35; 11:2; 29:4; 1 Sam 6:9; 18:28; Isa 5:19; 41:20; Jer 11:18; see also the typical expression ‫“( דַ ע ְּוראֵ ה‬perceive and see”): Jer 2:19; ‫( ׁשאה‬Hithpael, “to regard”): Gen 24:21;  b. T  o describe the recognition that results from the deliberate application of the senses, from investigation and testing, from consideration and reflection:    i. Qal—to perceive, comprehend, gain insight: Job 9:28; 36:26; 42:2; Zech 11:11;    ii. Niphal—to be perceived: Exod 33:16; 1 Kgs 18:36; Jer 28:9;    iii. The heart is the typical epistemic organ of ‫ידע‬: Deut 8:5; 29:3; Josh 23:14; Isa 51:7; Jer 24:7; 31:33; ‫ ידע‬parallels ‫“( ׂשים עַל לֵב‬put to heart”) paraphrased in Isa 41:20; ‫( לֵב ׁשוב אֶ ל‬Hiphil), to take to heart: Deut 4:39;    iv. Perception is hindered by confusion of heart (‫תעה לֵב‬, Ps 95:10) or stubbornness (Ps 95:10; Isa 48:8; Jer 5:3–5);    v. S eeking (Ps 9:11) or understanding, gaining insight (Job 23:5; 42:3; Pss 92:6; 119:125; Isa 1:3; 40:21;41:20; 43:10; Jer 4:22; 9:24; Mic 4:12) as perception;    vi. Signs play an important role (Exod 7:5; 8:18; 10:2; 31:13; Deut 4:35; 11:2; Jer 44:29; Ezek 14:8; 20:12) functioning as perceptive means (Gen 24:14; Exod 7:17; 33:16; Jer 28:9; see also ‫ ידע‬in a conditional clause in Judg 6:37 and 1 Sam 6:9); in a similar way a specific phenomenon may lead to perception (Gen 24:21; 1 Kgs 18:37; 20:13);

TLOTa

(continued)

Meaning

Dictionary

Table A2  Meaning of ‫ ידע‬in dictionaries

  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

169

Dictionary

 c. Knowledge that results from realization, experience, and perception and that one can learn and transmit:    i. Qal—to know: Gen 28:16;    ii. Typical for this usage of ‫ ידע‬are the occurrences that entail teaching, instruction (Deut 31:13), or prior pronouncements (Ps 78:3, 5–6);    iii. ‫ ידע‬also refers to moral discernment (2 Chr 12:8; Jer 4:22).    ii. In prophecy, it focuses on the announced events: 1 Kgs 20:13, 28; 78x in Ezek, almost always in relation to judgment (also in Jer 16:21; Mal 2:4);    iii. It also appears in salvation oracles: Isa 41:20; 45:3–6; 49:23, 26; 60:16; Joel 2:27; 3:17; also in Josh 22:31; Judg 17:13; 2 Sam 5:12; 2 Kgs 5:15; 1 Chr 14:12; Neh 6:16; Pss 20:6; 41:11; 56:9; 135:5; 140:12;    iv. Non-Israelites can also know God: Exodus, 1 Sam 17:46–47; 1 Kgs 8:43, 60; 2 Kgs 19:19; Pss 59:13; 83:18; Isa 19:21; 37:20; 43:10; 45:3–6; 49:26; Ezek 21:10; 25:7, 11, 17, etc.;    v. The truth of the divine word revealed in a historical fulfillment is part of the recognition formula, entailing in some cases prophetic legitimacy: Num 16:28; Deut 18:21; Josh 23:14; 1 Kgs 17:24; 18:36–37; 2 Kgs 10:10; Jer 28:9; 32:8; 44:29; Ezek 6:10; 17:21; 37:14; Zech 2:9, 11; 4:9; 6:15; 11:11; 2. ‫“ יד ע‬does not merely indicate a theoretical relation, a pure act of thought but that knowledge, as ydʿ intends it, is realized through practical involvement with the obj. of knowledge” (514); some parallel terms are typical: … ‫ידע‬ ‫“( ׁשמר‬to protect, keep, attend to,” Jer 8:7), ‫“( מצא חֵ ן‬to find grace,” Exod 33:12–13), ‫“( אמן‬to believe,” Isa 43:10), ‫“( ירא‬to fear,” 1 Kgs 8:43; 2 Chr 6:33), or ‫“( עבד‬to serve,” 1 Chr 28:9); and contrasting terms, like ּ ְ‫“( פׁשע ב‬to rebel against,” Jer 2:8), or ‫“( רׁשע‬to commit an outrage against,” Jer 9:3, 6):  a. Professional acquaintance with particular skills, to technical capability: to be skilled in, be well-acquainted with;  b. Intensive involvement with an object that exceeds a simple cognitive relationship: to be concerned with (Isa 1:3), familiarity with a person’s character, so that one understands the person and his/her behavior (1 Kgs 18:37); sexual intercourse; 1. [Section IV]  a. (In pre-Israelite usage) religious term describing the divine care experienced by a particular person:    i. Appears in theophanies;    ii. Describes the special relationship with God (Exod 33:12);    iii. Refers to divine judicial knowledge;

Meaning

Table A2  (continued)

170  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

 b. (Niphal, Hiphil) revelation:    i. God’s self-revelation: Exod 6:3;    ii. Divine interventions revealing God’s power: Pss 9:16; 48:3; 77:14, 19; 76:1; 98:2; 103:7; 109:27; Isa 64:2; 66:14; Jer 16:21;    iii. Substantive divine pronouncements (Gen 41:39; Neh 9:14; 2 Sam 7:21; 1 Chr 17:19; Jer 11:18) or requests reflecting divine revelation (Exod 33:13; Pss 16:11; 25:4; 39:4; 51:6; 90:12; 143:8); 2.  a. (Positively or negatively with Yahweh as object) not a mere intellectual knowledge or ignorance but a relationship to the deity that includes practical behavior: to be acquainted with, to be concerned with, to acknowledge:    i. Negative reference: Exod 5:2; Isa 45:3–6; Ezek 38:16; Hos 13:4, including the lack of religious experience (1 Sam 3:7; Jer 4:22), inadequate familiarity with the religious realm (Gen 28:16; Judg 2:10; Jer 31:34);    ii. Positive references refer to appropriate conduct toward God: parallel to 1 ,‫ ירא‬Kgs 8:43; 2 Chr 6:33; Ps 119:79; 1 ,‫ עבד‬Chr 28:9; ‫אמן‬, Isa 43:10; ‫“( דרׁש‬to seek”): Ps 9:10; ‫“( חׁשק‬to cling to”): Ps 91:14; ‫“( קרא בְ ּשֵ ׁם‬to call by name”): Job 24:1; Pss 36:10; 79:6; 87:4; Prov 3:6; Jer 10:25; not knowing God indicates apostasy (1 Sam 2:12; Job 18:21);    iii. The Hiphil of ‫ידע‬, (“to announce”) occurs in relation to hymns: Pss 89:1; 105:1; 145:12; Isa 12:4–5; 38:18; 1 Chr 16:8; iv. ‫ יד ע‬with Yahweh as object is prominent in the prophetic messages: Jer 2:8 4:22; 9:3, 6; Hos 2:8; 5:4; 6:3; 8:2; 13:4; ‫“( בְ ִּרית‬covenant”), occurs in the semantic field of these instances, portraying the divine-human relationship as a marriage, which should be understood as referring to professional priestly knowledge (2:518), as shown in Jer 2:8; 28:9 (cf. Num 24:16); “the instructional transmission of such knowledge [is] a prerequisite for proper relationship with Yahweh” (2:519), as Deut 4:9; Josh 4:22; and Ps 78:5–6 show;  b. (In the recognition formula) human knowledge as the goal of divine self-revelation in historical acts (only Niphal and Hiphil):b    i. The basis is represented by “the nebulous realm of signs in which decisions are reached and unclarified situations are illuminated through symbolic acts” (2:519): Exod 6:7; 7:5; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 29:46; 31:13; Lev 23:43; Num 14:34; Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9; 9:3, 6; 11:2; 29:6; 1 Kgs 8:60; 18:37; 2 Kgs 19:19; cf. 2 Chr 6:33; 33:13; Pss 46:10; 100:3; Isa 37:20;  c. ‫ ידע‬is significant in Israelite sapiential literature; divine wisdom is seen in creation (Ps 92:6); human perception is limited (Job 11:8; 36:26; 37:5; 38:18; 42:3; Eccl 11:5).

  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

171

c

TDOT

Dictionary

1. Secular knowledge  a. Visual and auditory perception:    i. Visual perception is parallel or precedes knowledge or recognition: Gen 24:21; Num 24:16; Deut 4:35; 11:2; 1 Sam 6:9; 18:28; Isa 41:20; Jer 2:19, 23;    ii. Pre-knowing auditory perception: Neh 6:16; Ps 78:3; Isa 33:13; 40:28; 48:7–8;    iii. In the ‫ ראה–ׁשמע–ידע‬process, ‫ ידע‬may summarize the other two and process them cognitively: Num 24:16; Deut 29:2–4; Isa 48:6;    iv. The amplitude of the semantic field of ‫ ידע‬indicates that human knowledge as a whole is in focus, rather than a specific nuance: Num 24:16; Isa 41:20;  b. Physical apprehension is prerequisite: Deut 29:3–4, 6; Num 24:16; Isa 48:8;  c. The heart is the key epistemic organ: Deut 4:9, 39; 8:5; Josh 14:6;  d. Seeking knowledge:    i. Entails effort: Ps 9:10;    ii. Cannot reach things that are great (Jer 33:3), hidden, or new (Isa 48:6);    iii. The epistemic object needs to be near (Isa 33:13) or approachable (Gen 24:21);    iv. Sources: tradition (Ps 78:3) or revelation (Exod 6:3; 1 Sam 3:7; Jer 11:18);  e. Historical knowledge and skill: 1 Kgs 18:37; Jer 4:22;  f. Emotional and sexual knowledge inclusive of volitional acquaintance and concern: Exod 33:12; Jer 8:7;  g. Knowledge of good and evil: Jer 4:22;  h. Wisdom; 2. Religious usage  a. God’s knowledge:    i. ‫ ידע‬is used to describe the special divine-human relationship: Exod 33:12;    ii. Divine knowledge is perceived as preparatory for divine intervention: Neh 9:10;  b. Knowledge of God as a practical, religio-ethical relationship: Ps 91:14;    i. ‫ ידע‬parallels ‫קרא בְ ּשֵ ׁם‬: Ps 79:6; Jer 10:25;    ii. ‫ ידע‬parallels ‫דרׁש‬: Ps 9:10;    iii. ‫ ידע‬parallels 1 :‫ ירא‬Kgs 8:43; 2 Chr 6:33; Ps 119:79; Prov 3:6;

Meaning

Table A2  (continued)

172  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

(continued)

   iv. ‫ ידע‬parallels 1 :‫ עבד‬Chr 28:9;    v. ‫ ידע‬parallels ‫אמן‬: Isa 43:10;  c. Its lack may refer to apostasy (1 Sam 2:22; Job 18:21; Jer 2:8; 9:3); religious inexperience (Gen 28:16; 1 Sam 3:7); or ignorance (Exod 5:2; Ps 79:6; Jer 10:25); 3. Revelation  a. Make known (Hiphil), make oneself known (Niphal): Exod 6:3;  b. Occurs in history, salvation oracle (?), Torah (?):    i. Yahweh makes his name known by historical demonstrations of power: Pss 9:16; 48:3; 76:1; 77:14, 19; 103:7; Isa 64:2; Jer 16:21; Ezek 39:7;    ii. Such revelation may transmit specific information: Gen 41:39; 2 Sam 7:21; 1 Chr 17:19; Neh 9:14; Jer 11:8; Ezek 20:11;    iii. Part of psalmist’s prayer: Pss 16:11; 25:4, 14; 39:4; 51:6; 90:12; 143:8;  c. The expression ‫“( כִ ּי אֲ נִ י יְ הוָה ידע‬know that I am Yahweh”), almost always precedes a statement about a divine action:    i. Has its roots in key events, in the Exodus traditions/wars of Yahweh and in apodictic laws: Exod 6:2; 29:46; Ezek 20:5;    ii. As an adverbial phrase (ּ ְ‫ ב‬+ infinitive): Ezek 6:13; 12:15; 15:7; 20:42, 44; 25:17; 28:22; 30:8; 33:29; 34:27; 35:12; 36:23; 37:13;    iii. With ‫לְ מַ עַן‬: Exod 7:5, 17; 8:22; 14:4, 18; 31:33; 1 Kgs 20:13, 28; Ps 40:10; Jer 24:7; Ezek 16:62–63;    iv. Inclusive of ‫ אֱֹלהִ ים‬with the emphatic article: Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9; 1 Kgs 8:60; 18:37; 2 Kgs 19:19; 2 Chr 33:13; Isa 37:20; Ps 83:18;    v. Followed by a relative clause: Isa 43:10; 45:3; 49:23, 26; 52:6; Ezek 37:28;    vi. Specific to Ezek in the expression “… know that I, Yahweh, do …”: Ezek 5:13; 14:23; 17:21, 24; 22:22; 36:36; 37:14;    vii. The object clause following ‫ ידע‬indicates Yahweh’s action (Num 16:28; Zech 2:9, 11; 4:9; 6:15), word (2 Kgs 10:10; Jer 32:8; 44:29; Zech 11:11), name (Jer 16:21), hand (Josh 4:24), or judgment (Ps 119:75);  d. Yahweh’s actions compel recognition (recognition formula) and acknowledgment, functioning also as a reminder of Israel’s beginnings: Exod 6:3, 7; 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:29; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 29:46; 31:13; Lev 23:43; Num 14:34; Deut 4:35; 1 Kgs 18:37; 20:13; Ezek 14:8; 20:12;

  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

173

 e. Recognition statement is also used as parenesis:    i. To know God means to hear and obey his commandments: Deut 4:39; 7:8–10; 29:4, 6;    ii. The statement emphasizes divine uniqueness: 1 Kgs 8:43, 60; 2 Kgs 19:19; 2 Chr 6:33; Isa 37:20;  f. Prophetic demonstration:d    i. With judgment oracles: 1 Kgs 20:13; Ezek 25:5, 7, 17; 26:6; 29:6, 9, 16; 35:4, 9, 11–12; Jer 16:21; Mal 2:4;    ii. With salvation oracles: Isa 45:3, 6, 23; 49:26; 60:16; Joel 2:27; 3:17;    iii. As parenesis: Josh 22:31; Judg 17:13; 2 Sam 5:12; 2 Kgs 5:15; 1 Chr 14:2; Neh 6:16; Pss 20:6; 41:11; 56:9; 135:5; 140:12; Isa 41:20; 43:10;  g. Knowledge of God in prophetic criticism:    i. With judgment oracles: Jer. 2:8; 4:22; 9:3, 6; Hos 2:8; 5:4; 8:2;    ii. With salvation oracles: Jer 31:34; Hos 2:20; 6:3; 13:4;    iii. Its absence and neglect parallels adultery (Hos 5:4), and constitutes the cause for the present/future situation (Jer 2:8; 4:22; 9:3, 6; Hos 13:4);  h. The day of salvation:    i. Yahweh is the source of ‫“( דַ ּעַת‬knowledge”): Jer 24:7; Hos 2:20;    ii. ‫ דַ ּ ַע ת‬is an active concern for Yahweh required of all, a type of religio-ethical conduct: Jer 9:24; 24:7; 31:34; Hos 2:20;  i. Origins of ‫“( דַ ּעַת אֱֹלהִ ים‬knowledge of God”), are in priestly instruction.e

Meaning

Schottroff follows here Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God,” 29–98

e

Like Schottroff, Botterweck and Bergman also follow Zimmerli here (see note 8 on page 229)

Botterweck and Bergman follow Wolff here. For details, see Hans Walter Wolff, “‘Wissen um Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie,” EvT 12.1–6 (1952): 533–54, https://doi.org/10.14315/evth-1952-1-642

d

c

Botterweck and Bergman, TDOT 5:448–81. Relevant here are pages 461–79 of section III

b

a

Schottroff, TLOT 2:508–21. Relevant here are sections III–IV (2:511–21)

Dictionary

Table A2  (continued)

174  APPENDIX A: MEANING OF ‫ ידע‬IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

Appendix B: Trajector-Landmark-Cognitive Domain Relationship for ‫ידע‬1

1  This annex presents a detailed analysis of the trajector-landmark-cognitive domain relationship. The verbal binyanim and the verbal forms are abbreviated B. and F., respectively. C. D. abbreviates cognitive domains.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

175

G

Gen 24:14

Gen 24:21

Gen 28:16

Gen 41:39

Exod 5:2 G

Exod 6:3 N

Exod 6:7 G

Exod 7:5 G

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

H

G

G

B.

No. Ref.

wq

wq

q

q

IC

q

IC

y

F.

Egyptians

Israelites

Yahweh

Pharaoh

God

Jacob

Servant

Servant

Trajector

Yahweh’s deliverance

Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) Yahweh’s deliverance through judgment

Yahweh

Joseph’s interpretation

Divine presence

Girl’s hospitality

Girl’s hospitality

Landmark Providence

‫ ידע‬profiles the servant’s recognition of something (“God’s steadfast love for Abraham”) as a result of a girl’s hospitality ‫ ידע‬profiles the servant’s recognition of something (“whether or not the Lord had made his journey successful”) as a result of a girl’s hospitality ‫ ידע‬profiles Jacob’s awareness of a specific piece of information (“the Lord is in this place”) by acquaintance with the manifestation of divine presence ‫ ידע‬profiles God causing somebody (Joseph) to become aware of a specific information, the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream (“God has shown you all this”) ‫ ידע‬profiles Pharaoh’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with Israel’s Yahweh (“I do not know the Lord”), resulting in the former’s refusal to let Israel leave Egypt to celebrate a religious festival ‫ ידע‬profiles God as not revealing himself to the patriarchs as Yahweh ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ recognition of something, “that I am the Lord your God,” as a result of the divine deliverance through judgment ‫ ידע‬profiles the Egyptians’ recognition of something, “that I am Yahweh,” as a result of the latter’s deliverance Judgment

Covenant

Covenant

Rulership

Rulership

Providence

Providence

C. D.

Profile

176  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

Exod 7:17

Exod 8:10

Exod 8:22

Exod 9:14

Exod 9:29

Exod 10:2

9

10

11

12

13

14

G

G

G

G

G

G

wq

y

y

y

y

y

Israelites

Pharaoh

Pharaoh

Pharaoh

Pharaoh

Pharaoh

‫ ידע‬profiles Pharaoh’s intended recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine judgment manifested as water turned into blood Removal of frogs ‫ ידע‬profiles Pharaoh’s intended recognition of something (“that there is no one like the Lord our God”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested in the removal of frogs Separation of Goshen as ‫ ידע‬profiles Pharaoh’s intended recognition protection from swarms of something (“that I the Lord am in this of flies land”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through the separation of Goshen from the plague of flies Divine plagues ‫ ידע‬profiles Pharaoh’s intended recognition of something (“that you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through divine plagues Stopping of hail ‫ ידע‬profiles Pharaoh’s intended recognition of something (“that the earth is the Lord’s”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through the stopping of hail Divine signs to be ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites intended recognition of remembered something (“that I am the Lord”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through the divine signs which are to be remembered Water turned to blood

(continued)

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

177

G

Exod 11:7

Exod 14:4

Exod 14:18

Exod 16:6

15

16

17

18

G

G

G

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

wq

wq

wq

y

F.

Landmark

Israelites

Egyptians

Egyptians

Divine sign (quails)

God’s glorifying over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his chariot drivers

God’s glorifying over Pharaoh and his army

Pharaoh and his Separation between officials Egypt and Israel on death of firstborns

Trajector Judgment

‫ ידע‬profiles Pharaoh and his officials intended recognition of something (“that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through the separation between Egypt and Israel on death of firstborns ‫ ידע‬profiles the Egyptians’ intended recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through the glorifying of God over Pharaoh and his army ‫ ידע‬profiles the Egyptians’ intended recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through the glorifying of God over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his chariot drivers ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended recognition of something (“that it was the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through the divine sign of quails

Providence

Warfare

Warfare

C. D.

Profile

178  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

Exod 16:12

Exod 18:11

Exod 18:16

Exod 29:46

Exod 31:13

Exod 33:12

19

20

21

22

23

24

H

G

G

H

G

G

q

IC

wq

wq

q

wq

Yahweh

Israelites

Israelites

Moses

Jethro

Israelites

‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended recognition of something (“that I am the Lord your God”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine power manifested through the divine signs of providing meat (quails) and bread (manna) Divine deliverance of ‫ ידע‬profiles Jethro’s recognition of something Israelites from Egypt (“that the Lord is greater than all gods”) following Moses’s testimony about the divine deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt Divine regulations and ‫ ידע‬profiles Moses causing somebody teachings (Israelites) to become aware of a specific information, “the statutes and instructions of God,” as a result of Moses’s adjudication Divine promise of ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended dwelling with the recognition of something (“that I am the Israelites Lord their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them”) as reaction to acquaintance with divine presence promised by God Sabbath-keeping ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended recognition of something (“that I, the Lord, sanctify you”) as reaction to acquaintance with Sabbath-keeping which functions as a sign of divinely imparted Holiness Divine promise of divine ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as not causing somebody presence (Moses) to become aware of a specific information (“whom you will send with me”) based on the divine promise of divine presence

Divine signs (meat and bread)

(continued)

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Praise

Providence

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

179

Exod 33:16

Lev 23:43

Num 12:6 Num 14:34

27

28

29

31

Num 16:5

Exod 33:13b

26

30

H

Exod 33:13a

25

y

y

wy

H

G

wy

wq

Landmark

Profile

Divine favor

‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as causing somebody (Moses) to become aware of a specific information (“your ways”) based on divine favor Moses Divine ways/conduct ‫ ידע‬profiles Moses’s desire to be intimately acquainted with Yahweh (“know you”) as a result of Yahweh’s revelation of his ways/ conduct Divine presence Divine favor to Moses ‫ ידע‬profiles how divine presence is making and Israelites (others) aware that Yahweh favors Moses and the Israelites to ascertain their distinctivness Future Israelite God caused Israelites ‫ ידע‬profiles future Israelite generations being generations live in booths aware by acquaintance with the experience of the Israelites being caused by God to live in booths Yahweh Divine prophetic visions ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh’s self-revelation through visions Israelites Divine displeasure ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelite awareness by acquaintance with something (“my displeasure”) following their unfaithful complaints Yahweh Divine election of ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh causing somebody priesthood (Israelites) to become aware of a specific information: “who is his, and who is holy, and who will be allowed to approach him” as a result of a divine intervention

Trajector

imv Yahweh

F.

HtD y

G

N

G

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

Judgment

Judgment

Prophecy

Providence

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

C. D.

180  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

Num 16:28

Num 22:19

Num 22:34

Num 24:16

Deut 4:9

Deut 4:35

Deut 4:39

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

G

G

H

G

G

G

G

Balaam

Balaam

Israelites

wq

IC

wq

Israelites

Israelites

Israelites

ptc Balaam as knower

q

wy

y

Divine election of Moses ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites discernment of something (“that the Lord has sent me to do all these works”) following an act of divine judgment Divine instructions ‫ ידע‬profiles Balaam’s awareness (“what more the Lord may say to me”) by divine instruction Angel of Yahweh ‫ ידע‬profiles the Balaam’s (lack of) awareness barring Balaam’s way of a specific event (“that you were standing in the road to oppose me”) following a divine intervention Knowledge of Most ‫ ידע‬profiles the Balaam’s awareness of High God specific information as he has access to “the knowledge of the Most High” Parenthood/education ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites causing somebody (descendants) to become aware of a specific information, “the things that your eyes have seen” as a means of not forgetting their past experience Divine deliverance of ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended Israelites from Egypt recognition of something (“that the Lord and Sinai theophany is God; there is no other besides him”) as reaction to acquaintance with Exodus and Sinai experiences Divine deliverance of ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended Israelites from Egypt recognition of something (“that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other”) as reaction to acquaintance with Exodus experience (continued)

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Prophecy

Judgment

Prophecy

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

181

G

Deut 7:9

Deut 8:3

Deut 8:5

Deut 9:3

39

40

41

42

G

G

H

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

wq

wq

IC

wq

F.

Israelites

Israelites

Israelites

Israelites

Trajector

Divine presence as fighting for Israelites

Divine parenthood inclusive of discipline

Divine providence

Divine deliverance of Israelites from Egypt

Landmark Covenant

‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended recognition of something (“that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who maintains covenant loyalty with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and who repays in their own person those who reject him”) as reaction to their acquaintance with the Exodus experience ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites as being caused by God to discern something, “that one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord” as a result of their embodied acquaintance with the specific experience of divine providence ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended recognition of something (“as a parent disciplines a child so the Lord your God disciplines you”) as a reaction to their embodied acquaintance with divine parenthood and discipline ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended recognition of something (“the Lord your God is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire”) in response to Moses’s exhortation

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

C. D.

Profile

182  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

Deut 9:6

Deut 11:2a

Deut 11:2b

Deut 18:21

Deut 29:4

Deut 29:6

43

44

45

46

47

48

G

G

G

G

G

G

y

IC

y

q

wq

wq

Israelites

Israelites

Israelites

Israelite descendants

Israelites

Israelites

Divine providence for 40 years

Divine deliverance of Israelites from Egypt

Prophetic speech

Divine deliverance from Egypt, divine providence in the wilderness, divine judgment Divine parenthood inclusive of discipline

Human stubbornness and rebellion against God

‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended recognition of something (“that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness”) in response to Moses’s exhortation ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites recognition of something (“his greatness, his mighty hand and his outstretched arm, his signs and his deeds”) as seen in the divine providential interventions on behalf of the Israelites ‫ ידע‬profiles the descendants’ (lack of) recognition of something (“the discipline of the Lord your God”) as a result of their lack of embodied acquaintance with divine parenthood and discipline ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites’ discernment of something (“a word that the Lord has not spoken”) following a prophetic speech ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ (lack of) understanding of something (“all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders” [vv. 2–3]) as a result of God not giving them “a heart to know” ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord your God”) as a result of their embodied acquaintance with divine providence for 40 years (continued)

Covenant

Covenant

Prophecy

Providence

Providence

Covenant

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

183

G

Deut 31:13

Josh 2:9

Josh 3:7

Josh 3:10 H

Josh 4:22 H

49

50

51

52

53

G

G

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

wq

y

y

q

q

F.

Israelite descendants

Israelites

Israelites

Rahab

Israelite descendants

Trajector

Divine signs of crossing the Red Sea and Jordan

Divine presence as fighting for Israelites

Divine election of Joshua

Divine judgment and warfare

Septennial reading of the law as education

Landmark Covenant

‫ ידע‬profiles Israelite descendants’ understanding of something (“hear and learn to fear the Lord your God”) as a result of their exposure to the divine law ‫ ידע‬profiles Rahab’s clear and distinct discernment of something (“the Lord has given you the land”) as a result of her acquaintance divine judgment and warfare leading her to recognize that Yahweh is God of heaven and earth ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended discernment of something (“that I will be with you as I was with Moses”) in response to the divine election of Joshua ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ intended recognition of something (“that among you is the living God”) which presumably leads to a reinforcement of their trust that God will drive out the inhabitants of Canaan ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelite descendants as being caused by their parents to become aware of a specific information by instruction, “Israel crossed over the Jordan here on dry ground”) as a result of their witness of the 12 stones

Kinship

Providence

Providence

Covenant

C. D.

Profile

184  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

Josh 14:6 G

Josh 22:31

Josh 23:13

Josh 23:14

55

56

57

58

G

G

G

Josh 4:24 G

54

wq

IA

q

q

IC

Israelite leaders

Israelite leaders

Israelites led by Phinehas

Joshua

Peoples of the earth

‫ ידע‬profiles the peoples’ intended recognition of something (“that the hand of the Lord is mighty”) as a result of their acquaintance with the divine signs of crossing of the Red Sea and Jordan Divine promise to Caleb ‫ ידע‬profiles Joshua’s awareness of a specific and Joshua information (“what the Lord said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me”) following the divine promise given to Caleb and Joshua Reubenites, Gadites, ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites awareness of a and Manassites building specific information (“that the Lord is among of a witness-altar is not us”) after understanding the real motivation treachery of building the altar by the Reubenites, Gadites, and Manassites, which results in fulfilling the covenantal conditions assuring divine presence among them Divine warfare ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites awareness of a specific event (“that the Lord your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you”) as a result of potential intermarriages leading to the breaking of the covenant Fulfilled divine ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelite leaders’ awareness covenantal promises of specific events (“that not one thing has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you”) as a result of their embodied acquaintance with the events

Divine signs of crossing the Red Sea and Jordan

(continued)

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Providence

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

185

G

Josh 24:31

Judg 2:10

Judg 6:37

Judg 14:4

Judg 16:20

Judg 17:13

1 Sam 2:12

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

G

G

G

G

G

G

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

q

q

q

q

wq

q

q

F. Divine interventions

Landmark

Sons of Eli

Micah

Samson

Samson’s parents

Gideon

Wickedness

Dedication of a Levite as Micah’s priest

Samson’s breaking of his Nazirite dedication

Samson’s decision to take a Philistine woman as his wife

The sign of the fleece of wool

New generation Divine interventions of Israelites

Israelite leaders

Trajector Covenant

‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelite leaders’ awareness by acquaintance with specific events (“all the work that the Lord did for Israel”) which they experienced, which assured Israel’s obedience to God ‫ ידע‬profiles the (lack of the) new generation of Israelites’ awareness by acquaintance with specific events (“the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel”) ‫ ידע‬profiles Gideon’s belief that “you will deliver Israel by my hand” as a result of the sign of the fleece of wool ‫ ידע‬profiles (the lack of) Samson’s parents’ awareness of a specific information (“for he was seeking a pretext to act against the Philistines”) following his decision to take a Philistine woman as his wife ‫ ידע‬profiles Samson’s (lack of) awareness of a specific event (“that the Lord had left him”) following the break of his Nazirite dedication ‫ ידע‬profiles Micah’s assumption of being aware of some information (“that the Lord will prosper me”) as a result of dedicating a Levite as personal priest ‫ ידע‬profiles Eli’s sons’ (lack of) personal acquaintance with Yahweh (“they had no regard for the Lord”), as a result of their wickedness

Sanctuary

Sanctuary

Deliverance

Deliverance

Providence

Covenant

C. D.

Profile

186  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

1 Sam 3:7

1 Sam 6:9

1 Sam 17:46

1 Sam 17:47

1 Sam 18:28

1 Sam 22:3

2 Sam 5:12

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

wy

y

wy

wy

wy

wq

q

David

David

Saul

Assembly of warriors

All the earth

Philistines

Samuel

Divine calling of Samuel ‫ ידע‬profiles Samuel’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with Yahweh as God did not call Samuel to be a prophet yet The sign of the milch ‫ ידע‬profiles Philistines’ discernment of cows (part of a something (“that it is not his hand that reparation offering) struck us”) as a result of the sign of the going to Beth-shemesh milch cows not going to Beth-shemesh Divine help given to ‫ ידע‬profiles the earth’s intended recognition David in killing Goliath of something (“that there is a God in Israel”) as a result of their acquaintance with the divine help given to David in killing Goliath Divine help given to ‫ ידע‬profiles the warriors’ intended recognition David in killing Goliath of something (“that the Lord does not save by sword and spear”) as a result of their acquaintance with the divine help given to David in killing Goliath Divine presence with ‫ ידע‬profiles Saul’s awareness of something David together with (“that the Lord was with David, and that Michal’s love for David Saul’s daughter Michal loved him”) resulting in Saul’s enmity against David Entrusting parents into ‫ ידע‬profiles David’s (lack of) awareness of the care of the king of some information (“what God will do for Moab me”) resulting in entrusting his parents into the care of the king of Moab Divine election to ‫ ידע‬profiles David’s believing the truth of establish David as king something (“that the Lord had established him king over Israel”) as a result of the divine election to establish him as king over Israel (continued)

Rulership

Kinship

Kinship

Warfare

Warfare

Judgment

Prophecy

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

187

H

2 Sam 7:21

2 Sam 12:22

1 Kgs 8:43a

1 Kgs 8:43b

1 Kgs 8:60

1 Kgs 17:24

73

74

75

76

77

78

G

G

G

G

G

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

David

Trajector

q

IC

IC

y

Widow of Zarephath

People of the earth

People of the earth

People of the earth

ptc David as potential experiencer

IC

F.

Profile

Divine favor to David

‫ ידע‬profiles David as being caused by God to become aware of specific events (“you have wrought all this greatness”) as a result of his acquaintance with the manifested divine favor David’s beseeching of ‫ ידע‬profiles David’s discernment of something divine favor on behalf of (“The Lord may be gracious to me, and the his child child may live”) as a result of his potential acquaintance with the divine favor Answered prayer of ‫ ידע‬profiles the people’s recognition of foreigners something (“your name”) resulting in a specific behavior (“fear you”) following the answered prayers made toward Solomon’s temple Answered prayer of ‫ ידע‬profiles the people’s recognition of foreigners something (“that your name has been invoked on this house”) following the answered prayers made toward Solomon’s temple Divine judgment in ‫ ידע‬profiles the people’s recognition of favor of Solomon and something (“that the Lord is God; there is Israel no other”) following the acquaintance with the divine judgment in favor of Solomon and Israel Resurrection of the ‫ ידע‬profiles the widow’s recognition of widow’s son something (“that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth”) as a result of her son’s resurrection

Landmark

Providence

Sanctuary

Sanctuary

Sanctuary

Judgment

Covenant

C. D.

188  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

1 Kgs 18:36

1 Kgs 18:37

1 Kgs 20:13

1 Kgs 20:28

2 Kgs 2:3a

2 Kgs 2:3b

2 Kgs 2:5a

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

G

G

G

G

G

G

N

q

q

q

wq

wq

wy

y

Elisha

Elisha

Elisha

King Ahab and his people

King Ahab

Israelites

Divine intervention

Elijah’s ascension to heaven through divine intervention Elijah’s ascension to heaven through divine intervention

Elijah’s ascension to heaven through divine intervention

Divine intervention

Divine intervention

Divine intervention

Divine authority and commission of Elijah

‫ ידע‬profiles Elisha’s awareness of an event (“that today the Lord will take your master away from you”) as a result of divine intervention

‫ ידע‬profiles how divine intervention may determine (the Israelites) to recognize that Yahweh is the God of Israel and that he commissioned Elijah as his prophet by acquaintance with a divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ believing the truth of something (“that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back”) as a result of the divine intervention in answer to Elijah’s prayer ‫ ידע‬profiles king Ahab’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) as a result of a divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles king Ahab’s and his people’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) as a result of a divine intervention triggered by the derogatory comments of the Arameans ‫ ידע‬profiles Elisha’s awareness of an event (“that today the Lord will take your master away from you”) as a result of divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles Elisha’s awareness of an event as a result of divine intervention

(continued)

Prophecy

Prophecy

Prophecy

Warfare

Warfare

Providence

Providence

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

189

G

2 Kgs 2:5b

2 Kgs 5:15

2 Kgs 10:10

2 Kgs 19:19

1 Chr 14:2

1 Chr 16:8

1 Chr 17:19

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

H

H

G

G

G

G

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

Naaman

Elisha

Trajector

David

Kingdoms of the earth

IC

David

imv David’s audience

wy

wy

imv People

q

q

F.

Divine favor to David

Expression of gratitude

Divine election to establish David as king

Divine deliverance from Assyrians

Killing of Ahab’s 70 sons

Elijah’s ascension to heaven through divine intervention Naaman’s attempt to express his gratitude through a gift

Landmark

C. D.

‫ ידע‬profiles Naaman’s believing the truth of something (“that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel”) as he attempts to express his gratitude by giving Elisha a gift ‫ ידע‬profiles people’s recognition of something (“there shall fall to the earth nothing of the word of the Lord”) by acquaintance with the killing of Ahab’s 70 sons ‫ ידע‬profiles earth’s kingdoms’ recognition of something (“that you, O Lord, are God alone”) as a result of the divine deliverance of Jerusalem from Assyrians ‫ ידע‬profiles David’s believing the truth of something (“that the Lord had established him as king over Israel”) as a result of the divine election to establish him as king over Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles David’s audience as causing other people to become aware of specific events (“his deeds”) resulting from their expression of gratitude ‫ ידע‬profiles David as being caused by God to become aware of specific events (“all these great things”) as a result of his acquaintance with the manifested divine favor

Covenant

Praise

Rulership

Warfare

Rulership

Providence

‫ ידע‬profiles Elisha’s awareness of an event as a Prophecy result of divine intervention

Profile

190  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

1 Chr 28:9

1 Chr 29:17

2 Chr 6:33a

2 Chr 6:33b

2 Chr 12:8

93

94

95

96

97

G

G

G

G

G

wq

IC

y

wq

Rehoboam and his officers

People of the earth

People of the earth

David

imv Solomon

Divine displeasure expressed in a prophetic judgment

Answered prayer of foreigners

Answered prayer of foreigners

Divine pleasure in uprightness of heart

David’s advice

‫ ידע‬profiles the Solomon’s personal acquaintance with God (“know the God of your father”) through personal experience ‫ ידע‬profiles David’s acquaintance with the divine pleasure in uprightness of heart (“that you search the heart, and take pleasure in uprightness”) as he gives offerings for the temple ‫ ידע‬profiles the people’s recognition of something (“your name”) resulting in a specific behavior (“fear you”) following the answered prayers made toward Solomon’s temple ‫ ידע‬profiles the people’s recognition of something (“that your name has been invoked on this house”) following the answered prayers made toward Solomon’s temple ‫ ידע‬profiles Rehoboam and his officers’ clear and distinct discernment of something (“the difference between serving me and serving the kingdoms of other lands”) following their personal acquaintance with the divine displeasure expressed in a prophetic judgment (continued)

Warfare

Sanctuary

Sanctuary

Praise

Rulership

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

191

wy

q

q

G

100 2 Chr 33:13

101 Neh 6:16 G

102 Neh 9:14 H

103 Job 9:28

G

wy

G

2 Chr 25:16

99

q

IC

G

2 Chr 13:5

98

F.

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

Divine answer to Manasseh’s entreatment of divine favor

Amaziah’s refusal to listen to the prophetic guidance

Abijah’s historical instruction

Landmark

Job

Israel’s ancestors

Job’s presumption that God brought destruction upon him

Giving of the law at Sinai

Judah’s enemies Reports of finishing the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls

Manasseh

A prophet

Jeroboam and his army

Trajector Warfare

‫ ידע‬profiles Jeroboam and his army’s (lack of) awareness of a specific information (“that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt”) as resulting from their forgetfulness/reinterpretation of Abijah’s historical instruction ‫ ידע‬profiles the prophet’s clear and distinct discernment of something (“that God has determined to destroy you”) following Amaziah’s refusal to listen to the prophetic guidance ‫ ידע‬profiles Manasseh’s recognition of something (“that the Lord indeed was God”) following his personal acquaintance with divine favor as an answer to prayer ‫ ידע‬profiles Judah’s enemies’ awareness of a specific information (“that this work had been accomplished with the help of our God”) as a result of the reports of finishing the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s ancestors as being caused by God to become aware of a specific information (“your holy sabbath”) following the giving of the law at Sinai ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s discernment of something (“you will not hold me innocent”) as a result of his presumption that God brought destruction upon him

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant

Providence

Warfare

Prophecy

C. D.

Profile

192  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

H

G

G

G

G

G

104 Job 10:2

105 Job 10:13

106 Job 11:6

107 Job 11:8

108 Job 18:21

109 Job 19:6

Job

The wicked

Job

imv Job’s friends

q

y

imv Job

q

imv Job

‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s desire to be caused by God to understand a specific information (“why you contend against me”) as a result of Job’s presumption that God contends against him Job’s presumption that ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s discernment of something God planned to bring (“that this was your purpose”) as a result of destruction upon him his presumption that God planned to bring destruction upon him Zophar’s conviction that ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s intended awareness of God inflicts less some information (“that God exacts of you suffering upon Job than less than your guilt deserves”) as a result of he deserves Zophar’s conviction that God inflicts less suffering upon Job than he deserves Zophar’s conviction that ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s intended awareness of God is incomprehensible some information (that “the deep things of God”/“limit of the Almightly” are/is “higher than heaven”/“deeper than Sheol”) following Zophar’s conviction that God is incomprehensible Bildad’s conviction of ‫ ידע‬profiles the wicked’s (lack of) personal the divine punishment acquaintance with God (“do not know upon the wicked God”) made evident by Bildad’s conviction of the divine punishment of the wicked Job’s presumption that ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s friends’ intended God cornered him understanding of some information (“that God has put me in the wrong, and closed his net around me”) as a result of Job’s presumption that God cornered him Job’s presumption that God contends against him

(continued)

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant lawsuit

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

193

q

G

G

G

G

G

G

112 Job 23:5

113 Job 24:1

114 Job 30:23

115 Job 36:26

116 Job 37:5

Job

Job

Job

Trajector

y

y

q

Elihu and his friends

Elihu and his friends

Job

ptc A generic person

y

q

G

110 Job 19:25 111 Job 23:3

F.

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

Elihu’s conviction of divine grandeur

Elihu’s conviction of divine grandeur

Job’s presumption that God wants him dead

Job’s conviction of the existence of a time of one’s accountability to God

Divine answer to Job’s legal complaint

Existence of a future divine Redeemer Job’s presumption that God has a dwelling place

Landmark Judgment

‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s believing in the truth of something (“that my Redeemer lives”) ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s desire to be aware of a specific information (“where I might find him”) as a result of his presumption that God has a dwelling place ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s desire to be aware of a specific information (“what he would answer me”) following the divine answer to his legal complaint ‫ ידע‬profiles a generic person’s personal acquaintance with God (“those who know him”) as not perceiving the days of one’s accountability to God due to the lack of divine time-keeping ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s discernment of something (“that you will bring me to death”) as a result of his presumption that God wants him dead ‫ ידע‬profiles Elihu and his friends’ (lack of) understanding of something (“we do not know him”) resulting from Elihu’s conviction of divine grandeur ‫ ידע‬profiles Elihu and his friends’ (lack of) understanding of something (“he does great things that we cannot comprehend”) resulting from Elihu’s conviction of divine grandeur

Creation

Creation

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

C. D.

Profile

194  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

G

G

G

G

117 Job 37:15

118 Job 37:16

119 Job 38:5

120 Job 42:2

121 Job 42:3

y

q

y

y

y

Job

Job

Job

Job

Job

Job’s conviction of personal ignorance as a result of divine revelation

Job’s conviction of divine omnipotence

Divine grandeur

Elihu’s conviction of divine grandeur

Elihu’s conviction of divine grandeur

‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s (lack of) understanding of something (“how God lays his command upon them, and causes the lightning of his cloud to shine”) resulting from Elihu’s conviction of divine grandeur ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s (lack of) understanding of something (“the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of the one whose knowledge is perfect”) resulting from Elihu’s conviction of divine grandeur ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s (lack of) understanding of something (“Who determined its measurements”) resulting from the manifestation of divine grandeur ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s awareness of a specific information (“that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted”) as a result of Job’s conviction of divine omnipotence ‫ ידע‬profiles Job’s (lack of) a clear and distinct discernment of a specific information (“I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me”) as a result of Job’s conviction of personal ignorance generated by his acquaintance with divine revelation (continued)

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Creation

Creation

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

195

B.

G

G

N

H

G

H

No. Ref.

122 Ps 4:3

123 Ps 9:10

124 Ps 9:16

125 Ps 16:11

126 Ps 20:6

127 Ps 25:4

(continued)

Trajector Psalmist’s conviction of divine help to restore his reputation affected by the man’s sons’ falsehood

Landmark

Psalmist

Yahweh

Yahweh

imv Psalmist

q

y

q

Psalmist’s willingness to follow God’s course of conduct

Trust in divine intervention

Wicked destroying themselves while trying to destroy others Divine revelation of paths of life

ptc Generic persons Previous experience of divine help

imv Sons of man

F. Providence

‫ ידע‬profiles the man’s sons’ intended awareness of something (“that the Lord has set apart the faithful for himself”) as a result of the psalmist’s conviction of divine help to restore his reputation affected by the man’s sons’ falsehood ‫ ידע‬profiles generic persons’ personal acquaintance with God (“those who know your name”) as trusting God as a result of their previous experience of divine help ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as revealing himself as judging the wicked by meting out to them the destruction they intended for others ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh’s causing the psalmist to become aware of something (“paths of life”) following a divine revelation ‫ ידע‬profiles psalmist’s clear and distinct discernment of a specific information (“that the Lord will help his anointed; he will answer him from his holy heaven”) as a result of his trust in divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles psalmist’s desire to be caused by God to be aware of a specific information (“your ways, O Lord”) by instruction due to his willingness to follow God’s course of conduct

Guidance

Deliverance

Guidance

Judgment

Judgment

C. D.

Profile

196  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

H

G

H

G

G

G

N

H

G

128 Ps 25:14

129 Ps 36:10

130 Ps 39:4a

131 Ps 39:4b

132 Ps 41:11

133 Ps 46:10

134 Ps 48:3

135 Ps 51:6

136 Ps 56:9

Yahweh

Covenant with God-fearing people

‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh’s causing God-fearing people to become aware of a specific event (“covenant”) by personal acquaintance ptc Godly people Divine steadfast love ‫ ידע‬profiles generic persons’ acquaintance with God (“those who know you”) as enjoying continual manifestation of divine steadfast love imv Yahweh Divine revelation of ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh’s causing the psalmist psalmist’s end and to become aware of something (“my end, measure of days and … the measure of my days”) following a divine revelation y Psalmist Divine revelation of ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s desire to become psalmist’s fleetness of aware of something (“how fleeting my life life is”) following a divine revelation q Psalmist Divine healing ‫ ידע‬profiles psalmist’s discernment of something (“that you are pleased with me”) following his experience of divine healing imv Generic persons Divine presence offering ‫ ידע‬profiles generic persons’ recognition of protection something (“that I am God”) following the acquaintance with the divine presence q Yahweh Divine protection ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as revealing himself by offering divine protection y God Divine instruction ‫ ידע‬profiles God as causing the psalmist to become aware of a specific information (“wisdom in my secret heart”) by divine instruction q Psalmist Trust in divine ‫ ידע‬profiles psalmist’s awareness of a specific intervention event (“that God is for me”) as a result of his trust in divine intervention

IC

(continued)

Deliverance

Sanctuary

Deliverance

Warfare

Deliverance

Guidance

Guidance

Deliverance

Guidance

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

197

B.

G

G

G

G

N

H

N

No. Ref.

137 Ps 59:13

138 Ps 67:2

139 Ps 71:15

140 Ps 73:22

141 Ps 76:1

142 Ps 77:14

143 Ps 77:19

(continued)

q

q

Landmark

Psalmist

Psalmist

Divine course of conduct

God’s footprints

God

Divine deliverance of Israelites from Egypt

Divine presence in Judah Divine deliverance of Israelites from Egypt

Resentments because of the apparent prosperity of the wicked

Divine deliverance

Divine presence

Generic persons Divine intervention

Trajector

ptc Yahweh

y

q

IC

wy

F. Deliverance

‫ ידע‬profiles generic persons’ intended recognition of something (“that God rules over Jacob”) as a result of their witness of a divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles the divine course of conduct as revealed following the manifestation of divine presence ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s (lack of) awareness of a specific information about divine deeds of salvation (“their number”) following the divine deliverance ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s (lack of) understanding of the fate of the wicked resulted from his resentments when seeing the apparent prosperity of the wicked ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as being revealed following his manifested presence in Judah ‫ ידע‬profiles God as causing the peoples to become aware of a specific event (“your might”) by acquaintance with the divine deliverance of Israelites from Egypt ‫ ידע‬profiles divine footsteps as not being perceived by physical sight in the divine deliverance of Israelites from Egypt

Providence

Providence

Judgment

Sanctuary

Praise

Praise

C. D.

Profile

198  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

H

G

G

G

G

G

144 Ps 78:3

145 Ps 78:5

146 Ps 78:6

147 Ps 79:6

148 Ps 81:5

149 Ps 83:18

150 Ps 87:4

Psalmist and his Received historical kin account

‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s and his kin’s awareness of specific information (“things that we have heard and known, that our ancestors have told us”) resulting from the received historical account IC Israelite Divine command of ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelite ancestors’ duty to cause ancestors historical perpetuance of their children to become aware of a specific God’s law information (“law”) by instruction following the divine command of historical perpetuance of God’s law y Next generation Divine command of ‫ ידע‬profiles the next generation’s awareness historical perpetuance of of specific information consisting of divine God’s law law, following God’s command of historical perpetuance of his law q Nations Warfare against God’s ‫ ידע‬profiles the nations’ (lack of) personal people acquaintance with God as they are engaged in war against God’s people q Psalmist Prophetic speech ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s (lack of) awareness about something “voice” preceding a prophetic speech wy Enemies of Shaming by God ‫ ידע‬profiles the enemies’ awareness of God’s people something (“that you alone, whose name is the Lord, are the Most High over all the earth”) resulting from their shaming by God ptc Rahab and Divine census ‫ ידע‬profiles Rahab and Babylon as aware by Babylon acquaintance with God in the divine census

wy

(continued)

Praise

Judgment

Covenant

Judgment

Kinship

Kinship

Kinship

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

199

B.

H

G

H

G

G

G

No. Ref.

151 Ps 89:1

152 Ps 90:11

153 Ps 90:12

154 Ps 91:14

155 Ps 92:6

156 Ps 95:10

(continued)

Psalmist

Trajector

q

y

q

Israelite ancestors

Dullard

Godly people

imv God

ptc Generic person

y

F.

Human stubbornness and rebellion against God

Profoundness of divine thoughts and works

Divine promise of protection

Shortness of life due to divine wrath against sin

Shortness of life due to divine wrath against sin

Manifestation of divine steadfast love and faithfulness

Landmark Covenant

‫ ידע‬profiles psalmist’s desire to cause all generations to become aware of a specific information (“steadfast love”/“faithfulness”) through instruction following the manifestation of divine steadfast love and faithfulness ‫ ידע‬profiles a generic person’s (lack of) awareness of a specific information (“the power of your anger”) given the shortness of life due to divine wrath against sin ‫ ידע‬profiles God as causing humans to accomplish a certain thing (“to count our days”) through instruction given the shortness of life due to divine wrath against sin, with the purpose of gaining a wise heart ‫ ידע‬profiles godly people’s acquaintance with God (“those who know my name”) receiving the divine promise of protection ‫ ידע‬profiles the dullard’s (lack of) understanding of a specific information (“though the wicked sprout like grass and all evildoers flourish, they are doomed to destruction forever”) given the profoundness of divine thoughts and works ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelite ancestors’ (lack of) understanding of something (“my ways”) resulting from their stubbornness and rebellion against God

Judgment

Judgment

Deliverance

Guidance

Guidance

C. D.

Profile

200  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

H

G

H

H

H

G

157 Ps 98:2

158 Ps 100:3

159 Ps 103:7

160 Ps 105:1

161 Ps 106:8

162 Ps 109:27

Yahweh

wy

IC

Psalmist’s enemies

God

imv Israel

y

Yahweh

Divine deliverance

Divine parting of the Red Sea

Thankful attitude

Manifestation of love and justice

Divine remembrance of steadfast love and faithfulness toward Israel imv Generic persons Divine creatorship and providence

q

‫ ידע‬profiles generic persons’ intended recognition of something (“that the Lord is God”) following the acquaintance with divine creatorship and providence ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as causing Moses and Israel to become aware of the divine course of conduct (“his ways”/“his acts”) by acquaintance with the manifestation of divine love and justice ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel as causing peoples to become aware of the divine deeds through instruction as a result of their thankful attitude ‫ ידע‬profiles God as causing the Israelites to become aware of a specific information (“his mighty power”) by acquaintance with the divine parting of the Red Sea ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s enemies becoming aware of a specific information (“that this is your hand”) by acquaintance with the divine deliverance of the psalmist

(continued)

Judgment

Praise

Praise

Praise

Praise

‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as revealing something Judgment (“his victory”) following his remembrance of steadfast love and faithfulness toward Israel

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

201

B.

G

G

G

G

G

G

No. Ref.

163 Ps 119:75

164 Ps 119:79

165 Ps 119:125

166 Ps 119:152

167 Ps 135:5

168 Ps 139:14

(continued)

Psalmist

Psalmist

Psalmist

God-fearing people

Psalmist

Trajector

ptc Psalmist

q

q

wy

wq

q

F.

Profile

Divine intervention

‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s awareness of a specific information (“that your judgments are right, and that in faithfulness you have humbled me”) by acquaintance with the divine intervention resulting in the humiliation of the psalmist Divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles the God-fearing people’s awareness of a specific information (“your decrees”) by acquaintance with the divine intervention resulting in the deliverance of the psalmist Divine instruction ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s awareness of a specific information (“your decrees”) following divine instruction Divine presence through ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s awareness of divine law a specific information (“that you have established them forever”) resulting from the divine presence through the divine law Divine election of Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s awareness of a specific information (“that the Lord is great; our Lord is above all gods”) resulting from the divine election of Israel Divine creation ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s awareness of a specific information (“wonderful are your works”) resulting from the embodied acquaintance with divine creation

Landmark

Praise

Praise

Guidance

Guidance

Guidance

Guidance

C. D.

202  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

173 Prov 3:6

Divine deeds

Divine providence

Divine providence

Generic person

Qoheleth

Investigation of divine creation

Obedience to divine guidance in the course of his conduct Investigation of divine creation

Foreign nations Divine election of and revelation of divine law to Israel

Divine goodness and grandeur

imv Son

q

y

G

172 Ps 147:20

IC

175 Eccl 11:5 G

H

171 Ps 145:12

Psalmist

imv Psalmist

q

H

170 Ps 143:8

q

174 Eccl 3:14 G

G

169 Ps 140:12

‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s believing the truth of something (“that the Lord maintains the cause of the needy, and executes justice for the poor”) resulting from his acquaintance with divine providence ‫ ידע‬profiles the psalmist’s desire for God to cause him to become aware of something (“the way I should go”) by divine instruction resulting from his trust in divine providence ‫ ידע‬profiles the divine goodness and grandeur as causing all people to become aware of a specific information (“your mighty deeds”) by acquaintance with the divine deeds ‫ ידע‬profiles the foreign nations’ (lack of) awareness of some information (“his ordinances”) resulting from the divine election of and revelation of divine law to Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles the son’s awareness of divine presence resulting in his obedience to divine guidance in the course of his conduct ‫ ידע‬profiles Qoheleth’s awareness of some information (“that whatever God does endures forever”) resulting from the former’s personal investigation of divine creation ‫ ידע‬profiles a generic person’s (lack of) awareness of some information (“the work of God”) resulting from the former’s personal investigation of divine creation (continued)

Creation

Creation

Providence

Providence

Praise

Deliverance

Deliverance

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

203

G

H

Dp

179 Isa 5:19

180 Isa 12:4

181 Isa 12:5

Rebellious Israel

God

ptc Divine intervention

imv Israelite remnant

wy

y

H

178 Isa 5:5

Israel

q

G

Trajector

177 Isa 1:3

F.

imv Young adult man

B.

176 Eccl 11:9 G

No. Ref.

(continued)

Divine deliverance

Divine deliverance

Making a mockery out of the prophetic speech

Divine judgment

Attitude of rebellion

Course of conduct

Landmark Judgment

‫ ידע‬profiles a young adult man’s awareness of some information (“that for all these things God will bring you into judgment”) on account of his course of conduct ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s (lack of a) clear and distinct discernment of divine ownership implying personal acquaintance resulting from their attitude of rebellion ‫ ידע‬profiles God as causing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah to become aware of some information (“what I will do to my vineyard”) as a result of divine judgment ‫ ידע‬profiles rebellious Israel’s contemptuous desire of being aware of a specific information (“the plan of the Holy One of Israel hasten to fulfillment”) by acquaintance while making a mockery out of the prophetic speech ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelite remnant as causing peoples to become aware of something (“his deeds”) as a result of the divine deliverance of Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles the divine intervention as intended to cause all the earth to become aware of something (“he has done gloriously”) resulting in the divine deliverance of Israel Praise

Praise

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant lawsuit

C. D.

Profile

204  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

wy

y

y

q

187 Isa 38:19 H

188 Isa 40:21 G

189 Isa 40:28 G

God’s people

God’s people

Israelite fathers

Kingdoms of the earth

Divine intervention

imv Those who are near

186 Isa 37:20 G

Divine intervention

Egyptians

wq

Divine grandeur

Divine grandeur

Thanksgiving after divine healing

Divine deliverance from Assyrians

Divine intervention

Yahweh

wq

183 Isa N 19:21a 184 Isa G 19:21b 185 Isa 33:13 G

Pharaoh’s sages Divine intervention bringing a spirit of confusion

wy

182 Isa 19:12 G

‫ ידע‬profiles Pharaoh’s sages’ (lack of) awareness of a certain information (“what the Lord of hosts has planned against Egypt”) as a result of the divine intervention bringing a spirit of confusion ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh making (Egyptians) aware of himself by his divine deliverance ‫ ידע‬profiles Egyptians’ personal acquaintance with Yahweh following divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles those who are near as being aware of a specific thing (“my might”) following their experience of divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles earth’s kingdoms’ recognition of something (“that you alone are the Lord”) as a result of the divine deliverance of Jerusalem from Assyrians ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelite fathers as causing their children to become aware of something (“your faithfulness”) by instruction following Hezekiah’s thanksgiving after his divine healing ‫ ידע‬profiles God’s people’s (lack of) awareness of some information (“It is he who sits above the circle of the earth”) in the context of a prophetic speech on divine grandeur ‫ ידע‬profiles God’s people’s (lack of) awareness of some information (“The Lord is the everlasting God”) in the context of a prophetic speech on divine grandeur (continued)

Deliverance

Deliverance

Providence

Warfare

Judgment

Deliverance

Deliverance

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

205

wy

y

y

y

190 Isa 41:20 G

191 Isa 43:10 G

192 Isa 43:19 G

G

G

G

G

G

193 Isa 45:3

194 Isa 45:4

195 Isa 45:5

196 Isa 45:6

197 Isa 48:6

q

y

q

q

F.

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

Divine favor

Divine favor

Divine favor

Revelation of Yahweh’s plans

Revelation of Yahweh’s identity

Divine creatorship and providence

Landmark

Israel

Revelation of Yahweh’s plans

Generic persons Divine favor

Cyrus

Cyrus

Cyrus

God’s people

God’s people

God’s people

Trajector Deliverance

‫ ידע‬profiles God’s people’s awareness of some information (“that the hand of the Lord has done this”) by acquaintance with divine creatorship and providence ‫ ידע‬profiles God’s people’s clear and distinct discernment of some information (“that I am he”) as reaction to a personal acquaintance with the revelation of Yahweh’s identity ‫ ידע‬profiles God’s people’s awareness of some information (“I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth”) by acquaintance with the revelation of Yahweh’s plans ‫ ידע‬profiles Cyrus’s intended recognition of something (“that it is I, the Lord, the God of Israel, who call you by your name”) by acquaintance with the divine favor to him ‫ ידע‬profiles Cyrus’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with in the context of Yahweh’s favor to the foreknown Cyrus ‫ ידע‬profiles Cyrus’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with in the context of Yahweh’s favor to the foreknown Cyrus ‫ ידע‬profiles generic persons’ intended recognition of something (“that there is no one besides me”) in the context of Yahweh’s favor to the foreknown Cyrus ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s (lack of) awareness of some information (“new things, hidden things”) following the revelation of Yahweh’s plans

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

C. D.

Profile

206  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

203 Isa 52:6

IC

205 Isa 64:2

H

wq

204 Isa 60:16 G

y

ptc God’s people

G

202 Isa 51:7

God

Zion

God’s people

All flesh

wq

Zion

Israel

201 Isa 49:26 G

q

Israel

wq

G

199 Isa 48:8

q

200 Isa 49:23 G

G

198 Isa 48:7

Theophany

Divine intervention to restore Zion

Divine presence

Human obedience to God

Divine intervention to restore Zion

Restoration of Zion’s fortunes

Revelation of Yahweh’s plans

Revelation of Yahweh’s new creation

‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s (lack of) awareness of some information (“new things, hidden things”) a priori Yahweh’s revelation of his new creation ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s (lack of) awareness of some information (“new things, hidden things”) a priori Yahweh’s revelation of his plans ‫ ידע‬profiles Zion’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the restoration of its fortunes ‫ ידע‬profiles the recognition of something (“that I am the Lord your Savior”) of all flesh by acquaintance with the divine intervention to restore Zion ‫ ידע‬profiles God’s people’s personal acquaintance with righteousness as a result of their obedience to God ‫ ידע‬profiles Zion’s awareness of some information (“my name … that it is I who speak”) by acquaintance with the manifestation of divine presence ‫ ידע‬profiles Zion’s recognition of something (“that I, the Lord, am your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob”) by acquaintance with the divine intervention to restore Zion ‫ ידע‬profiles God as revealing himself in a theophany to his adversaries (continued)

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

Deliverance

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

207

wq

q

206 Isa 66:14 N

G

G

G

G

G

G

207 Jer 2:8

208 Jer 2:19

209 Jer 4:22

210 Jer 5:4

211 Jer 5:5

212 Jer 8:7

Legal authorities

(Restoration of Zion)

Trajector

q

q

q

q

God’s people

The great ones

The poor ones

God’s people

imv Israel

F.

B.

No. Ref.

(continued) Profile

Divine intervention for his servants

‫ ידע‬profiles the restoration of Zion as making (people) aware of the divine intervention for his servants Facade obedience ‫ ידע‬profiles legal authorities’ (lack of) personal acquaintance with Yahweh while manifesting facade obedience Israel’s wickedness and ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s awareness of a specific apostasy information (“that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the Lord your God”) by acquaintance with it, following Israel’s wickedness and apostasy Israel’s wickedness ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with God as a result of their wickedness Foolish behavior ‫ ידע‬profiles the poor ones’ (lack of) resulting from an understanding of specific things (“the way attitude of rebellion of the Lord, the law of their God”) because of their foolish behavior resulting from an attitude of rebellion Assumption proven false ‫ ידע‬profiles the great ones’ (apparent) by an attitude of understanding of specific things (“the way rebellion of the Lord, the law of their God”), an assumption proven false by an attitude of rebellion Israel’s wickedness and ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s (lack of) awareness of apostasy something (“the ordinance of the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with due to Israel’s wickedness and apostasy

Landmark

Covenant lawsuit

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant lawsuit

Deliverance

C. D.

208  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

H

218 Jer 11:18b

219 Jer 16:21a

Israel’s wickedness and apostasy

Israel’s wickedness and apostasy

Jeremiah

Yahweh

Divine intervention

Divine revelation of human evil plans

Divine revelation of human evil plans

Foreign nations Destruction of Israel

Generic persons Human tendency to boast

God’s people

God’s people

ptc Yahweh

wy

q

H

IA

217 Jer 11:18a

G

215 Jer 9:24

IC

q

G

214 Jer 9:6

q

216 Jer 10:25 G

G

213 Jer 9:3

‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with God as a result of Israel’s wickedness and apostasy ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s refusal of personal acquaintance with God as a result of Israel’s wickedness and apostasy ‫ ידע‬profiles the generic persons’ intended awareness of a specific information (“that I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth”), by personal acquaintance, in the context of their human boasting ‫ ידע‬profiles the foreign nations’ (lack of) acquaintance with Yahweh as they destroy Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as causing somebody (Jeremiah) to become aware of a specific information (“their evil deeds”) as a result of a divine revelation of human evil plans ‫ ידע‬profiles Jeremiah’s awareness of a specific information (“their evil deeds”) as a result of a divine revelation of human evil plans ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as causing somebody (foreign nations) to become aware of a specific information (“my power and might”) by personal acquaintance with the divine intervention (continued)

Deliverance

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant lawsuit

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

209

B.

H

G

G

N

G

G

No. Ref.

220 Jer 16:21b

221 Jer 16:21c

222 Jer 24:7

223 Jer 28:9

224 Jer 31:34a

225 Jer 31:34b

(continued)

Trajector

Landmark

Profile

y

Yahweh

Divine intervention

‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as causing somebody (foreign nations) to become aware of a specific information (“my power and might”) by personal acquaintance with the divine intervention wq Foreign nations Divine intervention ‫ ידע‬profiles the foreign nations’ awareness of a specific information (“that my name is the Lord”) following their acquaintance with the divine intervention IC Exiles from Divine intervention for ‫ ידע‬profiles the exiles of Judah as recognizing Judah relational restoration by something (“that I am the Lord”) by giving a perceptive heart personal acquaintance with the divine intervention for relational restoration of giving a perceptive heart y Generic Prophetic fulfillment ‫ ידע‬profiles a generic Israelite’s recognition Israelite person of something (“that the Lord has truly sent the prophet”) by acquaintance a prophetic fulfillment imv Generic Religious instructional ‫ ידע‬profiles generic Israelites’ acquaintance Israelite persons human biddings with Yahweh following the religious instructional biddings of fellow Israelites y Generic Divine intervention for ‫ ידע‬profiles generic Israelites’ acquaintance Israelite persons relational restoration by with Yahweh following the divine putting the divine law in intervention for relational restoration by the human heart putting the divine law in the human heart

F.

Covenant

Covenant

Prophecy

Judgment

Deliverance

Deliverance

C. D.

210  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

y

wq

228 Jer 44:29 G

G

G

G

G

229 Ezek 5:13

230 Ezek 6:7

231 Ezek 6:10

232 Ezek 6:13

wq

wq

wq

q

G

227 Jer 33:3

wy

G

226 Jer 32:8

Prophetic fulfillment

‫ ידע‬profiles Jeremiah’s recognition of something (“that this was the word of the Lord”) by acquaintance with a prophetic fulfillment People of Judah Revelation of Yahweh’s ‫ ידע‬profiles Jeremiah’s awareness of plans of judgment and something (“great and hidden things”) restoration following the divine revelation of Yahweh’s plans of judgment and restoration People of Judah Divine sign of giving ‫ ידע‬profiles the people of Judah’s recognition from Egypt Pharaoh Hophra into of something (“that my words against you the hands of his enemies will surely be carried out”) by acquaintance with the divine sign of giving Pharaoh Hophra into the hands of his enemies Inhabitants of Manifestation of divine ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Jerusalem’s Jerusalem wrath recognition of something (“that I, the Lord, have spoken in my jealousy”) by acquaintance with the manifestation of divine wrath Israelites Divine warfare against ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites’ recognition of Israel something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine warfare against Israel Israelites Human remorse ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with their remorse Israelites Divine warfare against ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites’ recognition of Israel something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance following the divine warfare against Israel

Jeremiah

(continued)

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant lawsuit

Covenant lawsuit

Judgment

Restoration

Covenant

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

211

B.

G

G

G

G

G

G

No. Ref.

233 Ezek 6:14

234 Ezek 7:4

235 Ezek 7:9

236 Ezek 7:27

237 Ezek 11:10

238 Ezek 11:12

(continued)

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

F.

Israelites representatives

Israelites representatives

Israelites

Israelites

Israelites

Israelites

Trajector

Divine punishment meted according to Israelite representatives’ course of conduct and judgment Divine punishment meted according to Israelite representatives’ course of conduct and judgment

Divine punishment meted according to Israelites’ course of conduct and judgment

Manifestation of divine wrath

Manifestation of divine wrath

Divine warfare against Israel

Landmark Covenant lawsuit

‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance following the divine warfare against Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the manifestation of divine wrath ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites’ recognition of something (“that it is I the Lord who strike”) by acquaintance with the manifestation of divine wrath ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine punishment meted according to Israelites’ course of conduct and judgment ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelite representatives’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine punishment meted according to Israelites’ course of conduct and judgment ‫ ידע‬profiles Israelite representatives’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine punishment meted according to Israelites’ course of conduct and judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

C. D.

Profile

212  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

239 Ezek 12:15

240 Ezek 12:16

241 Ezek 12:20

242 Ezek 13:9

243 Ezek 13:14

244 Ezek 13:21

245 Ezek 13:23

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

Female sorcerers

Female sorcerers

False prophets

False prophets

People of the land

Surviving remnant

King, his helpers, and his army

Divine intervention of punishment

Divine intervention of punishment

Three-stage divine punishment

Threefold divine punishment

Desolation of land

Divine deliverance

Divine warfare against Israel

‫ ידע‬profiles the kings, his helpers, and his army as aware of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with following the divine warfare against Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles the survival remnant’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine deliverance experienced ‫ ידע‬profiles the people of the land’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with desolation of the land ‫ ידע‬profiles the false prophets’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord God”) by acquaintance with the divine threefold punishment ‫ ידע‬profiles the false prophets’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord God”) by acquaintance with a three-stage divine punishment ‫ ידע‬profiles the female sorcerers’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine intervention of punishment ‫ ידע‬profiles the female sorcerers’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine intervention of punishment (continued)

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

213

B.

G

G

G

G

G

G

No. Ref.

246 Ezek 14:8

247 Ezek 14:23

248 Ezek 15:7

249 Ezek 16:62

250 Ezek 17:21

251 Ezek 17:24

(continued)

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

F.

Trees of the field

Defiant house of Israel

Jerusalem

Exiles

Exiles

Elders of Israel

Trajector

Profile

Divine punishment of religious synchretism

‫ ידע‬profiles the elders of Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine punishment of religious synchretism The remnant’s course of ‫ ידע‬profiles the exiles’ discernment of conduct something (“that it was not without cause that I did all that I have done in it”) by acquaintance with the remnant’s course of conduct Divine punishment ‫ ידע‬profiles the exiles’ recognition of through fire against something (“that I am the Lord”) by Jerusalem acquaintance with the divine punishment through fire against Jerusalem Divine re-establishment ‫ ידע‬profiles Jerusalem’s recognition of of the convenant something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine re-establishment of the covenant Divine punishment on ‫ ידע‬profiles the defiant house of Israel’s account of the broken recognition of something (“that I, the Lord, covenantal oath have spoken”) by acquaintance with the divine punishment on account of the broken covenantal oath Divine planting of a ‫ ידע‬profiles the trees of the field as discerning cedar something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine planting of a cedar

Landmark

Judgment

Judgment

Covenant

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

C. D.

214  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

N

N

H

G

G

G

G

252 Ezek 20:5

253 Ezek 20:9

254 Ezek 20:11

255 Ezek 20:12

256 Ezek 20:20

257 Ezek 20:26

258 Ezek 20:38

wq

y

IC

IC

q

q

wy

Israelites

Israelites

Israelites

Israelites

Yahweh

Yahweh

Yahweh

Divine purge of rebellious Israelites

Divine permission of Israelite appalling defilement

Sabbath-keeping as a covenantal sign

Sabbath-keeping as a covenantal sign

Divine providence

Divine deliverance of Israelites from Egypt

Divine covenantal oath

‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as revealing himself to the Israelites in Egypt in the context of the divine covenantal oath ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as revealing himself to the Israelites by their divine deliverance from Egypt ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as causing somebody (Israel) to become aware of a specific information (“my statutes … my ordinances”) by acquaintance as a result of divine providence ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I the Lord sanctify them”) by acquaintance with the Sabbath-keeping as a covenantal sign ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ recognition of something (“that you may know that I the Lord am your God”) by acquaintance with the Sabbath-keeping as a covenantal sign ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ recognition of something (“that you may know that I the Lord am your God”) by acquaintance with the Sabbath-keeping as a covenantal sign ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine purge of rebellious Israelites (continued)

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

215

B.

G

G

G

G

G

G

No. Ref.

259 Ezek 20:42

260 Ezek 20:44

261 Ezek 21:5

262 Ezek 22:16

263 Ezek 22:22

264 Ezek 23:49

(continued)

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

F.

Exiles

House of Israel

Jerusalem

All flesh

Israelites

Israelites

Trajector

Divine judgment on Samaria and Jerusalem

Melting in the smelter of divine wrath

Scattering among foreign nations, divine purge, and profanation

Divine warfare against Israel

Divine intervention for God’s name’s sake

Divine restoration of Israel

Landmark Covenant

‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine restoration of Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine intervention for God’s name’s sake ‫ ידע‬profiles all flesh’s recognition of something (“that I the Lord have drawn my sword out of its sheath”) by acquaintance with the divine warfare against Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles Jerusalem’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) following the scattering among foreign nations, the divine purge, and profanation ‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition of something (“that I the Lord have poured out my wrath upon you”) by personal acquaintance with being melted in the smelter of divine wrath ‫ ידע‬profiles the exiles’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord God”) by personal acquaintance with the divine judgment on Samaria and Jerusalem

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Covenant

C. D.

Profile

216  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

G

G

G

G

G

265 Ezek 24:24

266 Ezek 24:27

267 Ezek 25:5

268 Ezek 25:7

269 Ezek 25:11

270 Ezek 25:14

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

Edomites

Moabites

Ammonites

Ammonites

Exiles

Exiles

Divine manifestation of wrath through Israel

Divine intervention for destruction

Divine intervention for destruction

Foreign invading and conquering power

Ezekiel’s bereavement as a symbol of the exiles’ experience when the temple in Jerusalem is destroyed Ezekiel’s losing his tongue functions as a sign until an escapee reports the news of Jerusalem’s destruction

‫ ידע‬profiles the exiles’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord God”) by personal acquaintance with Ezekiel’s experience of bereavement when the temple in Jerusalem is destroyed ‫ ידע‬profiles the exiles’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with Ezekiel’s experience of finding his tongue when an escapee reports the news of Jerusalem’s destruction ‫ ידע‬profiles the Ammonites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with a foreign invading and conquering power ‫ ידע‬profiles the Ammonites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine intervention for destruction ‫ ידע‬profiles the Moabites’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine intervention for destruction ‫ ידע‬profiles the Edomites’ awareness by acquaintance with something (“my vengeance”) following divine manifestation of wrath through Israel (continued)

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

217

B.

G

G

G

G

G

G

No. Ref.

271 Ezek 25:17

272 Ezek 26:6

273 Ezek 28:22

274 Ezek 28:23

275 Ezek 28:24

276 Ezek 28:26

(continued)

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

F.

House of Israel

House of Israel

Inhabitants of Sidon

Inhabitants of Sidon

Inhabitants of Tyre

Philistines

Trajector

Divine restoration of Israel and punishment of Israel’s neighbors

Divine punishment of Israel’s neighbors

Divine execution of punishment through pestilence, bloodshed, and sword

Divine execution of punishment and manifestation of Holiness

Divine intervention for destruction through many nations

Divine manifestation of wrath

Landmark Judgment

‫ ידע‬profiles the Philistines’ recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine manifestation of wrath ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Tyre’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine intervention for destruction through many nations ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Sidon’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine execution of punishment and manifestation of Holiness ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Sidon’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine execution of punishment through pestilence, bloodshed, and sword ‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord God”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of Israel’s neighbors ‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord their God”) by personal acquaintance with the divine restoration of Israel and punishment of Israel’s neighbors

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

C. D.

Profile

218  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

277 Ezek 29:6

278 Ezek 29:9

279 Ezek 29:16

280 Ezek 29:21

281 Ezek 30:8

282 Ezek 30:19

283 Ezek 30:25

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

Inhabitants of Egypt

Inhabitants of Egypt

Inhabitants of Egypt

House of Israel

House of Israel

Inhabitants of Egypt

Inhabitants of Egypt

Divine punishment of Egypt through Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon

Divine punishment of Egypt

Divine punishment of Egypt’s allies

Plundering of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar

Lowliness of Egypt

Divine punishment of Egypt

Divine punishment of Pharaoh

‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Egypt’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) following their witnessing of the divine punishment of Pharaoh ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Egypt’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of Egypt ‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord God”) following their witnessing of the lowliness of Egypt ‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) following their witnessing of the plundering of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Egypt’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of Egypt’s allies ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Egypt’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of Egypt ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Egypt’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of Egypt through Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon (continued)

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

219

B.

G

G

G

G

G

G

No. Ref.

284 Ezek 30:26

285 Ezek 32:15

286 Ezek 33:29

287 Ezek 34:27

288 Ezek 34:30

289 Ezek 35:4

(continued)

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

F.

Mount Seir

Israel as a flock

Israel

Survivors in Judah

Inhabitants of Egypt

Inhabitants of Egypt

Trajector

Profile

Divine punishment of scattering the Egyptians among the nations

‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Egypt’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of scattering the Egyptians among the nations Divine punishment of ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Egypt’s Egypt recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of Egypt Divine punishment of ‫ ידע‬profiles the survivors’ recognition of the land of Judah something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of the land of Judah Divine deliverance ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by acquaintance with the divine deliverance Divine shepherd’s ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s recognition of something deliverance (“I, the Lord their God, am with them, and that they, the house of Israel, are my people”) by acquaintance with the divine shepherd’s deliverance Divine desolation of Seir ‫ ידע‬profiles Mount Seir’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine desolation of Seir

Landmark

Judgment

Deliverance

Deliverance

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

C. D.

220  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

N

G

G

G

G

N

290 Ezek 35:9

291 Ezek 35:11

292 Ezek 35:12

293 Ezek 35:15

294 Ezek 36:11

295 Ezek 36:23

296 Ezek 36:32

y

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

Divine punishment of Seir’s perpetual desolation

‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Seir as being aware of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of Seir’s perpetual desolation Yahweh Divine punishment of ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as revealing himself to Seir the Israelites through the divine punishment of Seir Mount Seir Divine punishment of ‫ ידע‬profiles Mount Seir’s recognition of Seir something (“that I, the Lord, have heard all the abusive speech that you uttered against the mountains of Israel”) by personal acquaintance with the divine punishment of Seir House of Israel Divine desolation of Seir ‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) following their witnessing of the divine desolation of Seir Israel Divine favor to Israel ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine favor to Israel Foreign nations Manifestation of divine ‫ ידע‬profiles foreign nations as recognizing Holiness through something (“that I am the Lord”) by Israel’s restoration personal acquaintance with the manifestation of divine Holiness through Israel’s restoration Divine Israel’s abhorrence and ‫ ידע‬profiles the divine intervention for intervention for shame the sake of God’s name as resulting in the sake of understanding on Israel’s part in their God’s name abhorrence and shame

Inhabitants of Seir

(continued)

Covenant

Covenant

Restoration

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

221

B.

G

G

G

G

G

G

No. Ref.

297 Ezek 36:36

298 Ezek 36:38

299 Ezek 37:6

300 Ezek 37:13

301 Ezek 37:14

302 Ezek 37:28

(continued)

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

wq

F.

Landmark

Profile

Foreign nations Divine restoration of Israel

‫ ידע‬profiles the foreign nations’ recognition of something (“that I, the Lord, have rebuilt the ruined places, and replanted that which was desolate”) following their witnessing of the divine restoration of Israel House of Israel Repopulation of Israel’s ‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition towns of something (“that I am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the repopulation of Israel’s towns Israel Divine reanimation of ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s recognition of dried bones representing something (“that I am the Lord”) by the restoration of Israel personal acquaintance following the divine reanimation of dried bones representing the restoration of Israel Israel Divine opening of ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s recognition of something graves representing the (“that I am the Lord”) by personal restoration of Israel acquaintance following the divine opening of graves representing the restoration of Israel Israel Divine restoration of life ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s recognition of something and land (“that I, the Lord, have spoken and will act”) by personal acquaintance with the divine restoration of life and land Foreign nations Divine restoration of the ‫ ידע‬profiles the foreign nations’ recognition of sanctuary something (“that I the Lord sanctify Israel”) following their witnessing of the divine restoration of the sanctuary

Trajector

Restoration

Restoration

Restoration

Restoration

Covenant

Covenant

C. D.

222  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

H

G

307 Ezek 39:7a 308 Ezek 39:7b

G

wq

G

306 Ezek 39:6

309 Ezek 39:22

y

G

305 Ezek 38:23b

wq

wq

wq

wq

N

304 Ezek 38:23a

IC

G

303 Ezek 38:16

‫ ידע‬profiles the foreign nations’ recognition of Yahweh following the manifestation of divine Holiness through Gog Yahweh Manifestation of divine ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as being revealed to the greatness and Holiness foreign nations following the manifestation in punishing Gog and of divine greatness and Holiness in punishing his army Gog and his army Foreign nations Manifestation of divine ‫ ידע‬profiles the foreign nations’ recognition of greatness, Holiness, and something (“that I am the Lord”) following person in punishing their witnessing of the manifestation of divine Gog and his army greatness, Holiness, and person in punishing Gog and his army Inhabitants of Divine judgment ‫ ידע‬profiles the inhabitants of Magog’s and Magog and through fire coastlands’ recognition of something (“that I coastlands am the Lord”) by personal acquaintance with the divine judgment through fire Yahweh Revelation of Yahweh’s ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as causing something name in Israel (“my holy name”) to be revealed in Israel Foreign nations Revelation of Yahweh’s ‫ ידע‬profiles the foreign nations’ recognition name in Israel of something (“that I am the Lord, the Holy One in Israel”) following their witnessing of the revelation of Yahweh’s name in Israel House of Israel Manifestation of divine ‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition Holiness and power of something (“that I am the Lord through divine their God”) by acquaintance with the judgments manifestation of divine Holiness and power through divine judgments

Foreign nations Manifestation of divine Holiness through Gog

(continued)

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

223

315 Hos 6:3a G

H

314 Hos 5:9

wy

q

q

G

q

313 Hos 5:4

G

311 Hos 2:8

wq

wq

G

310 Ezek 39:28

F.

312 Hos 2:20 G

B.

No. Ref.

(continued)

Israel

Yahweh

Israel

Israel as wife

Israel as wife

House of Israel

Trajector

Profile

Divine intervention of post-exilic restoration

‫ ידע‬profiles the house of Israel’s recognition of something (“that I am the Lord their God”) by acquaintance with the divine intervention of post-exilic restoration Divine providence of ‫ ידע‬profiles the (lack of) Israel’s awareness of grain, wine, oil, silver, something (“that it was I who gave her the and gold grain, the wine, and the oil, and who lavished upon her silver and gold”) by acquaintance with the divine providence of grain, wine, oil, silver, and gold Manifestation of divine ‫ ידע‬profiles the wife Israel’s intimate righteousness, justice, acquaintance with Yahweh as husband, steadfast love, and following the manifestation of divine mercy in marriage righteousness, justice, steadfast love, and mercy in marriage Behavioral defilement of ‫ ידע‬profiles the (lack of) Israel’s personal Israel with a spirit of acquaintance with Yahweh due to their whoredom behavioral defilement with a spirit of whoredom Ephraim’s punishment ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as creating awareness of something (“what is sure”), revealed by Ephraim’s punishment Prophetic exhortation ‫ ידע‬profiles the prophetic desire of Israel’s based upon divine favor personal acquaintance with Yahweh as a response to a prophetic exhortation based upon divine favor

Landmark

Covenant lawsuit

Judgment

Judgment

Kinship

Kinship

Judgment

C. D.

224  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

q

y

ptc Generic person

wq

wq

318 Hos 11:3 G

319 Hos 13:4 G

320 Joel 2:14 G

321 Joel 2:27 G

322 Joel 3:17 G

Israel

Children of Zion

Israel

Israel

Israel

q

G

317 Hos 8:2

Israel

IC

316 Hos 6:3b G

Manifestation of divine presence

Manifestation of divine presence

Divine graciousness, compassion, patience, and steadfast love

Covenantal relationship with God

Divine providence manifested as healing

Facade obedience

Prophetic exhortation based upon divine favor

‫ ידע‬profiles the prophetic desire of Israel’s persistently pursued personal acquaintance with Yahweh as a response to a prophetic exhortation based upon divine favor ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israel’s presumptuous personal acquaintance with Yahweh resulting from their facade obedience ‫ ידע‬profiles the (lack of) Israel’s awareness of something (“that I healed them”) by acquaintance with the divine providence manifested as healing ‫ ידע‬profiles the Israel’s personal acquaintance with Yahweh following from their covenantal relationship with God ‫ ידע‬profiles a generic person’s discernment of something (“whether he will not turn and relent”) based on divine graciousness, compassion, patience, and steadfast love ‫ ידע‬profiles children of Zion’s recognition of something (“that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I, the Lord, am your God and there is no other”) by acquaintance with the manifestation of the divine presence among them ‫ ידע‬profiles Israel’s awareness of something (“that I, the Lord your God, dwell in Zion, my holy mountain”) following the manifestation of divine presence among them (continued)

Judgment

Restoration

Judgment

Judgment

Kinship

Judgment

Covenant lawsuit

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

225

IC

IC

y

G

326 Mic 6:5

327 Hab 2:14 G

328 Hab 3:2

H

q

G

325 Mic 4:12

Divine graciousness, compassion, patience, and steadfast love

Divine mercy

Landmark

Yahweh

The earth

God’s people

Revival of Yahweh’s work during the prophet’s time

Prophetic disclosure of divine purpose

Remembrance of Exodus, King Balak’s schemes, and entrance into Canaan

Foreign nations Divine plans of punishment

Jonah

q

Trajector

324 Jonah 4:2 G

F.

ptc Generic Ninivite person

B.

323 Jonah 3:9 G

No. Ref.

(continued)

Judgment

‫ ידע‬profiles a generic Ninivite person’s discernment of something (“whether he will not turn and relent”) based on divine mercy ‫ ידע‬profiles Jonah’s clear and distinct discernment of something (“that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing”) by acquaintance with divine graciousness, compassion, patience, and steadfast love ‫ ידע‬profiles foreign nations’ (lack of) awareness of something (“the thoughts of the Lord”) concerning the divine plans of punishment ‫ ידע‬profiles God’s people as aware of something (“the saving acts of the Lord”) by instruction, resulting in their remembrance of Exodus, King Balak’s schemes, and entrance into Canaan ‫ ידע‬profiles the earth’s awareness of something (“the glory of the Lord”) as a prophetic disclosure of divine purpose ‫ ידע‬profiles Yahweh as causing something (“your work”) to be revealed by reviving it during the prophet’s time

Judgment

Judgment

Covenant lawsuit

Judgment

Judgment

C. D.

Profile

226  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN…

G

G

G

G

G

G

329 Zech 2:9

330 Zech 2:11

331 Zech 4:9

332 Zech 6:15

333 Zech 11:11

334 Mal 2:4

wq

wy

wq

wq

wq

wq

Divine punishment of foreign nations which plundered Israel

‫ ידע‬profiles the Israelite exiles’ clear and distinct discernment of something (“that the Lord of hosts has sent me”) by acquaintance with the divine punishment of foreign nations which plundered Israel Zion Promise of divine ‫ ידע‬profiles Zion’s clear and distinct presence discernment of something (“that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you”) by acquaintance with the fulfillment of the promise of divine presence Zerubbabel Divine promise that ‫ ידע‬profiles Zerubbabel’s clear and distinct Zerubbabel will discernment of something (“that the Lord complete the building of of hosts has sent me to you”) following the temple the fulfillment of the divine promise that Zerubbabel will complete the building of the temple Generic persons Divine promise that ‫ ידע‬profiles generic persons’ clear and distinct far-off people will come discernment of something (“that the Lord and help build the of hosts has sent me to you”) following the temple fulfillment of the divine promise that far-off people will come and help build the temple Sheep Zechariah’s annulment ‫ ידע‬profiles the sheep merchants’ clear and merchants of the covenant distinct discernment of something (“that it was the word of the Lord”) following Zechariah’s annulment of the covenant Priests Corruption of priests ‫ ידע‬profiles the priests’ understanding of something (“that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may hold”) because of their corruption

Israelite exiles in Babylon

Covenant

Prophecy

Providence

Providence

Judgment

Judgment

  APPENDIX B: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN… 

227



Appendix C: Meaning of ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ in Lexicons and Theological Dictionaries

Table C1  Meaning of Γινώσκω in lexicons Lexicon

Meaning

BDAGa

1. To arrive at the knowledge of someone or something, know, know about, make acquaintance of:  a. With accusative of things: Matt 13:11; Luke 8:10; John 8:32; 14:17; Acts 1:7; 1 Cor 13:9, 12 (know fragmentarily, only in part); 1 John 4:2, 6;  b. With personal object:    i. God: John 14:7; 17:3, 25; Rom 1:21; Gal 4:9; 1 John 2:3, 13; 3:1, 6; 4:6; 5:20;    ii.   Jesus Christ: John 14:7; 17:3; 2 Cor 5:16;    iii. Someone by something: Luke 24:35;  c. Following or followed by:    i. ὅτι: John 6:69; 7:26; 8:52; 14:20, 31; 17:7, 25; 19:4;    ii. ἐν τούτῳ: John 13:35; 1 John 2:3, 5; 4:13;    iii. With combinations of two constructions: 1 John 3:24; 4:13;    iv. With an indirect question: Matt 12:7; 2. To acquire information through some means, learn (of), ascertain, find out:  c. With accusative as object: Mark 5:43; Luke 24:18;  d. With ὅτι following;  e. Absolute: Matt 9:30; Mark 14:45; (continued)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

229

230 

APPENDIX C: MEANING OF ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL

Lexicon

L&Nb

Meaning 3. To grasp the significance or meaning of something, understand, comprehend:  a. With accusative following: Luke 18:34; John 3:10; 8:43; 12:16; Acts 8:30; 1 Cor 2:8, 11, 14; Eph 3:19; Heb 3:10;  b. Absolute;  c. With ὅτι following: Matt 21:45; Mark 12:12; 13:29; Luke 21:31; John 4:53; 8:27–28;  d. With indirect question following: John 10:6; 13:12, 28; 4. To be aware of something, perceive, notice, realize:  a. With accusative;  b. Absolute;  c. With ὅτι following; 5. To have sexual intercourse with, have sex/marital relations with; 6. To have come to the knowledge of, have come to know, know:  a. With accusative:    i. Of thing: Rom 2:18; 1 Cor 8:2a; 2 Cor 8:9; with object clause preceding; with attraction of the relative; with accusative and participle;    ii. Of person, know someone: John 10:14; with accusative and participle;  b. With accusative and infinitive;  c. With ὅτι following: Matt 24:33; Mark 13:29; Luke 10:11; 21:31; John 15:18; Eph 5:5;  d. With indirect question: Luke 10:22;  e. With adverb modifier;  f. Absolute; 7. To indicate that one does know, acknowledge, recognize:    i. As that which one is or claims to be: John 1:10;    ii. Of God as subject, recognize someone as belonging to God, choose, almost=elect: 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9. 1. [know; 28.1] γινώσκωa: to possess information about, to know, to know about, to have knowledge of, to be acquainted with, acquaintance: Rom 1:21; 2. [learn; 27.2] γινώσκωb: to acquire information by whatever means but often with the implication of personal involvement or experience, to learn, to find out; 3. [learn; 27.18] γινώσκωc: to learn to know a person through direct personal experience, implying a continuity of relationship, to know, to become acquainted with, to be familiar with: John 17:3; 1 John 2:3; 4. [understand/come to understand; 32.16] γινώσκωd: to come to an understanding as the result of ability to experience and learn, to come to understand, to perceive, to comprehend: Matt 13:11 (or γινώσκωa, to know); John 3:10; 5. [hold a view, believe, trust/acknowledge; 31.27] γινώσκωe: to indicate that one does know, to acknowledge: 1 Cor 8:3 (or γινώσκωa, to know); 6. [physiological processes and states/sexual relations; 23.61] γινώσκωf: (a figurative extension of meaning of γινώσκωa) to have sexual intercourse with;

BDAG, s.v. “γινώσκω.” Only the verses relevant to the present book are indicated

a

Given the structuring of this lexicon according to semantic domains, the reference to various definitional meanings is indicated as [domain/subdomain; L&N number] for each occurrence b

[E. The Early Christian Usage] 1. Popular usage:  a. To note, to recognize: Mark 12:12; John 8:27; Gal 3:7;  b. To learn: Mark 5:43; 15:45; Acts 17:13, 19;  c. To confirm: Mark 13:28; John 4:53; the phrase ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν in 1 John;  d. To know:    i. Awareness: John 7:27; Rev 3:3;    ii. Acquaintance: Acts 1:7; Rom 2:18; 2 Cor 5:16;    iii. Understanding: Luke 18:34; John 3:10; Acts 8:30;  e. To master; 2. The OT usage and its influence:  a. K  nowing entails the will that accepts the epistemic consequences: Luke 10:11; Acts 2:36 (as acknowledgment); Eph 5:5;  b. Knowledge of the will of God (including acknowledgment/submission to it): Luke 19:44; Acts 22:14; Rom 2:18; 10:19; Gal 2:9; 2 Cor 8:9; Heb 3:10; Rev 3:9;  c. Knowledge of God himself: Heb 8:11; Rev 2:23;  d. Different from OT, the NT proclamation is directed to heathens, hence knowledge may occur prior to acknowledgment: Rom 1:21; 1 Cor 1:21; Gal 4:9;  e. Comprehension: John 1:10; Rom 11:34; 1 Cor 2:16;  f. With God as subject it refers to election: 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9;  g. Theological knowledge: Matt 13:11; Rom 6:6; Gal 3:7; Eph 3:19; 3. The influence of gnostic usage:  a. Pauline literature:    i. In 1 Cor 8, theological knowledge is presented as having its source in God’s knowledge of the human beings, is different from speculation—it is correlated with love and finds its fulfillment in brotherly love;    ii. In Gal 4:9, theological knowledge is identical with divine election (OT usage);    iii. 1 Cor 13 reflects a gnostic usage, yet Paul subsumes knowledge under love rejecting the gnostic pretension of a direct relationship with God in this life;

TDNTa

(continued)

Meaning

Dictionary

Table C2  Meaning of Γινώσκω in dictionaries   APPENDIX C: MEANING OF ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

231

Dictionary

  

iv. In Phil 3:10, Paul uses gnostic expressions yet projects theological knowledge in history, not separated from the earthly existence;  b. Johannine literature:    i. The term indicates the personal, reciprocally determined relationship with God, described as being in Christ: John 8:55; 10:14, 38; 1 John 2:3, 5; 5:20;    ii. The known determines the knower so that the meaning of theological knowledge is established by the epistemic object, becoming a mode of being: John 17:3;    iii. T  heological knowledge overlaps with the concept of love, the latter being a criterion for the former: John 13:35; 14:31; 17:23; 1 John 4:7–8, 16, 20;    iv. T  heological knowledge thus is actualized in historical interventions, especially that God sending his Son into the world: John 14:31;    v. J esus’s obedience points to the importance of the divine commandments, which can also be considered as an epistemic criterion: 1 John 2:3–5; 3:6;    vi. Knowledge-as-love also entails the awareness of being loved: 1 John 4:16;    vii. Theological knowledge “has primarily the sense of the recognition and reception of love, i.e., πίστις”: John 17:3, 7–8;    viii. God cannot be known without Christ: John 14:7; 14:20; 1 John 5:20;    xi.  Knowing Christ is knowing his unity with God: John 10:38; 14:20; 16:3;    x. Knowing Christ is not mystical but practical, involving obedience and love: John 6:69; 14:31; 17:3;    xi. K  nowing Christ also takes place in the Christian community (1 John 3:1; 4:6) under the guidance of the Spirit (John 14:17);    xii. While there are close connections with the OT usage, the Johannine theological knowledge “it is paradoxically building on the γινώσκειν of Hellenistic Gnosticism,” reflected in (1) the usage of verbs of seeing (John 14:7, 17; 1 John 3:6); (2) the dogmatic ὅτι assertions regarding the historicity of revelation (John 7:26; 10:38; 14:20; 16:3; 17:7, 23, 25); (3) the fact that love functions just as an epistemic criterion, while in the OT is identified with knowledge; (4) γινώσκω is differentiated from πιστεύω, the former indicating the mutual intimate relationship between God and Christ;    xiii. Believing in Christ is the first step toward γινώσκειν (John 10:38; 14:20);    xiv.  Belief in Christ is impossible without listening the Word: John 6:69; 8:43; 17:8;    xv. In the Johannine literature, γινώσκω is not identified with obedience like in the OT but follows it;    xvi.  The epistemic object of both believing and knowing remains the same, γινώσκω normally follows πιστεύω (John 6:69; 8:32; 10:38), refreshes it (John 16:30; 17:7–8; 1 John 4:16), or is part of it.

Meaning

Table C2  (continued)

232  APPENDIX C: MEANING OF ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

EDNTb

(continued)

1. “The boundary between secular and religious uses of this word family is fluid. In many cases, assignment of particular uses … is somewhat arbitrary” (1:248); 2. Secular use:   a. Learn:    i. To learn or to come to know a fact from information, it becomes (is) known: Luke 24:18; John 19:4; Acts 17:13; Rom 6:6; Eph 5:5;    ii. Information comes through a speech: Luke 10:21; Acts 2:36;  b. Notice:    i. To notice or to observe a hidden intent (Matt 21:45; Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19);    ii. To conclude and recognize a fact (John 4:53; 8:27, 52; Gal 2:9);  c. Ascertain:    i. To ascertain or to seek to learn through investigation, inquiry, and discovery: Mark 15:45; Acts 17:19–20;    ii. To come to know through observation;  d. Know—to know (about) on the basis of experience: John 7:27; 15:18;  e. Of persons:    i. To know someone; to be/become known: 2 Cor 5:16;    ii. To be recognized or to be known: Luke 24:35; John 13:35;  f. Other uses:    i. To feel, to sense; to perceive;    ii. To decide;    iii. To understand;    iv. To have sexual relations;    v. To be skilled at, to be able; 3. Religious use:  a. OT usage:    i. God knows human thoughts and intentions;    ii. Divine knowledge entails divine care: John 10:14;

  APPENDIX C: MEANING OF ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

233

Dictionary

   iii. God makes known his will through humans: Acts 2:36; Rom 6:6; Eph 5:5; Rev 2:23; 3:9;    iv. Divine self-revelation;    v. To acknowledge or to recognize God’s coworkers;    vi. To know, to acknowledge (= to have fear of): 2 Cor 8:9; Heb 3:10; 8:11;    vii. To know, to come to know the divine will: Luke 19:44; Acts 22:14; Rom 2:18;  b. Reflecting apocalyptic literature:    i. To be revealed (of hidden truths): 1 Cor 2:8;    ii. To make known;    iii. To understand: 1 Cor 2:8; Rom 11:34;    iv. To be known (of aeons): Acts 1:7; Rev 3:3;    v. To take notice of: Matt 24:33; Mark 13:29; Luke 10:11; 21:31;  c. I n the Pauline writings (Greek synagogue) the OT aspect of recognition is combined with the Hellenistic theoretical discernment facet of knowledge:    i. Divine knowledge is unattainable by humans: Rom 11:34; 1 Cor 2:8;    ii. Divine nature and will are perceptible: Rom 1:21;    iii. The world does not know God (1 Cor 1:21) nor recognizes him in obedience;    iv. To come to know God means to serve him: Gal 4:9;    v. At the synagogue, understanding of Scriptures is prerequisite to theological knowledge: Matt 12:7; Acts 8:30; Rom 2:18;  d. Jesus is often presented as the Greek Θεῖος ἀνήρ;  e. Mysticism:    i. Know God/be known by God: Rom 6:6; 1 Cor 8:3; 13:12; Gal 4:9; Phil 3:10;    ii. For Paul, being divinely known entails divine election, love, and acceptance;    iii. The description of the intimate unity between God the Father and Christ the Son also reflects a mystical emphasis: John 10:38; 17:25;  f. Anti-gnostic evidences:    i. Allusions to gnostic teachers: perhaps Rev 3:9;    ii. Christian love supersedes gnostic knowledge: 1 Cor 8:2–3; 13:9, 12; Eph 3:19;

Meaning

Table C2  (continued)

234  APPENDIX C: MEANING OF ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

(continued)

   iii. Paul comes close to gnostic ideas: 1 Cor 2:11, 14, 16; 2 Cor 5:16;  g. The messianic secret:    i. The disciples need to interpret Jesus’s parables in order to understand: Matt 13:11; Luke 8:10; John 10:6; 13:7, 12;    ii. People are to learn nothing from divine acts: Matt 9:30; Mark 5:43;    iii. Disciples do not understand Christ: Luke 18:34; John 12:16; 13:7, 28;  h. The knowledge of sin;  i. Johannine literature:    i. “John uses γινώσκω in a theological sense parallel to ‘believe’ or ‘love God’ or ‘see God,’ thereby giving the Gnostics’ term an OT and Christian sense” (1:250);    ii. Γινώσκω also refers to a relationship of and perseverance in faith, coupled with an understanding of one’s faith;    iii. The world does not acknowledge Jesus: John 1:10; 3:10; 8:27–28, 43, 55; 10:38; 14:17, 31; 16:3; 17:3, 25; 1 John 3:1;    iv. The unity of the Church aims at helping the world recognize Christ (John 17:23), while its obedience leads the world to know the Christian truth (John 7:17);    v. Christ’s own people has known him, recognize him, and know about him: John 6:69; 7:26; 10:14; 14:7, 9 (should have known him), 17; 17:7, 25; 1 John 2:13–14; 4:16; 5:20; 2 John 1;    vi. Abiding in Jesus fosters epistemic growth: John 8:28, 32; 10:38; 13:7, 12; 14:20;    vii. The epistemic criterion is brotherly love: 1 John 2:3–5; 3:16, 24; 4:7, 13;    viii. Sin characterizes those who do not know God: 1 John 3:6;    xi. Those who know God can recognize or distinguish God’s spirit: 1 John 4:2, 6;    x. Those who do not know God do not know his Church: 1 John 3:1.

  APPENDIX C: MEANING OF ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

235

NIDNTTE

Dictionary

c

[NT Section] 2. The NT usage expands the OT conceptualization of knowledge:  a. Relationship between the knower and the known: 1 Cor 8:3; 13:12; Gal 4:9;  b. To have acquaintance with, regard, have to do with (= οἶδα): 2 Cor 5:16;  c. To know the divine will or law entails recognition and obedience: Acts 22:14; Rom 2:18;  d. Theological knowledge is equated with genuine Christian experience:    i. Γινώσκω is used interchangeably with οἶδα: Gal 4:9;    ii. Theological knowledge entails gratitude and glorification, while epistemic futility means reducing genuine theological knowledge to intellectual activity: Rom 1:21; also John 1:10; 1 Cor 1:21;    iii. Revelation is prerequisite to recognizing God: 1 Cor 2:11;    iv. Disobedience blocks genuine theological knowledge: Eph 5:5;    v. To recognize and to acknowledge are connected to obedience: 2 Cor 8:9;  e. Γ ινώσκω also entails theoretical knowledge of God: Matt 13:11; Luke 8:10; 3. Incipient pre-gnostic tendencies:  a. Theological knowledge is closely connected to loving obedience:    i. Loving God is a correlative of knowing God or being known by God: 1 Cor 8:2–3; Gal 4:9;    ii. Complete theological knowledge is eschatological: 1 Cor 13:12;    iii. Theological knowledge consists of acknowledging Christ as Lord after a personal encounter with him, and results in obedience: Phil 3:10;  b. In Johannine literature, the frequency of γινώσκω may indicate an interaction with pre-gnostic ideas:    i. Γινώσκω reflects mutual relationships in divine or human realms: John 10:14;    ii. There is a dualism between God and the world: John 8:43; 14:17; 15:18; 16:3; 17:3; 1 John 5:20;    iii. “John’s purpose is to speak to ‘gnostics’ and therefore he uses their language. He faces them on their own ground and combats them with his own weapons” (1:586);

Meaning

Table C2  (continued)

236  APPENDIX C: MEANING OF ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL…

c

Schmithals, EDNT 1:248–51

Silva, NIDNTTE 1:575–88. Relevant here are pages 580–588

b

a

Bultmann, “γινώσκω κτλ,” 1:689–714

   iv.  While gnostic knowledge is essentially self-knowledge, for John, knowledge is of a personal revealed reality as seen in Christ: Luke 10:22; John 14:7, 9;    v. Theological knowledge is rooted in God’s revelation in history: John 17:23;    vi. T  heological knowledge is expressed in love, which entails obedience: John 14:31; 1 John 2:3–5; 3:6; 4:7–8;    vii. Γ ινώσκω refers both to the divine love manifested in sending Jesus (John 17:8; 1 John 3:16) and to the resulting obedience (1 John 4:6);    viii. Knowing and believing have equal importance (John 6:69; 1 John 4:16);    xi. Hence, “although John’s vocabulary appears to have affinities with that of the later gnostics, his subject matter clearly stands much nearer to the concept of knowledge in the OT tradition than to their mythical speculations” (1:587); 4. The claim that γινώσκω and οἶδα refer to divergent ways of knowing should be rejected, as “the perceived differences in meaning are just as likely the contribution of the context as a whole, though admittedly one term rather than another may be more appropriate in some specific contexts” (1:588).

  APPENDIX C: MEANING OF ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ IN LEXICONS AND THEOLOGICAL… 

237



Appendix D: Trajector-LandmarkCognitive Domain Relationship for ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ1

 This annex presents the detailed analysis of the trajector-landmark-cognitive domain relationship. The mood and tense are abbreviated M. and T., respectively. C. D. abbreviates cognitive domains. 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

239

Matt 13:11

Matt 21:45

Matt 24:33

Mark 5:43

Mark 12:12

Mark 13:29

Mark 15:45 Luke 8:10

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

inf

ptc

imv

ind

sub

imv

ind

inf

ind

imv

Matt 9:30 Matt 12:7

1

2

M.

No. Ref.

ao

ao

pr

aot

ao

pr

ao

ao

ppf

pr

T.

Disciples

Pilate

Disciples

Chief priests, scribes, elders

Generic person

Disciples

Chief priests and Pharisees

Disciples

Pharisees

Generic person

Trajector

Parable of the sower

Jesus’s death

Signs anticipating the second coming

Jesus’s parable

Signs anticipating the second coming Resurrection miracle

Parables about the kingdom of heaven Jesus’s parables

Keeping of the Sabbath

Healing miracle

Landmark Miracle

γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s intended (lack of) awareness by acquaintance with a healing miracle γινώσκω profiles the (lack) understanding of something by the Pharisees regarding the keeping of the Sabbath γινώσκω profiles the understanding of something by the disciples regarding the parables about the kingdom of heaven γινώσκω profiles the chief priests and Pharisees’ discernment of something (“that he was speaking about them”) by acquaintance with Jesus’s parables γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ awareness of something (“that he is very near”) by acquaintance with the signs anticipating the second coming γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s intended (lack of) awareness by acquaintance with a resurrection miracle γινώσκω profiles the chief priests, scribes, elders’ discernment of something (“that he had told this parable against them”) by acquaintance with Jesus’s parable γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ awareness of something (“that he is near, at the very gates”) by acquaintance with the signs anticipating the second coming γινώσκω profiles Pilate’s awareness of something (“that he was dead”) by instruction γινώσκω profiles the understanding of something by the disciples regarding the parable of the sower Teaching

Obedience

Prophecy

Teaching

Miracle

Prophecy

Teaching

Teaching

Teaching

C. D.

Profile

240  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP…

Luke 10:22 Luke 18:34 Luke 19:44 Luke 20:19

12

Luke 24:18

Luke 24:35 John 1:10 John 3:10

17

18

20

19

Luke 21:31

16

15

14

13

Luke 10:11

11

ind

ind

ind

ind

imv

ind

ind

ind

ind

imv

pf

ao

ao

ao

pr

ao

ao

imf

pr

pr

Signs anticipating the second coming

Prophetic fulfillment (Divine) visitation Jesus’s parable

The Son

Disciples’ proclamation

Nicodemus

The world Things pertaining to the work of the Spirit

The Word

Jesus as stranger Events surrounding Jesus’s death Jesus Two disciples

Disciples

Scribes and chief priests

Jerusalem

Disciples

Generic person

Town dwellers

γινώσκω profiles the world’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with the Word γινώσκω profiles Nicodemus’s (lack of) understanding of the things pertaining to the work of the Spirit

γινώσκω profiles the town dwellers’ intended awareness of something (“the kingdom of God has come near”) by disciples’ instruction γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s (lack of) personal intimate acquaintance with the Son γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ (lack of) understanding of something (“what was said”) γινώσκω profiles Jerusalem’s (lack of) discernment by acquaintance with (divine) visitation γινώσκω profiles the scribes and chief priests’ discernment of something (“that he had told this parable against them”) by acquaintance with Jesus’s parable γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ awareness of something (“that the kingdom of God is near”) by acquaintance with the signs anticipating the second coming γινώσκω profiles Jesus’s perceived (lack of) awareness of something by acquaintance with the events surrounding Jesus’s death γινώσκω profiles Jesus’s self-revelation to disciples

(continued)

Teaching

Mission

Teaching

Teaching

Prophecy

Teaching

Judgment

Prophecy

Mission

Mission

  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP… 

241

John 6:69

John 7:17

John 7:26

John 7:27 John 8:27

22

23

24

25

John 8:32

John 8:43 John 8:52 John 8:55

28

29

31

30

John 8:28

27

26

John 4:53

21

(continued)

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

pf

pf

pr

fu

fu

ao

pr

ao

fu

pf

ao

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

Generic person

The authorities

Generic person

Disciples

Royal official

γινώσκω profiles the royal official’s discernment by acquaintance with the effects of the timing of Jesus’s words γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ recognition by acquaintance with Jesus as the Holy One of God

Jesus as the Holy One of God Source of divine γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s discernment of teaching something (“whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own”) by acquaintance with the will of God Jesus’s γινώσκω profiles the authorities’ apparent messiahship recognition of Jesus’s messiahship by acquaintance with the latter’s teaching Messiah’s origin γινώσκω profiles the perceived (lack of) awareness of something (“where is he from”) Jesus’s speech γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ (lack of) understanding of about the something (“that he was speaking to them about the Father Father”) Jesus’s γινώσκω profiles the authorities’ future recognition messiahship of Jesus’s messiahship by acquaintance with the lifting up of the Son of Man The truth γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ intended awareness of something (“the truth”) following their experience of remaining in Jesus’s words Jesus’s sayings γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ (lack) of understanding of Jesus’s sayings Demon γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ belief in what they assume possession is truth (“that you have a demon”) God γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ (lack of) personal acquaintance with God

Timing of Jesus’s words

Obedience

Obedience

Obedience

Obedience

Mission

Mission

Prophecy

Teaching

Obedience

Teaching

Miracle

242  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP…

John 12:16 John 13:7 John 13:12 John 13:28

36

John 14:7a John 14:7b John 14:7c John 14:9

41

44

43

42

John 13:35

40

39

38

37

John 10:38b

John 10:6 John 10:14b John 10:38a

35

34

33

32

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

sub

sub

ind

ind

pf

pr

fu

ppf

fu

ao

pr

fu

ao

pr

ao

pr

ao

Jesus’s figure of speech Jesus

γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ (lack of) understanding Jesus’s figure of speech Jesus’s sheep γινώσκω profiles the personal acquaintance with Jesus of the latter’s sheep The Jews Jesus’s close γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ intended awareness of relationship something (“that the Father is in me and I am in the with the Father Father”) by acquaintance with Jesus’s works The Jews Jesus’s close γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ intended recognition of relationship something (“that the Father is in me and I am in the with the Father Father”) by acquaintance with Jesus’s works Disciples Messianic γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ (lack of) prophecies understanding of messianic prophecies Disciples Jesus’s act of γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ intended foot-washing understanding of Jesus’s act of foot-washing Disciples Jesus’s act of γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ understanding of foot-washing Jesus’s act of foot-washing Generic disciple Reason of γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ (lack of) Jesus’s words to understanding of the reason of Jesus’s words to Judas Judas Generic persons The quality of γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s recognition of being a disciple something (“that you are my disciples”) following of Jesus their acquaintance with mutual love of the disciples Disciples Jesus γινώσκω profiles disciples’ personal acquaintance with Jesus Disciples The Father γινώσκω profiles disciples’ personal acquaintance with the Father Disciples The Father γινώσκω profiles disciples’ personal acquaintance with the Father Philip Jesus γινώσκω profiles Philip’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with Jesus

The Jews

(continued)

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

Prophecy

Mission

Mission

Prophecy

Teaching

Teaching

Teaching

Teaching

  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP… 

243

John 15:18

John 16:3 John 17:3

49

50

John 17:7

John 17:8

52

53

51

John 14:31

John 14:17a John 14:17b John 14:20

48

47

46

45

(continued)

ind

ind

sub

ind

imv

sub

ind

ind

ind

ao

pf

pr

ao

pr

ao

fu

pr

pr

Jesus’s close relationship with the Father and with the disciples Jesus’s love for the Father

Spirit of truth

Spirit of truth

γινώσκω profiles the world’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with the Spirit of truth γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ personal acquaintance with the Spirit of truth γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ recognition of Jesus’s close relationship with the Father and with the disciples following their acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus

The world

γινώσκω profiles the world’s recognition of Jesus’s love for the Father following its acquaintance with Jesus’s obedience Disciples World’s hatred γινώσκω profiles the disciples’ awareness of the world’s hatred against them by acquaintance with its hatred against Jesus Adversaries Father and Jesus γινώσκω profiles the adversaries’ (lack of) personal acquaintance with the Father or with Jesus Generic persons God and Jesus γινώσκω profiles the personal acquaintance with God given by God to and Jesus of the generic persons entrusted by God to Jesus Jesus Jesus’s own Divine source of γινώσκω profiles the awareness of Jesus’s own people people what Jesus has of something (“that everything you have given me is from you”) following their experience of accepting the words entrusted to them by Jesus Jesus’s own Jesus’s coming γινώσκω profiles the awareness of Jesus’s own people people from the Father of something (“that I came from you”) following their experience of accepting the words entrusted to them by Jesus

Disciples

Disciples

The world

Mission

Mission

Mission

Prophecy

Prophecy

Mission

Covenant

Covenant

Covenant

244  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP…

John 17:25a John 17:25c

55

Acts 8:30 ind

Acts 17:13 Acts 17:19 Acts 17:20 Acts 22:14

60

61

64

63

62

Acts 2:36 imv

59

inf

inf

inf

ind

inf

Acts 1:7

58

sub

John 19:4

ind

ind

sub

57

56

John 17:23

54

ao

ao

ao

ao

pr

pr

ao

ao

ao

ao

pr

Ethiopian eunuch Jews of Thessalonica Epicureans and Stoics Epicureans and Stoics Paul

House of Israel

The apostles

The Jews

Jesus’s own people

The world

The world

γινώσκω profiles the world’s recognition of something (“that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me”) following its acquaintance with Jesus’s own people unity γινώσκω profiles the world’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with the Father Jesus’s coming γινώσκω profiles the awareness of Jesus’s own people from the Father of something (“that you have sent me”) following their acquaintance with Jesus Pilate declares γινώσκω profiles the Jews’ intended awareness of Jesus’s something (“that I find no case against him”) innocence following Pilate’s witness Divine timetable γινώσκω profiles the apostles’ intended (lack of) awareness of something (“the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority”) Jesus’s γινώσκω profiles the house of Israel’s intended messiahship and recognition of Jesus’s messiahship and lordship by lordship acquaintance with Jesus’s crucifixion Prophecy about γινώσκω profiles (the lack of) the Ethiopian eunuch’s Jesus understanding of the Isaianic prophecy about Jesus Paul’s preaching γινώσκω profiles the Thessalonica Jews’ awareness of in Beroea Paul’s preaching in Beroea by instruction Paul’s teaching γινώσκω profiles the Epicureans and Stoics’ desire to be aware of Paul’s teaching by instruction Paul’s teaching γινώσκω profiles the Epicureans and Stoics’ desire to understand Paul’s teaching Divine will γινώσκω profiles Paul’s intended awareness of the divine will by acquaintance with Jesus Jesus’s coming from the Father and divine love for the disciples The Father

(continued)

Mission

Mission

Mission

Mission

Mission

Mission

Mission

Judgment

Mission

Mission

Mission

  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP… 

245

77

76

75

1 Cor 2:16 1 Cor 8:2a 1 Cor 8:2b

1 Cor 2:11 1 Cor 2:14

73

74

1 Cor 2:8b

72

71

70

69

68

Rom 10:19 Rom 11:34 1 Cor 1:21 1 Cor 2:8a

Rom 2:18 Rom 6:6

66

67

Rom 1:21

65

(continued)

ind

inf

ind

inf

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ptc

ind

ptc

ao

pf

ao

ao

pf

ao

pf

ao

ao

ao

pr

pr

ao

Generic person

Generic person

Generic person

Unspiritual generic person

Generic person

Rulers of the age

Rulers of the age

The world

Generic person

Israel

Believers

Generic Jew

The wicked

God [v. 4]

The mind of the Lord God [v. 4]

Gifts of God’s Spirit

Divine things

Divine wisdom

Divine wisdom

God

Crucifixion of old self Proclamation of Christian gospel Divine purposes

Divine will

God

γινώσκω profiles the wicked’s awareness of God by acquaintance with the divine attributes revealed in nature γινώσκω profiles a generic Jew’s discernment of divine will by acquaintance with the divine law γινώσκω profiles the believers’ awareness of the crucifixion of the old self through Paul’s instruction γινώσκω profiles Israel’s awareness of the proclamation of the Christian gospel by instruction γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s (lack of) understanding of divine purposes γινώσκω profiles the world’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with God γινώσκω profiles the rulers’ (lack of) discernment of the divine wisdom following their acquaintance with Jesus γινώσκω profiles the rulers’ (lack of) discernment of the divine wisdom following their acquaintance with Jesus γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s (lack of) understanding of divine things γινώσκω profiles an unspiritual generic person’s (lack of) discernment of the gifts of God’s Spirit by acquaintance with them γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s (lack of) understanding of the mind of the Lord γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s claim to understand God γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s (lack of) understanding of God Obedience

Obedience

Mission

Mission

Mission

Mission

Mission

Mission

Covenant

Mission

Obedience

Judgment

Judgment

246  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP…

Gal 3:7

Gal 4:9a

Eph 3:19 inf

Eph 5:5

87

88

89

ptc

ptc

imv

ptc

ind

ind

ind

ind

86

84

83

82

81

ind

ind

inf

85

1 Cor 8:2c 1 Cor 8:3

1 Cor 13:9 1 Cor 13:12 2 Cor 5:16a 2 Cor 5:16b 2 Cor 8:9 Gal 2:9

80

79

78

pr

ao

ao

pr

ao

pr

pr

pf

pr

pr

pf

ao

God [v. 4]

γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s (appropriate) understanding of God Generic person God [v. 4] γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s personal acquaintance with God following his or her experience of love Generic persons Divine realm γινώσκω profiles the generic persons’ awareness of the divine realm by acquaintance with it Paul Divine realm γινώσκω profiles Paul’s awareness of the divine realm by acquaintance with it Generic persons Christ according γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ understanding of to the flesh Christ according to the flesh Generic persons Christ according γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ (lack of) to the flesh understanding of Christ according to the flesh Corinthians Christ’s γινώσκω profiles Corinthians’ awareness of Christ’s self-sacrifice self-sacrifice by acquaintance with it James, Cephas, Divine grace γινώσκω profiles James, Cephas, and John’s and John given to Paul recognition of something (“the grace that had been given to me”) by acquaintance with Paul’s ministry Galatians Believers in God γινώσκω profiles Galatians’ (intended) recognition are Abraham’s that the believers in God are Abraham’s descendants descendants by acquaintance with Abraham’s example Galatians God γινώσκω profiles Galatians’ personal acquaintance with God Ephesians Love of Christ γινώσκω profiles Ephesians’ personal acquaintance with the love of God Ephesians Categories γινώσκω profiles Ephesians’ awareness of the excluded from categories excluded from the kingdom of God the kingdom of following Paul’s instructions God

Generic person

(continued)

Obedience

Mission

Covenant

Covenant

Mission

Obedience

Mission

Mission

Teaching

Teaching

Obedience

Obedience

  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP… 

247

99

98

97

96

1 John 2:13 1 John 2:14a 1 John 2:14b

1 John 2:3b 1 John 2:4 1 John 2:5

94

95

1 John 2:3a

93

92

Heb 3:10 Heb 8:11

91

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

ind

imv

ind

Phil 3:10 inf

90

(continued)

pf

pf

pf

pr

pf

pf

pr

ao

ao

ao

Fathers

Children

Fathers

Generic persons

Generic person

Generic persons

Generic persons

Generic Israelite persons

Israelites

Paul

γινώσκω profiles Paul’s desire to be personally acquainted with Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings Obedience

γινώσκω profiles Israelites’ (lack of) understanding of Judgment God’s ways Religious γινώσκω profiles generic Israelites’ personal Covenant instructional acquaintance with God following the religious human biddings instructional biddings of fellow Israelites Genuine γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ recognition of their Obedience personal genuine acquaintance with God by obeying his acquaintance commandments with God God γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ personal Obedience acquaintance with God God γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s personal Obedience acquaintance with God Genuine γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ recognition of their Obedience personal genuine acquaintance with God by obeying his acquaintance commandments with God God γινώσκω profiles fathers’ personal acquaintance with Obedience God God γινώσκω profiles children’s personal acquaintance Obedience with God God γινώσκω profiles fathers’ personal acquaintance with Obedience God

Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings God’s ways

248  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP…

110 1 John 4:16

pr

ind

pf

ao

ind

ind

pr

ind

pr

ind

107 1 John 4:7 108 1 John 4:8 109 1 John 4:13

pr

ptc

pr

ind

105 1 John 4:6a 106 1 John 4:6b

pf

ind

pr

pf

ind

ind

ao

ind

104 1 John 4:2

100 1 John 3:1b 101 1 John 3:6 102 1 John 3:16 103 1 John 3:24 God

God

God

God

God

Generic persons Human-divine reciprocal abidance Generic persons Divine love

Generic person

Generic person

Generic persons Discernment of spirits

Generic person

Generic persons Spirit of God

Generic persons God’s abidance in humans

Generic persons Divine love

Generic person

The world

γινώσκω profiles the world’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with God γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with God γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ awareness of divine love by personal acquaintance with Christ’s sacrifice γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ recognition of God’s abidance in humans by acquaintance with their obedience to God’s commandments γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ discernment of the Spirit of God by acquaintance with the Spirit’s testimony γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s personal acquaintance with God γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ discernment of spirits by acquaintance with the confession of each spirit γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s personal acquaintance with God γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s (lack of) personal acquaintance with God γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ recognition of the human-divine reciprocal abidance by loving one another γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ awareness of divine love by personal acquaintance with the sending of the Son by the Father (continued)

Obedience

Obedience

Obedience

Obedience

Teaching

Teaching

Teaching

Obedience

Obedience

Obedience

Obedience

  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP… 

249

pf

fu

ao

ptc

113 Rev 2:23 ind

sub

sub

114 Rev 3:3

115 Rev 3:9

ao

pr

sub

111 1 John 5:20 112 2 John 1

(continued)

Synagoge of Satan

Sardis church Jesus’s love for the church in Philadelphia

Jesus’s coming

All the churches Jesus’s piercing awareness

Generic persons Divine truth

Generic persons God

γινώσκω profiles a generic person’s personal acquaintance with God γινώσκω profiles generic persons’ awareness of divine truth by acquaintance with God γινώσκω profiles the churches’ recognition of Jesus’s piercing awareness by acquaintance with a divine intervention of judgment γινώσκω profiles the Sardis church’s awareness of Jesus’s coming γινώσκω profiles the synagogue of Satan’s recognition of Jesus’s love for the church in Philadelphia by acquaintance with a divine intervention of judgment Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Obedience

Teaching

250  APPENDIX D: TRAJECTOR-LANDMARK-COGNITIVE DOMAIN RELATIONSHIP…



Appendix E: Occurrences of Temporal and Atemporal Profiles for ‫ידע‬ and ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

251

252 

APPENDIX E: OCCURRENCES OF TEMPORAL AND ATEMPORAL PROFILES…

Relational profile

Old Testament

Simple atemporal relation Complex atemporal relation

Num 24:16; 2 Sam 12:22; Job 10 24:1; Pss 9:10; 36:10; 76:1; 87:4; 90:11; 139:14; Isa 51:7 Gen 24:21; 41:39; Exod 31:13; 32 Deut 4:35; 8:3; 29:4; Josh 4:24; 2 Sam 7:21; 1 Kgs 8:43b, 60; 1 Chr 17:19; 2 Chr 6:33b; 13:5; Pss 25:14; 67:2; 78:5; 106:8; 145:12; Isa 12:5; 64:2; Jer 9:6, 24; 16:21a; 24:7; Ezek 20:12, 20; 38:16; Hos 6:3b; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9; Mic 6:5; Hab 2:14 Exod 5:2; 6:3; 33:12; Num 22:34; Deut 11:2a; Josh 2:9; 14:6; 23:14; 24:31; Judg 2:10; 14:4; 16:20; 1 Sam 2:12; 2 Kgs 2:3[2x], 5[2x]; 1 Chr 28:9; 29:17; Job 9:28; 10:13; 11:8; 18:21; 19:25; 23:3; 30:23; 36:26; 37:5, 15–16; 38:5; 42:2–3; Pss 56:9; 71:15; 73:22; 77:19; 78:3; 79:6; 91:14; 92:6; 95:10; 119:75, 152; 135:5; 140:12; 147:20; Prov 3:6; Eccl 3:14; 11:5; Isa 1:3; 40:21, 28; 43:19; 45:4–5; 48:6–8; Jer 2:8; 4:22; 5:4–5; 8:7; 9:3; 10:25; 31:34b; 33:3; Hos 2:8; 5:4; 8:2; 11:3; 13:4; Jonah 4:2; Mic 4:12;

Stative temporal process

References

New Testament No.

References

No.

Rom 1:21; 6:6; 1 John 4:6a; 2 John 1

4

Matt 13:11; Mark 15:45; Luke 8:10; Acts 1:7; 17:19–20; 22:14; 1 Cor 2:14; 1 Cor 8:2ac; Gal 2:9; 4:9a; Eph 3:19; 5:5; Phil 3:10

15

Matt 12:7; Luke 10:22; 18:34; 19:44; 24:18; John 1:10; 3:10; 6:69; 8:27, 43, 55; 10:6, 14b; 12:16; 13:28; 14:7ac, 9, 17[2x]; 16:3; 17:7–8, 25ac; Acts 8:30; Rom 2:18; 10:19; 1 Cor 1:21; 2:8[2x], 11, 16; 8:2b, 3; 13:9; 2 Cor 5:16a; 8:9; Heb 3:10; 1 John 2:3b, 13, 14[2x]; 3:1b, 6, 16, 24; 4:7–8; Rev 3:3;

50

(continued)

  APPENDIX E: OCCURRENCES OF TEMPORAL AND ATEMPORAL PROFILES… 

253

(continued) Relational profile

Old Testament

Dynamic temporal process

217 Matt 9:30; 21:45; 24:33; 46 Gen 24:14; 28:16; Exod 6:7; 7:5, Mark 5:43; 12:12; 13:29; 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 11:7; Luke 10:11; 20:19; 14:4, 18; 16:6; 12; 18:11, 16; 21:31; 24:35; John 4:53; 29:46; 33:13[2x], 16; Lev 23:43; 7:17, 26–27; 8:28, 32, Num 12:6; 14:34; 16:5, 28; 22:19; 52; 10:38[2x]; 13:7, 12, Deut 4:9, 39; 7:9; 8:5; 9:3, 6; 35; 14:7b, 20, 31; 15:18; 11:2b; 18:21; 29:6; 31:13; Josh 17:3, 23; 19:4; Acts 2:36; 3:7, 10; 4:22; 22:31; 23:13; Judg 17:13; Rom 11:34; 1 Cor 6:37; 17:13; 1 Sam 3:7; 6:9; 17:46, 13:12; 2 Cor 5:16b; Gal 47; 18:28; 22:3; 2 Sam 5:12; 1 Kgs 3:7; Heb 8:11; 1 John 8:43a; 17:24; 18:36–37; 20:13, 28; 2:3a, 4–5; 4:2, 6b, 13, 16; 2 Kgs 5:15; 10:10; 19:19; 1 Chr 5:20; Rev 2:23; 3:9. 14:2; 16:8; 2 Chr 6:33a; 12:8; 25:16; 33:13; Neh 6:16; 9:14; Job 10:2; 11:6; 19:6; 23:5; Pss 4:3; 9:16; 16:11; 20:6; 25:4; 39:4[2x]; 41:11; 46:10; 48:3; 51:6; 59:13; 77:14; 78:6; 81:5; 83:18; 89:1; 90:12; 98:2; 100:3; 103:7; 105:1; 109:27; 119:79, 125; 143:8; Eccl 11:9; Isa 5:5, 19; 12:4; 19:12, 21[2x]; 33:13; 37:20; 38:19; 41:20; 43:10; 45:3, 6; 49:23, 26; 52:6; 60:16; 66:14; Jer 2:19; 11:18[2x]; 16:21bc; 28:9; 34a; 32:8; 44:29; Ezek 5:13; 6:7, 10, 13–14; 7:4, 9, 27; 11:10, 12; 12:15–16, 20; 13:9, 14, 21, 23; 14:8, 23; 15:7; 16:62; 17:21, 24; 20:5, 9, 11, 26, 38, 42, 44; 21:5; 22:16, 22; 23:49; 24:24, 27; 25:5, 7, 11, 14, 17; 26:6; 28:22–24, 26; 29:6, 9, 16, 21; 30:8, 19, 25–26; 32:15; 33:29; 34:27, 30; 35:4, 9, 11–12, 15; 36:11, 23, 32, 36, 38; 37:6, 13–14, 28; 38:23[2x]; 39:6–7[2x], 22, 28; Hos 2:20; 5:9; 6:3a; Joel 2:27; 3:17; Hab 3:2; Zech 2:9, 11; 4:9; 6:15; 11:11; Mal 2:4. 334

Total

References

New Testament No.

References

No.

Bibliography

Abraham, William J. “Epistemology, Religious.” The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, 156–61. Edited by Alister E. McGrath. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1999. ———. Aldersgate and Athens: John Wesley and the Foundations of Christian Belief. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010. Abraham, William J., and Frederick D. Aquino. “Introduction: The Epistemology of Theology.” Pages 1–6 in The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology. Edited by William J. Abraham and Frederick D. Aquino. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017a. ———, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017b. Allen, Paul L. Theological Method: A Guide for the Perplexed. New  York: T&T Clark, 2012. Allwood, Jens. “Meaning Potentials and Context: Some Consequences for the Analysis of Variation in Meaning.” Pages 29–65  in Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Edited by Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven, and John R. Taylor. Cognitive Linguistics Research. 23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Alston, William P. Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. 1991. Repr., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993. Andersen, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes. Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Anstey, Peter R. “Locke.” Pages 111–28  in Knowledge in Modern Philosophy. Edited by Stephen Gaukroger. Vol. 3 of The Philosophy of Knowledge: A History. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

255

256 

Bibliography

Audi, Robert. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. 3rd ed. Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2011. Avis, Paul D.  L. The Methods of Modern Theology: The Dream of Reason. Contemporary Christian Studies. Basingstoke, UK: Marshall Pickering, 1986. Avrahami, Yael. The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible. LHBOTS 545. New York: T&T Clark, 2012. Baker, Deane-Peter. “Introduction: Alvin Plantinga, God’s Philosopher.” Pages 1–14  in Alvin Plantinga. Edited by Deane-Peter Baker. Contemporary Philosophy in Focus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Balentine, Samuel E. “Sagacious Divine Judgment: Jeremiah’s Use of Proverbs to Construct an Ethos and Ethics of Divine Epistemology.” Pages 113–25 in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup. 178. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. [London]: Oxford University Press, 1961. ———. “Hebrew Lexicography: Informal Thoughts.” Pages 137–51 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Walter R.  Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Bartholomew, Craig G. Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Framework for Hearing God in Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Barton, John. “Historiography and Theodicy in the Old Testament.” Pages 27–33  in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy Henry Lim, and W. Brian Aucker. VTSup. 113. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Bebbington, David W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. 1989. Repr., London: Routledge, 2005. Beckwith, Francis J., William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, eds. To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview; Essays in Honor of Norman L. Geisler. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Beilby, James K. “Contemporary Religious Epistemology: Some Key Aspects.” Pages 795–830 in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. ———. “Plantinga’s Model of Warranted Christian Belief.” Pages 125–65  in Alvin Plantinga. Edited by Deane-Peter Baker. Contemporary Philosophy in Focus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ———. Thinking about Christian Apologetics: What It Is and Why We Do It. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011. ———. Epistemology as Theology: An Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga’s Religious Epistemology. 2005. Repr., London: Routledge, 2017.

 Bibliography 

257

Beversluis, John. “Reforming the ‘Reformed’ Objection to Natural Theology.” Faith and Philosophy 12.2 (1995): 189–206, doi:https://doi.org/10.5840/ faithphil19951229. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bloesch, Donald G. A Theology of Word and Spirit: Authority and Method in Theology. Christian Foundations 1. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Boa, Kenneth D., and Robert M. Bowman, Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2005. Bock, Darrell L. Luke 9:51–24:53. BECNT 3B.  Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996. Bodine, Walter R., ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3. Edited by Martin Rüter, Ilse Tödt, and John W.  De Gruchy. Translated by Douglas Stephen Bax. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Bosman, Tiana. “Biblical Hebrew Lexicology and Cognitive Semantics: A Study of Lexemes of Affection.” PhD diss., Stellenbosch University, 2011. Brantley, Richard E. “The Common Ground of Wesley and Edwards.” HTR 83.3 (1990): 271–303. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John (I–XII). AB 29. New  York: Doubleday, 1966. ———. The Epistles of John. AB 30. New York: Doubleday, 1982. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. ———. Deuteronomy. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. ———. “The God Who Gives Rest.” Pages 565–90  in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas Dozeman, Craig A. Evans, and Joel N. Lohr. VTSup. 164. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Brümmer, Vincent. The Model of Love: A Study in Philosophical Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Bultmann, Rudolf. “γινώσκω κτλ.” TDNT 1:689–714. Burdick, Donald W. “Oἶδα and Γινώσκω in the Pauline Epistles.” Pages 344–56 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker, and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Burton, Marilyn. The Semantics of Glory: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning. SSN 68. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Byrne, Peter. Natural Religion and the Nature of Religion: The Legacy of Deism. Routledge Library Editions: Philosophy of Religion 4. 1989. Repr., London: Routledge, 2013. Canale, Fernando L. A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness As Primordial Presuppositions. AUSDDS 10. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987.

258 

Bibliography

Caneday, A.  B. “Is Theological Truth Functional or Propositional? Postconservatism’s Use of Language Games and Speech-Act Theory.” Pages 137–59 in Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times. Edited by Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. Carasik, Michael. Theologies of the Mind in Ancient Israel. Studies in Biblical Literature 85. New York: Lang, 2006. Carnell, Edward John. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics: A Philosophical Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith. 1948. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007. Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. PNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion.” Pages 3–40  in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Clapp, James Gordon. “Locke, John.” EP 5:374–94. Clines, David J. A. Job 1–20. WBC 17. Dallas: Word, 1989. Corneanu, Sorana. Regimens of the Mind: Boyle, Locke, and the Early Modern Cultura Animi Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. 1975. Repr., London: T&T Clark, 2004. Crenshaw, James L. “Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel.” ZAW 82.3 (1970): 380–95. Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Crumley II, Jack S. An Introduction to Epistemology. 2nd ed. Broadview Guides to Philosophy. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 2009. Cullison, Andrew. “Epistemology: A Brief Historical Overview and Some Puzzles about Methodology.” Pages 1–19 in The Bloomsbury Companion to Epistemology. Edited by Andrew Cullison. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Cuyckens, Hubert, René Dirven, and John R. Taylor, eds. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Cognitive Linguistics Research. 23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Davidson, Richard M. “The Divine Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective.” JATS 21.1–2 (2010): 45–84. Dayton, Donald W. “Some Doubts about the Usefulness of the Category ‘Evangelical’.” Pages 245–51 in The Variety of American Evangelicalism. Edited

 Bibliography 

259

by Donald W.  Dayton, and Robert K.  Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991. DePoe, John M., and Tyler Dalton McNabb, eds. Debating Christian Religious Epistemology: An Introduction to Five Views on the Knowledge of God. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. Di Vito, Robert A. “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity.” CBQ 61.2 (1999): 217–38. Dieter, Melvin E. The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 1996. Dietrich, Jan. “Human Relationality and Sociality in Ancient Israel: Mapping the Social Anthropology of the Old Testament.” Pages 23–44 in “What is Human?” Theological Encounters with Anthropology. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker, Jan Dietrich, and Bo Kristian Holm. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Dulles, Avery. Models of Revelation. New York: Doubleday, 1983. ———. The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System. 2nd ed. New  York: Crossroad, 1999. Dumitrescu, Cristian. “Cosmic Conflict as a Hermeneutical Framework for Mission Theology in the Old Testament.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 2010. Edwards, Jonathan. “Dissertation I: Concerning the End for Which God Created the World.” Pages 403–536 in Ethical Writings. Edited by Paul Ramsey. Vol. 8 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. “A Divine and Supernatural Light.” Pages 405–27  in Sermons and Discourses, 1730–1733. Edited by Mark Valeri. Vol. 17 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. ———. “Discourse on the Trinity.” Pages 109–44  in Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith. Edited by Sang Hyun Lee. Vol. 21 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003a. ———. “The Importance and Advantage of a Thorough Knowledge of Divine Truth.” Pages 79–102 in Sermons and Discourses, 1739–1742. Edited by Harry S. Stout, Nathan O. Hatch, and Kyle P. Farley. Vol. 22 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003b. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin K. Bergen, and Jörg Zinken. “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise: An Overview.” Pages 2–36  in The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Edited by Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen, and Jörg Zinken. Advances in Cognitive Linguistics. London: Equinox, 2007a. ———, eds. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Advances in Cognitive Linguistics. London: Equinox, 2007b.

260 

Bibliography

Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Fabricius, Steffi. Pauline Hamartiology: Conceptualisation and Transferences. HUT 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Fairlamb, Horace. “Sanctifying Evidentialism.” RelS 46.1 (2010): 61–76. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Feinberg, John S. Can You Believe It’s True? Christian Apologetics in a Modern and Postmodern Era. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Feldman, Richard, and Andrew Cullison. “Evidentialism.” Pages 105–19 in The Bloomsbury Companion to Epistemology. Edited by Andrew Cullison. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Fergusson, David A. S. “Revelation.” OCCT, 618–21. Fewster, Gregory P. “Towards a Model of Functional Monosemy: A Study of Creation Language in Romans.” Pages 250–76 in Modeling Biblical Language: Selected Papers from the McMaster Divinity College Linguistics Circle. Edited by Stanley E.  Porter, Gregory P.  Fewster, and Christopher D.  Land. LBS. 13. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Fillmore, Charles J. “Frame Semantics.” Pages 373–400 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts. Cognitive Linguistics Research. 34. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008a. ———. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. 1993. Repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008b. Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002. Fretheim, Terence E. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Gane, Roy. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. Gaukroger, Stephen. Descartes’ System of Natural Philosophy. 2002. Repr., Cambridge University Press, 2004a. ———. Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy. 2001. Repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004b. ———. “Introduction.” Pages 1–6 in Knowledge in Modern Philosophy. Edited by Stephen Gaukroger. Vol. 3 of The Philosophy of Knowledge: A History. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. Geeraerts, Dirk. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

 Bibliography 

261

Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens. “Introducing Cognitive Linguistics.” Pages 3–21 in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Geisler, Norman L. Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. ———. Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. ———. Systematic Theology: In One Volume. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2011. ———. Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Geisler, Norman L., and Ronald M. Brooks. Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking. 1990. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000. Geisler, Norman L., and Winfried Corduan. Philosophy of Religion. 2nd ed. 1988. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Geisler, Norman L., and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective. 1980. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007. Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974. ———. A General Introduction to the Bible. 2nd ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986. Geisler, Norman L., and Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013. Geisler, Norman L., and William D. Watkins. Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom Through Covenant: A BiblicalTheological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018. Goldingay, John. Israel’s Gospel. Vol. 1 of Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003. ———. Israel’s Faith. Vol. 2 of Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006. ———. Biblical Theology: The God of the Christian Scriptures. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016. Greco, John. “Virtue Epistemology.” Pages 75–82 in A Companion to Epistemology. Edited by Jonathan Dancy, Ernest Sosa, and Matthias Steup. 2nd ed. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. ———. “Reformed Epistemology.” Pages 689–99  in Routledge Companion of Philosophy of Religion. Edited by Chad Meister, and Paul Copan. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2013.

262 

Bibliography

———. “Knowledge of God.” Pages 9–29  in The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology. Edited by William J.  Abraham, and Frederick D. Aquino. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Green, Joel B. Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. STI. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. ———. Conversion in Luke-Acts: Divine Action, Human Cognition, and the People of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Gregory, Jeremy. “The Long Eighteenth Century.” Pages 13–39 in The Cambridge Companion to John Wesley. Edited by Randy L. Maddox, and Jason E. Vickers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Grenz, Stanley J. Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ———. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ———. What Christians Really Believe—and Why. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998. ———. “Beyond Foundationalism: Is a Nonfoundationalist Evangelical Theology Possible?” CSR 30.1 (2000a): 57–82. ———. “Culture and Spirit: The Role of Cultural Context in Theological Reflection.” AsTJ 55.2 (2000b): 37–51. ———. “The Spirit and the Word: The World-Creating Function of the Text.” ThTo 57.3 (2000c): 357–74. ———. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000d. ———. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei. The Matrix of Christian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ———. “The Social God and the Relational Self: Toward a Theology of the Imago Dei in the Postmodern Context.” HBT 24.1 (2002): 33–57. ———. “Participating in What Frees: The Concept of Truth in the Postmodern Context.” RevExp 100.4 (2003): 687–93. ———. “Celebrating Eternity: Christian Worship as a Foretaste of Participation in the Triune God.” AsTJ 60.1 (2005a): 43–53. ———. The Named God and the Question of Being: A Trinitarian Theo-Ontology. The Matrix of Christian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005b. ———. Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006. Grenz, Stanley J., and John R. Franke. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Gulley, Norman R. Systematic Theology: God as Trinity. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2011. ———. Systematic Theology: Creation, Christ, Salvation. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2012.

 Bibliography 

263

Gutjahr, Paul C. Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy. New  York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14–28. WBC 33B. Dallas: Word, 1995. Hagner, Donald A., and Murray J. Harris, eds. Pauline Studies: Essays presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday. Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Hamilton, James M. God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Harrison, R. K. “Deliverance, Deliverer.” EDT, 330–31. Hartvigsen, Kirsten Marie. Prepare the Way of the Lord: Towards a Cognitive Poetic Analysis of Audience Involvement with Characters and Events in the Markan World. BZAW 180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Hasel, Gerhard F. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Hasker, William. “Epistemology, Religious.” EP 3:320–23. Hastings, Ross. Missional God, Missional Church: Hope for Re-evangelizing the West. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012. Hawthorne, Gerald F., and Ralph P.  Martin. Philippians. 2nd ed. WBC 43. Nashville: Nelson, 2004. Haykin, Michael A. G., and Kenneth J. Stewart, eds. The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008. Haymes, Brian. The Concept of the Knowledge of God. Library of Philosophy and Religion. London: Macmillan, 1988. Helm, Paul. Faith with Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Helseth, Paul Kjoss. “Charles Hodge.” Pages 38–48 in The Routledge Companion to Modern Christian Thought. Edited by Chad V. Meister, and James K. Beilby. London: Routledge, 2013. Hempton, David. Methodism: Empire of the Spirit. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Henry, Carl F.  H. God, Revelation, and Authority. 6 vols. 1976–1983. Repr., Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. New York: Scribner, 1872–73. House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter Millican. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Huyssteen, Wentzel van. Theology and the Justification of Faith: Constructing Theories in Systematic Theology. Translated by H.  F. Snijders. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

264 

Bibliography

Janowski, Bernd. Anthropologie des Alten Testaments: Grundfragen—Kontexte— Themenfelder. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Johnson, Dru. Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013. ———. Knowledge by Ritual: A Biblical Prolegomenon to Sacramental Theology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016. ———. Epistemology and Biblical Theology: From the Pentateuch to Mark’s Gospel. Routledge Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Biblical Criticism. New  York: Routledge, 2018. Johnston, Robert K. God’s Wider Presence: Reconsidering General Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Kamionkowski, S. Tamar. “Introduction.” Pages 1–10 in Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by S.  Tamar Kamionkowski, and Wonil Kim. LHBOTS. 465. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Kant, Immanuel. “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason.” Pages 39–215  in Religion and Rational Theology. Edited by Allen W.  Wood, and George Di Giovanni. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Kenny, Anthony. The Rise of Modern Philosophy. Vol. 3 of A New History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006. Klingbeil, Gerald A. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible. BBRSup 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Krapohl, Robert, and Charles H. Lippy. The Evangelicals: A Historical, Thematic, and Biographical Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1999. Kruse, Colin G. The Letters of John. PNT.  Leicester: Apollos; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Kvanvig, Jonathan L. “Epistemic Justification.” Pages 25–36  in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Edited by Sven Bernecker, and Duncan Pritchard. Routledge Philosophy Companions. New York: Routledge, 2011. Langacker, Ronald W. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. New  York: Oxford University Press, 2013. LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Andrews University Monographs. Studies in Religion 13. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983. Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. 1969. Repr., Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 2007. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. WBC 42. Dallas: Word, 1990.

 Bibliography 

265

Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. 1984. Repr., Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Locke, John. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter H.  Nidditch. The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Long, D.  Stephen. Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth. Eerdmans Ekkesia Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Longman III, Tremper. “Warfare.” NDBT, 835–39. Ludwig, Kirk. “Belief.” EP 1:532–36. MacCarty, Skip. In Granite or Ingrained?: What the Old and New Covenants Reveal about the Gospel, the Law, and the Sabbath. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2007. Maddox, Randy L. “Reclaiming an Inheritance: Wesley as Theologian in the History of Methodist Theology.” Pages 213–26 in Rethinking Wesley’s Theology for Contemporary Methodism. Edited by Randy L. Maddox. Kingswood Books. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1998. Magyarosi, Barna. Holy War and Cosmic Conflict in the Old Testament: From the Exodus to the Exile. Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series 9. Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 2010. Marsden, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. ———. Fundamentalism and American Culture. 2nd ed. New  York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Marshall, I.  Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. ———. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. McClymond, Michael J. Encounters with God: An Approach to the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Religion in America. New  York: Oxford University Press, 1998. McDermott, Gerald R. “Introduction.” Pages 3–18 in The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology. Edited by Gerald R.  McDermott. New  York: Oxford University Press, 2010. McDermott, Gerald R., and Harold A.  Netland. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: LifeChanging Truth for a Skeptical World. Nashville: Nelson, 2017. McGrath, Alister E. The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2014. Meister, Chad V. Introducing Philosophy of Religion. New York: Routledge, 2009.

266 

Bibliography

Merwe, Christo H.  J. van der. “An Overview of Recent Developments in the Description of Biblical Hebrew Relevant to Bible Translation.” AcT 22.1 (2002): 228–45. ———. “Towards a Principled Working Model for Biblical Hebrew Lexicology.” JNSL 30.1 (2004): 119–37. ———. “Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics: A Case Study.” Bib 87.1 (2006): 85–95. Miethe, Terry L. “Introduction.” Pages xiii–vii in I Am Put Here for the Defense of the Gospel. Edited by Terry L. Miethe. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Morley, Brian K. Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015. Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. NICNT. 1971. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Moser, Paul K. “Introduction.” Pages 3–24 in The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Edited by Paul K. Moser. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Mounce, Robert H. Romans. NAC 27. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Mouton, Johann, and H. C. Marais. Basic Concepts in the Methodology of the Social Sciences. Translated by K.  F. Mauer. 2nd ed. HSRC Series in Methodology. 1990. Repr., Pretoria: HSRC, 1996. Mullins, R. T. The End of the Timeless God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Murphy, Nancey. Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? Current Issues in Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Noll, Mark A. America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. ———. The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys. A History of Evangelicalism 1. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003. ———. “What Is ‘Evangelical’?” Pages 19–32  in The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology. Edited by Gerald R.  McDermott. New  York: Oxford University Press, 2010. ———. “World Cup or World Series?” Pages 300–15 in Evangelicals: Who They Have Been, Are Now, and Could Be. Edited by Mark A.  Noll, David W. Bebbington, and George M. Marsden. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019a. Noll, Mark A., David W. Bebbington, and George M. Marsden, eds. Evangelicals: Who They Have Been, Are Now, and Could Be. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019b. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Nuovo, Victor. John Locke: The Philosopher as Christian Virtuoso. Oxford: Clarendon, 2017. O’Dowd, Ryan P. “Memory on the Boundary: Epistemology in Deuteronomy.” Pages 3–23 in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Edited by Mary Healy and Robin Parry. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007.

 Bibliography 

267

———. The Wisdom of Torah: Epistemology in Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature. FRLANT 225. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Oden, Thomas C. God and Providence. Vol. 1 of John Wesley’s Teachings. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Oeming, Manfred. Contemporary Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Translated by Joachim V. Vette. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Oliphint, K. Scott. “Epistemology and Christian Belief.” WTJ 63 (2001): 151–82. Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999. ———. Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology. Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004. ———. “Evangelical Theology.” Pages 549–59  in The Routledge Companion to Modern Christian Thought. Edited by Chad V. Meister, and James K. Beilby. London: Routledge, 2013a. ———. The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013b. ———. The Essentials of Christian Thought: Seeing Reality Through the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Outler, Albert C., ed. Sermons I, 1–33. Vol. 1 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Edited by Frank Baker. Nashville: Abingdon, 1984. Outler, Albert C., ed. Sermons II, 34–70. Vol. 2 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Edited by Frank Baker. Nashville: Abingdon, 1985. Outler, Albert C., ed. Sermons III, 71–114. Vol. 3 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Edited by Frank Baker. Nashville: Abingdon, 1986. Outler, Albert C., ed. Sermons IV, 115–151. Vol. 4 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Edited by Frank Baker. Nashville: Abingdon, 1987. Padilla, Osvaldo. “Postconservative Theologians and Scriptural Authority.” Pages 644–68  in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991–1998. Peckham, John C. The Love of God: A Canonical Model. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015. ———. Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. ———. Theodicy of Love: Cosmic Conflict and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. Peterson, Paul Silas, ed. Generous Orthodoxies: Essays on the History and Future of Ecumenical Theology. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020.

268 

Bibliography

Petre, Dan-Adrian. “Grasping the Conceptual Meaning of the Biblical Text: A Cognitive Analysis of ‫ידע‬.” DavarLogos 19.2 (2020): 1–36. Pinnock, Clark H. “Revelation.” NDT, 585–87. Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. 1967. Repr., Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975. ———. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. ———. “On Reformed Epistemology.” Reformed Journal 32.1 (1982): 13–17. ———. “Advice to Christian Philosophers.” Faith and Philosophy 1.3 (1984): 253–71. ———. Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993a. ———. Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993b. ———. “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism.” Pages 172–92  in The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity. Edited by Philip L. Quinn, and Kevin Meeker. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000a. ———. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000b. ———. “Reason and Belief in God.” Pages 16–93  in Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. Edited by Alvin Plantinga, and Nicholas Wolterstorff. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004. ———. “Against Materialism.” Faith and Philosophy 23.1 (2006): 3–32. ———. “On ‘Proper Basicality’.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75.3 (2007): 612–21. ———. “Naturalism, Theism, Obligation and Supervenience.” Faith and Philosophy 27.3 (2010): 247–72. ———. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Pojman, Louis P. What Can We Know? An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001. Pokorný, Petr. Hermeneutics as a Theory of Understanding. Translated by Anna Bryson-Gustová. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Edited by D. A. Carson. SBG 1. 1989. Repr., New York: Lang, 2010. ———. Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Porter, Stanley E., and Steven M. Studebaker. “Method in Systematic Theology.” Pages 1–28  in Evangelical Theological Method: Five Views. Edited by Stanley E.  Porter, and Steven M.  Studebaker. Spectrum Multiview Books. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018. Potterie, Ignace de la. “Oἶδα et γινώσκω les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrième évangile.” Bib 40.3 (1959): 709–25. Powell, Samuel M. “The Theological Significance of the Holiness Movement.” QR 25.2 (2005): 126–40.

 Bibliography 

269

Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Old Testament Theology. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. 2 vols. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995–1996. Priselac, Matthew. Locke’s Science of Knowledge. Routledge Studies in SeventeenthCentury Philosophy 15. New York: Routledge, 2017. Pritchard, Duncan. Epistemology. Palgrave Philosophy Today. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Propp, William H.  C. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. NewYork: Doubleday, 1999. Rae, Murray. “‘Incline Your Ear so that You May Live’: Principles of Biblical Epistemology.” Pages 161–80 in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Edited by Mary Healy, and Robin Parry. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Rasmussen, Michael D. Conceptualizing Distress in Psalms: A Form-Critical and Cognitive Semantic Study of the ‫ צרר‬Word Group. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018. Rea, Michael C. “Plantinga, Alvin.” EP 7:579–81. ———. “Authority and Truth.” Pages 872–98 in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Reid, Jasper. “The Metaphysics of Jonathan Edwards and David Hume.” Hume Studies 32.1 (2006): 53–82, https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2011.0220. Reid, Thomas. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Edited by Derek R. Brookes. The Edinburgh Edition of Thomas Reid. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002. Reumann, John. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Roberts, Terry. “A Review of BDAG.” Pages 53–65 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Rocine, B.  M. Learning Biblical Hebrew: A New Approach Using Discourse Analysis. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000. Rohrer, Tim. “Embodiment and Experientialism.” Pages 25–47  in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rorty, Richard. “Intuition.” EP 4:722–32. ———. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. 1979. Repr., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980. Saeed, John I. Semantics. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.

270 

Bibliography

Schabas, Margaret. “Hume.” Pages 129–46 in Knowledge in Modern Philosophy. Edited by Stephen Gaukroger. Vol. 3 of The Philosophy of Knowledge: A History. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. Schindler, D.  C. “Mystery and Mastery: Philosophical Reflections on Biblical Epistemology.” Pages 181–97 in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Edited by Mary Healy and Robin Parry. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St. John. Translated by David Smith and G. A. Kon. 3 vols. Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament. Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK: Burns & Oates; New  York: Crossroad, 1982. Schnelle, Udo. Neutestamentliche Anthropologie. BThSt 18. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. ———. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M.  Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Scobie, Charles H.  H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Scott, Ian W. Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul: Story, Experience and the Spirit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ———. Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Selby, Rosalind M. The Comical Doctrine: An Epistemology of New Testament Hermeneutics. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. Sexton, Jason S. The Trinitarian Theology of Stanley J. Grenz. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Sharpe, Matthew. “Bacon.” Pages 7–26 in Knowledge in Modern Philosophy. Edited by Stephen Gaukroger. Vol. 3 of The Philosophy of Knowledge: A History. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. Shead, Stephen L. Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics. BibInt 108. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Sherman, Steven B. “Revitalizing Theological Epistemology: Holistic Evangelical Approaches to the Knowledge of God.” PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2004. ———. “The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: ΓΙΝΟΣΚΕΙΝ and Related Verbs.” Pages 184–207 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday. Edited by Donald A.  Hagner, and Murray J.  Harris. Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. ———. God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

 Bibliography 

271

———, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Simmons, Keith. “Truth.” EP 9:534–42. Sosa, Ernest. “The Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence versus Foundations in the Theory of Knowledge.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5.1 (1980): 3–26, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1980.tb00394.x. ———. Epistemology. Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017. Smith, R.  Scott. “Language, Theological Knowledge, and the Postmodern Paradigm.” Pages 109–33 in Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times. Edited by Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. ———. “Non-Foundational Epistemologies and the Truth of Scriptures.” Pages 831–71  in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Stettler, Christian. Das Endgericht bei Paulus: Framesemantische und exegetische Studien zur paulinischen Eschatologie und Soteriologie. WUNT 371. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Sweeney, Douglas A. The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Szalos-Farkas, Zoltán. Dumnezeu, Scriptura și Biserica. Tratat de teologie, hristologie și spiritualitate [God, the Scripture and the Church. A Treatise on Theology, Christology, and Spirituality]. Bucharest: Universitară, 2013. Taber, Tyler M. “Revealed but Hidden? Plantinga, Sin, and the Hiddenness of God.” CTR 12.1 (2014): 69–80. Talmy, Leonard. Concept Structuring Systems. Vol. 1 of Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000. Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. ———. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Thiselton, Anthony C. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer and Wittgenstein. Exter: Paternoster, 1980. ———. “On Models and Methods: A Conversation with Robert Morgan.” Pages 337–56 in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield. Edited by David J.A.  Clines, Stephen E.  Fowl, and Stanley E.  Porter. JSNTSup. 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ———. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

272 

Bibliography

———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. ———. A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oneworld, 2002. ———. Thiselton on Hermeneutics: The Collected Works and New Essays of Anthony Thiselton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. ———. The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ———. Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. Approaching Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction to Key Thinkers, Concepts, Methods and Debates. London: SPCK, 2017. Thuesen, Peter J. “Election (Doctrine).” JEE, 188–92. Tidball, Derek J., Brian S. Harris, and Jason S. Sexton, eds. Revisioning, Renewing, Rediscovering the Triune Center: Essays in Honor of Stanley J. Grenz. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. Tilford, Nicole L. Sensing World, Sensing Wisdom: The Cognitive Foundation of Biblical Metaphors. AIL 31. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Tonstad, Sigve K. The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009. Torrance, Thomas F. Reality and Evangelical Theology: The Realism of Christian Revelation. 1982. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Treier, Daniel J. Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward Theology as Wisdom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Treloar, Geoffrey R. The Disruption of Evangelicalism: The Age of Torrey, Mott, McPherson and Hammond. A History of Evangelicalism 4. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017. Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jörg Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2006. Vall, Gregory. “An Epistemology of Faith: The Knowledge of God in Israel’s Prophetic Literature.” Pages 24–42  in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Edited by Mary Healy, and Robin Parry. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Van Cleve, James. “Reid, Thomas.” EP 8:322–30. Vandici, Gratian. “Reading the Rules of Knowledge in the Story of the Fall: Calvin and Reformed Epistemology on the Noetic Effects of Original Sin.” JTI 10.2 (2016): 173–91. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. ———. “Scripture and Tradition.” Pages 149–69 in The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology. Edited by Kevin J.  Vanhoozer. New  York: Cambridge University Press, 2003a. ———, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology. New  York: Cambridge University Press, 2003b.

 Bibliography 

273

———. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. ———. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine. New  York: Cambridge University Press, 2010a. ———. “Scripture and Hermeneutics.” Pages 35–52 in The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology. Edited by Gerald R.  McDermott. New  York: Oxford University Press, 2010b. ———. Pictures at a Theological Exhibition: Scenes of the Church’s Worship, Witness and Wisdom. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016. Vanhoozer, Kevin J., and Daniel J. Treier. Theology and the Mirror of Scripture: A Mere Evangelical Account. Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015. Veeneman, Mary M. Introducing Theological Method: A Survey of Contemporary Theologians and Approaches. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. Wahlberg, Mats. Revelation as Testimony: A Philisophical-Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Waltke, Bruce K., and Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Webster, John. The Culture of Theology. Edited by Ivor J.  Davidson, and Alden C. McCray. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019. Wellum, Stephen J. “Postconservatism, Biblical Authority, and Recent Proposals for Re-Doing Evangelical Theology: A Critical Analysis.” Pages 161–97  in Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times. Edited by Millard J.  Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley. Edited by Frank Baker, Richard Heitzenrater, and Randy L. Maddox. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Nashville: Abingdon, 1984–. ———. “An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion (1743).” Pages 37–94 in The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related Open Letters. Edited by Gerald R. Cragg. Vol. 11 of The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. 1975. Repr., Nashville: Abingdon, 1989. Widder, Wendy L. “To Teach” in Ancient Israel: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of a Biblical Hebrew Lexical Set. BZAW 456. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Wiley, H.  Orton. Christian Theology. 3 vols. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1940–1943. Williams, Stephen N. “Providence.” NDBT, 710–15. Williamson, Paul R. “Covenant.” DOTP, 139–55.

274 

Bibliography

Wolde, Ellen van. Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Wolff, Hans Walter. “‘Wissen um Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie.” EvT 12.1–6 (1952): 533–54, doi:https://doi.org/10.14315/ evth-1952-1-642. ———. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Translated by Margaret Kohl. 1974. Repr., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. “Tradition, Insight and Constraint.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 66.3 (1992): 43–57, doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3130660. ———. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ———. Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology. Modern European Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Wood, Laurence Willard. “Wesley’s Epistemology.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 10 (1975): 48–59. Wood, W.  Jay. Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous. Contours of Christian Philosophy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Wright, Christopher J.  H. Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Wright, N. T. The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. Yoder, Douglas. Tanakh Epistemology: Knowledge and Power, Religious and Secular. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. On Epistemology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009. Ziegert, Carsten. “What Is ‫?חסֶ ד‬ ֶ ֫ A Frame-Semantic Approach.” JSOT 44.4 (2020): 711–32, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089219862806. Zimmerli, Walther. “Knowledge of God according to the Book of Ezekiel (1954).” Pages 29–98 in I Am Yahweh. Edited by Walter Brueggemann. Translated by Douglas W. Scott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.

Author Index1

A Abraham, William J., 23n68 Allen, Paul L., 10n55 Allwood, Jens, 97n82 Alston, William P., 52, 52n262, 53 Andersen, Francis I., 81n58 Anstey, Peter R., 16n9, 17n15 Aquino, Frederick D., 2n9, 4n28, 9n52, 9n53 Audi, Robert, 2n12, 30n121, 30n124, 30n125 Avis, Paul D. L., 8n47 Avrahami, Yael, 124n9 B Bacon, Francis, 16 Baker, Deane-Peter, 6n35, 50n253 Balentine, Samuel E., 90n71 Barr, James, 109, 109n97, 110n98 Bartholomew, Craig G., 132n54 Barton, John, 90n72

1

Beale, G. K., 131n47 Bebbington, David W., 1, 8, 24n73 Beckwith, Francis J., 6n34 Beilby, James K., 2n10, 50n253, 66n366, 66n367, 152n160 Bergen, Benjamin K., 70n387, 72n6 Beversluis, John, 142n112 Block, Daniel I., 135n71 Bloesch, Donald G., 145n125 Boa, Kenneth D., 32n135 Bock, Darrell L., 131n49 Bodine, Walter R., 83n62 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 64, 64n351 Bosman, Tiana, 76n31, 78n48 Bowman Jr., Robert M., 32n135, 152n157 Brantley, Richard E., 18n21 Brooks, Ronald M., 35n152, 36n159, 143n115 Brown, Raymond E., 137n79, 137n80 Brueggemann, Walter, 90n72, 91n74, 95n80

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

275

276 

AUTHOR INDEX

Brümmer, Vincent, 5n31 Bultmann, Rudolf, 103n92 Burdick, Donald W., 101n90 Burton, Marilyn, 76n31, 78n43, 80n55 Byrne, Peter, 17n18 C Canale, Fernando L., 130n43, 139n92 Caneday, A. B., 66n368, 144n121 Carasik, Michael, 79n49 Carnell, Edward John, 42n192 Carson, D. A., 114n108, 119n114 Childs, Brevard S., 95n80 Clapp, James Gordon, 16n10 Clines, David J. A., 89n68, 89n70 Corduan, Winfried, 2n13, 33n139, 35n154, 40n181, 41n185 Corneanu, Sorana, 16n3 Craig, William Lane, 148n144, 148n146 Craigie, Peter C., 91n74 Cranfield, C. E. B., 115n110 Crenshaw, James L., 79n49, 135n68 Croft, William, 78n47 Crumley II, Jack S., 29n118, 30n123 Cruse, D. Alan, 78n47 Cullison, Andrew, 31n128 Cuyckens, Hubert, 73n12 D Davidson, Richard M., 93n76 Dayton, Donald W., 7n41 DePoe, John M., 44n205 Descartes, René, 16, 17, 25 Dieter, Melvin E., 27n101 Dietrich, Jan, 133n59 Dirven, René, 97n82 Di Vito, Robert A., 124n3, 124n6, 133n57 Dulles, Avery, 5n31, 6n33 Dumitrescu, Cristian, 135n69, 136n72

E Edwards, Jonathan, 15, 18–20, 18n20, 20n36, 24, 25 Erickson, Millard J., 66n368, 128n32, 141n101, 141n106 Evans, C. Stephen, 151n155 Evans, Vyvyan, 70n387, 72n6, 72n7 F Fabricius, Steffi, 76n31 Fairlamb, Horace, 65 Fee, Gordon D., 136n74 Feinberg, John S., 33n138, 149n148 Feinberg, Paul D., 37n167 Feldman, Richard, 31n128 Fergusson, David A. S., 128n33 Fewster, Gregory P., 102n90 Fillmore, Charles J., 75n23 Finney, Charles G., 27 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 113n107 Forbes, A. Dean, 81n58 Frame, John M., 2n14 France, R. T., 114n109 Franke, John R., 63n344, 65n357, 141n102, 146n134 Fretheim, Terence E., 127n22 G Gane, Roy, 136n76, 136n78 Gaukroger, Stephen, 16n2, 16n4, 16n5, 16n6, 16n8, 16n9, 17n17, 24n76 Geeraerts, Dirk, 71n2, 72n2, 73n12 Geisler, Norman L., 6, 15, 32–41, 32n135, 33n140, 33n141, 34n142, 34n144, 34n145, 35n152, 36n163, 37n164, 37n168, 39n177, 40n180, 42n192, 42n194, 42n195, 43, 44, 65, 71, 139, 140, 142, 143, 143n113, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151

  AUTHOR INDEX 

Gentry, Peter J., 91n73 Goldingay, John, 127n24, 128n31, 129n38, 130n44, 131n46, 132n53, 136n77 Greco, John, 9n52, 31n133, 66n365 Green, Joel B., 124n4 Green, Melanie, 72n7 Gregory, Jeremy, 23n67 Grenz, Stanley J., 6, 6n36, 15, 32, 32n137, 55–67, 62n335, 63n342, 63n344, 64n355, 65n357, 67n373, 71, 140–142, 141n102, 144–147, 146n134, 150, 152 Gulley, Norman R., 131n48, 134n61 Gutjahr, Paul C., 32n134 H Hagner, Donald A., 79n50, 114n109 Hamilton, James M., 87n66, 91n73 Harris, Brian S., 6n36, 55n281 Harris, Murray J., 112n103 Harrison, R. K., 93n77 Hartvigsen, Kirsten Marie, 76n31 Hasel, Gerhard F., 91n73 Hasker, William, 33n140 Hastings, Ross, 135n67 Hawthorne, Gerald F., 119n116 Haykin, Michael A. G., 24n73 Haymes, Brian, 9n51, 136n75 Helm, Paul, 45n208 Helseth, Paul Kjoss, 32n134, 66n368, 141n101, 141n106 Hempton, David, 27 Henry, Carl F. H., 3n16 Hodge, Charles, 15, 25–28, 32, 32n134, 113n106 House, Paul R., 132n51 Hume, David, 24, 25 Huyssteen, Wentzel van, 5n32

277

J Janowski, Bernd, 125n15 Jewett, Robert, 124n8 Johnson, Dru, 79n49, 125n10, 125n13, 126n19, 130n41, 137n84 Johnston, Robert K., 7n41, 128n33 K Kamionkowski, S. Tamar, 137n82 Kant, Immanuel, 24, 25 Kenny, Anthony, 16n7, 17n17, 24n77 Klingbeil, Gerald A., 126n18, 127n22 Krapohl, Robert, 8n45 Kruse, Colin G., 125n14 Kvanvig, Jonathan L., 30n125 L Langacker, Ronald W., 75n24, 76n32 LaRondelle, Hans K., 135n70 Levinas, Emmanuel, 63n342 Lincoln, Andrew T., 137n83 Lindbeck, George A., 57, 57n294 Lippy, Charles H., 8n45 Locke, John, 15–18, 18n21 Long, D. Stephen, 139n90 Longenecker, Richard N., 119n117 Longman III, Tremper, 94n78 Ludwig, Kirk, 30n119 M MacCarty, Skip, 135n65 Maddox, Randy L., 21n41, 21n42, 23n67 Magyarosi, Barna, 94n78 Manis, R. Zachary, 151n155 Marais, H. C., 5n32 Marsden, George M., 8, 8n42, 8n44

278 

AUTHOR INDEX

Marshall, I. Howard, 110n101, 111n101 Martin, Ralph P., 119n116 McClymond, Michael J., 18n22 McDermott, Gerald R., 4n27 McDowell, Josh, 33n138 McDowell, Sean, 33n138 McGrath, Alister E., 151n154 McNabb, Tyler Dalton, 44n205 Meister, Chad V., 7n39, 32n134, 66n365 Merwe, Christo H. J. van der, 76n31 Miethe, Terry L., 6n34 Moo, Douglas J., 113n106 Moreland, J. P., 6n34 Morley, Brian K., 33n140, 149n149 Morris, Leon, 137n81 Moser, Paul K., 23n68 Mounce, Robert H., 129n36 Mouton, Johann, 5n32 Mullins, R. T., 130n43 Murphy, Nancey, 126n16 N Netland, Harold A., 135n67 Nix, William E., 42n194, 43n202 Noll, Mark A., 8, 8n42, 8n44, 24n74, 25n80 Nolland, John, 114n109 Nuovo, Victor, 17n16 O O’Connor, M., 83n59 Oden, Thomas C., 20n40, 22n46 O’Dowd, Ryan P., 131n45, 138n87 Oeming, Manfred, 10n60 Oliphint, K. Scott, 142n112 Olson, Roger E., 7, 27n104, 127n26 Osborne, Grant R., 11n65 Outler, Albert C., 21n41

P Padilla, Osvaldo, 144n122 Palmer, Phoebe, 27 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 57 Peckham, John C., 12, 12n70, 68, 68n380, 69, 132n55 Peterson, Paul Silas, 32n137 Petre, Dan-Adrian, 72n6, 80n56 Pinnock, Clark H., 128n34 Plantinga, Alvin, 6, 15, 32, 44–54, 44n206, 45n213, 47n227, 53n269, 65, 65n360, 66, 66n365, 66n366, 71, 139, 140, 142–145, 142n112, 147–149, 152, 152n160 Pojman, Louis P., 30n119, 65n363 Pokorný, Petr, 11n62, 11n64, 11n66 Porter, Stanley E., 101n90, 102n90 Potterie, Ignace de la, 101n90 Powell, Samuel M., 27n102 Preuss, Horst Dietrich, 132n52, 133n58 Priselac, Matthew, 17n13 Pritchard, Duncan, 29n118 Propp, William H. C., 79n49 R Rae, Murray, 128n30 Rasmussen, Michael D., 69n384, 76n31 Rea, Michael C., 6n35, 145n124 Reid, Jasper, 25n79 Reid, Thomas, 25 Reumann, John, 119n116 Roberts, Terry, 109n93 Rocine, B. M., 80n53 Rohrer, Tim, 73n12 Rorty, Richard, 10

  AUTHOR INDEX 

S Saeed, John I., 75n23 Sarna, Nahum M., 87n67 Schabas, Margaret, 24n76 Schindler, D. C., 127n28 Schmid, Hans-Jörg, 74n22 Schnackenburg, Rudolf, 119n114 Schnelle, Udo, 125n15, 130n42 Schreiner, Thomas R., 137n79 Scobie, Charles H. H., 124n7 Scott, Ian W., 5n29, 138n86 Selby, Rosalind M., 132n55 Sexton, Jason S., 6n36, 55n281 Sharpe, Matthew, 16n4 Shead, Stephen L., 72n4, 80n51, 80n52, 80n54, 80n56 Sherman, Steven B., 32n136 Simmons, Keith, 30n120 Smith, R. Scott, 6n36 Sosa, Ernest, 31n131 Stettler, Christian, 76n31 Stewart, Kenneth J., 24n73 Studebaker, Steven M., 2n7, 8n46 Sweeney, Douglas A., 24n73 Swinburne, Richard, 33n138 Szallós-Farkas, Zoltán, 127n27 T Taber, Tyler M., 142n112 Talmy, Leonard, 74n18 Taylor, John R, 76n32 Thiselton, Anthony C., 9n50, 10, 68, 68n379, 112n104, 113n105, 134n60 Thuesen, Peter J., 19n30 Tidball, Derek J., 6n36, 55n281 Tilford, Nicole L., 69n386 Tonstad, Sigve K., 92n75, 126n21 Torrance, Thomas F., 10n54 Treier, Daniel J., 67, 68, 68n379

279

Treloar, Geoffrey R., 27n103 Turek, Frank, 39n177 U Ungerer, Friedrich, 74n22 V Vall, Gregory, 79n49 Van Cleve, James, 25n81 Vandici, Gratian, 144n117 Vanhoozer, Kevin J, 4n27, 67, 67n373, 68, 68n379 Veeneman, Mary M., 1n5 W Wahlberg, Mats, 150n152 Waltke, Bruce K., 83n59, 132n50, 136n78 Watkins, William D., 40n180 Webster, John, 130n40 Wellum, Stephen J., 91n73, 146n134 Wesley, John, 15, 18, 18n20, 20–25, 22n46, 27 Widder, Wendy L., 97n83 Wiley, H. Orton, 15, 27–29, 27n104, 28n106, 28n112, 29n114, 32 Williams, Stephen N., 94n79 Williamson, Paul R, 91n73 Wolde, Ellen van, 76, 77, 78n45, 80, 83n59, 97n83, 98n84, 100n86, 101n87, 101n88, 118n112, 120n118 Wolff, Hans Walter, 124n7 Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 12n71 Wood, Laurence Willard, 25n79 Wood, W. Jay, 6n37, 65n362, 66n364

280 

AUTHOR INDEX

Wright, Christopher J. H., 131n47, 131n48 Wright, N. T., 138n85 Y Yoder, Douglas, 129n39 Yu, Charles, 132n50, 136n78

Z Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 31n131 Ziegert, Carsten, 83n62 Zimmerli, Walther, 90n72, 92n75, 100n85 Zinken, Jörg, 70n387

Scripture Index1

G Gen 24:14, 94, 124 Gen 24:21, 94 Gen 28:16, 95 Gen 41:39, 96 E Exod 5:2, 97 Exod 6:3, 91 Exod 6:7, 91, 132 Exod 7:5, 82, 88 Exod 7:17, 124 Exod 8:10, 82, 88 Exod 8:22, 82, 88 Exod 9:14, 82, 88 Exod 9:29, 82, 88 Exod 10:2, 82, 88 Exod 11:7, 82, 88 Exod 14:4, 82, 88 Exod 14:18, 82, 88

1

Exod 16:6, 95 Exod 16:12, 95 Exod 18:11, 95 Exod 18:16, 91, 133 Exod 29:46, 91 Exod 31:13, 91, 126 Exod 33:12, 91 Exod 33:13a, 91 Exod 33:13b, 91 Exod 33:16, 91 L Lev 23:43, 95, 126, 130 N Num 12:6, 96 Num 14:34, 87 Num 16:5, 87 Num 16:28, 87

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

281

282 

SCRIPTURE INDEX

Num 22:19, 96 Num 22:34, 87 Num 24:16, 96, 101 D Deut 4:9, 91, 124, 130 Deut 4:35, 82, 88 Deut 4:39, 124 Deut 7:9, 82, 88 Deut 8:3, 91 Deut 8:5, 124 Deut 9:3, 92 Deut 9:6, 92 Deut 11:2, 82, 88 Deut 18:21, 96 Deut 29:4, 91, 124 Deut 31:13, 126, 129, 130, 132 J Josh 2:9, 92 Josh 3:7, 95 Josh 3:10, 95 Josh 4:22, 96 Josh 4:24, 95 Josh 14:6, 92 Josh 22:31, 92 Josh 23:13, 92 Josh 23:14, 92, 124 Josh 24:31, 92 J Judg 2:10, 92 Judg 6:37, 95 Judg 14:4, 93 Judg 16:20, 93 Judg 17:13, 96

S 1 Sam 2:12, 96, 100 1 Sam 3:7, 96 1 Sam 6:9, 87 1 Sam 17:46, 82, 88 1 Sam 17:47, 82, 88 1 Sam 18:28, 96 1 Sam 22:3, 96 S 2 Sam 5:12, 97, 133 2 Sam 7:21, 92 2 Sam 12:22, 87 K 1 Kgs 8:43, 82, 88, 96, 126 1 Kgs 8:60, 96 1 Kgs 17:24, 95 1 Kgs 18:36, 95, 133 1 Kgs 18:37, 133 1 Kgs 20:13, 88 K 2 Kgs 2:3, 82, 88, 96 2 Kgs 2:5, 82, 88, 96 2 Kgs 5:15, 95 2 Kgs 10:10, 97 2 Kgs 19:19, 82, 88 C 1 Chr 14:2, 97, 132 1 Chr 16:8, 95 1 Chr 17:19, 92 1 Chr 28:9, 97 1 Chr 29:17, 95

  SCRIPTURE INDEX 

C 2 Chr 6:33a, 82, 88, 96 2 Chr 12:8, 94 2 Chr 13:5, 94 2 Chr 25:16, 96 2 Chr 33:13, 82, 88 N Neh 6:16, 95 Neh 9:14, 92 J Job 9:28, 93 Job 10:2, 93 Job 10:13, 93 Job 11:6, 89 Job 11:8, 89 Job 18:21, 89 Job 19:6, 89 Job 19:25, 89 Job 23:3, 89 Job 23:5, 89 Job 24:1, 89 Job 30:23, 89 Job 36:26, 96 Job 37:5, 96 Job 37:15, 96 Job 37:16, 96 Job 38:5, 89 Job 42:2, 89 Job 42:3, 89 P Ps 4:3, 95 Ps 9:10, 89 Ps 9:16, 89 Ps 16:11, 95 Ps 20:6, 93

Ps 25:4, 95 Ps 25:14, 95, 100 Ps 36:10, 93 Ps 39:4, 82, 88, 95 Ps 41:11, 93 Ps 46:10, 82, 88 Ps 48:3, 93 Ps 51:6, 96 Ps 56:9, 93 Ps 59:13, 93 Ps 67:2, 96 Ps 71:15, 96, 133 Ps 73:22, 96 Ps 76:1, 89 Ps 77:14, 95 Ps 77:19, 95, 124 Ps 78:3, 96, 124 Ps 78:5, 96 Ps 78:6, 96 Ps 79:6, 89 Ps 81:5, 92, 124 Ps 83:18, 89 Ps 87:4, 96 Ps 89:1, 92, 133 Ps 90:11, 95 Ps 90:12, 95, 124 Ps 91:14, 93 Ps 92:6, 89 Ps 95:10, 89, 124 Ps 98:2, 89 Ps 100:3, 95 Ps 103:7, 96 Ps 105:1, 96 Ps 106:8, 96 Ps 109:27, 89, 126 Ps 119:75, 95 Ps 119:79, 95, 132 Ps 119:125, 95 Ps 119:152, 95 Ps 135:5, 96 Ps 139:14, 96

283

284 

SCRIPTURE INDEX

Ps 140:12, 94 Ps 143:8, 94, 124 Ps 145:12, 96 Ps 147:20, 95 P Prov 3:6, 95 E Eccl 3:14, 96 Eccl 11:5, 96 Eccl 11:9, 88 I Isa 1:3, 93 Isa 5:5, 93 Isa 5:19, 93, 124 Isa 12:4, 96 Isa 12:5, 96 Isa 19:12, 82, 88 Isa 19:21a, 94 Isa 19:21b, 94 Isa 33:13, 124 Isa 37:20, 82, 88 Isa 38:19, 95 Isa 40:21, 94, 124 Isa 40:28, 94, 124 Isa 41:20, 94, 124 Isa 43:10, 94 Isa 43:19, 94, 132 Isa 45:3, 94, 132, 133 Isa 45:4, 94, 132, 133 Isa 45:5, 94, 133 Isa 45:6, 94, 132 Isa 48:6, 94, 124 Isa 48:7, 94, 124 Isa 48:8, 94, 124 Isa 49:23, 94 Isa 49:26, 94

Isa 51:7, 94 Isa 52:6, 94 Isa 60:16, 94 Isa 64:2, 94 Isa 66:14, 94 J Jer 2:8, 93 Jer 2:19, 93, 124, 125 Jer 4:22, 90, 125 Jer 5:4, 90 Jer 5:5, 90 Jer 8:7, 93 Jer 9:3, 93, 125 Jer 9:6, 93 Jer 9:24, 89 Jer 10:25, 90 Jer 11:18, 82, 88, 89 Jer 16:21, 82, 88, 94 Jer 24:7, 90, 124 Jer 28:9, 96, 97n81 Jer 31:34, 82, 88, 92 Jer 32:8, 92 Jer 33:3, 94 Jer 44:29, 90 E Ezek 5:13, 82, 88 Ezek 6:7, 82, 88 Ezek 6:10, 82, 88 Ezek 6:13, 82, 88 Ezek 6:14, 82, 88 Ezek 7:4, 133 Ezek 7:9, 133 Ezek 7:27, 82, 88 Ezek 11:10, 82, 88 Ezek 11:12, 82, 88 Ezek 12:15, 82, 88 Ezek 12:16, 82, 88 Ezek 12:20, 82, 88

  SCRIPTURE INDEX 

Ezek 13:9, 90 Ezek 13:14, 82, 88 Ezek 13:21, 82, 88 Ezek 13:23, 82, 88 Ezek 14:8, 82, 88 Ezek 14:23, 90, 124 Ezek 15:7, 82, 88 Ezek 16:62, 92 Ezek 17:21, 82, 88 Ezek 17:24, 82, 88 Ezek 20:5, 92 Ezek 20:9, 92 Ezek 20:11, 82 Ezek 20:12, 92 Ezek 20:20, 92 Ezek 20:26, 92 Ezek 20:38, 92 Ezek 20:42, 92 Ezek 20:44, 92 Ezek 21:5, 82, 88 Ezek 22:16, 82, 88 Ezek 22:22, 82, 88 Ezek 23:49, 90 Ezek 24:24, 90 Ezek 24:27, 82, 88 Ezek 25:5, 82, 88 Ezek 25:7, 82, 88 Ezek 25:11, 82, 88 Ezek 25:14, 90 Ezek 25:17, 82, 88 Ezek 26:6, 82, 88 Ezek 28:22, 82, 88 Ezek 28:23, 82, 88 Ezek 28:24, 90 Ezek 28:26, 82, 88 Ezek 29:6, 82, 88 Ezek 29:9, 82, 88 Ezek 29:16, 90 Ezek 29:21, 82, 88 Ezek 30:8, 82, 88 Ezek 30:19, 82, 88 Ezek 30:25, 82, 88

Ezek 30:26, 82, 88 Ezek 32:15, 82, 88 Ezek 33:29, 82, 88 Ezek 34:27, 94, 132 Ezek 34:30, 94 Ezek 35:4, 82, 88 Ezek 35:9, 82, 88 Ezek 35:11, 90 Ezek 35:12, 82, 88 Ezek 35:15, 82, 88 Ezek 36:11, 82, 88 Ezek 36:23, 92, 135 Ezek 36:32, 92 Ezek 36:36, 92, 135 Ezek 36:38, 92, 135 Ezek 37:6, 82, 88 Ezek 37:13, 82, 88 Ezek 37:14, 82, 88 Ezek 37:28, 82, 88 Ezek 38:16, 90 Ezek 38:23a, 90 Ezek 39:6, 82, 88 Ezek 39:7a, 90 Ezek 39:22, 82, 88 Ezek 39:28, 82, 88 H Hos 2:8, 96 Hos 2:20, 96 Hos 5:4, 90 Hos 5:9, 90 Hos 6:3, 82, 88, 93 Hos 8:2, 90 Hos 11:3, 96 Hos 13:4, 90 J Joel 2:14, 90, 97n81 Joel 2:27, 82, 88 Joel 3:17, 91

285

286 

SCRIPTURE INDEX

J Jonah 3:9, 91, 97n81 Jonah 4:2, 91 M Mic 4:12, 91 Mic 6:5, 93 H Hab 2:14, 91 Hab 3:2, 91, 97n81, 124 Z Zech 2:9, 82, 88 Zech 2:11, 82, 88 Zech 11:11, 96 Zech 4:9, 95 Zech 6:15, 95 M Mal 2:4, 92 M Matt 9:30, 115, 116n111 Matt 12:7, 113 Matt 13:11, 113, 116n111 Matt 21:45, 113, 116n111 Matt 24:33, 114, 114n109, 116n111, 124 M Mark 5:43, 115, 116n111 Mark 12:12, 113, 116n111 Mark 13:29, 114, 114n109, 116n111, 124 Mark 15:45, 112, 116n111

L Luke 8:10, 113, 116n111 Luke 10:11, 111, 116n111 Luke 10:22, 111, 116n111 Luke 18:34, 114, 116n111 Luke 19:44, 115, 116n111 Luke 20:19, 113, 116n111 Luke 21:31, 114, 114n109, 116n111, 124 Luke 24:18, 116n111, 131 Luke 24:35, 119, 131, 149 J John 1:10, 111, 116n111, 129 John 3:10, 114, 116n111 John 4:53, 115, 116n111, 149 John 6:69, 114, 116n111 John 7:17, 113, 116n111, 137 John 7:26, 114, 116n111, 145 John 7:27, 115, 145 John 8:27, 111, 116n111 John 8:28, 111, 116n111, 149 John 8:32, 113, 146 John 8:43, 113, 137 John 8:52, 116n111 John 8:55, 113, 137, 143 John 10:6, 114, 116n111 John 10:14b, 114, 116n111 John 10:38a, 114 John 10:38b, 114 John 12:16, 114, 116n111, 133, 149 John 13:7, 111, 116n111, 126 John 13:12, 116n111, 126 John 13:28, 114, 116n111, 133 John 13:35, 114, 116n111 John 14:7, 103, 111, 116n111, 124, 134 John 14:9, 116n111, 124, 134 John 14:17, 103, 111, 124 John 14:20, 114, 116n111, 134 John 14:31, 111, 116n111

  SCRIPTURE INDEX 

John 15:18, 114, 116n111 John 16:3, 115, 116n111 John 17:3, 111, 116n111 John 17:7, 111, 118 John 17:8, 111, 116n111, 136 John 17:23, 111, 116n111, 134, 136, 149 John 17:25a, 111 John 17:25c, 116n111 John 19:4, 115, 116n111 A Acts 1:7, 111 Acts 2:36, 112, 133 Acts 8:30, 112 Acts 17:13, 112, 133 Acts 17:19, 112 Acts 17:20, 112 Acts 22:14, 112 R Rom 1:21, 112, 115, 115n110, 119, 129 Rom 2:18, 115, 129 Rom 6:6, 113, 113n106, 116n111, 125 Rom 10:19, 112 Rom 11:34, 114 C 1 Cor 1:21, 112, 136 1 Cor 2:8, 103, 111, 112 1 Cor 2:11, 112, 134 1 Cor 2:14, 112 1 Cor 2:16, 112 1 Cor 8:2, 103, 111, 112, 112n104 1 Cor 8:3, 113n105, 125 1 Cor 13:9, 113, 113n107 1 Cor 13:12, 113, 113n107

C 2 Cor 5:16, 103, 111, 112, 112n103, 116n111 2 Cor 8:9, 113, 116n111, 126, 130 G Gal 2:9, 112, 116n111 Gal 3:7, 114 Gal 4:9a, 114 E Eph 3:19, 112, 116n111 Eph 5:5, 101n90, 113, 116n111, 137 P Phil 3:10, 113, 116n111, 119 H Heb 3:10, 115, 124, 125 Heb 8:11, 101n90, 114 J 1 John 2:3a, 113 1 John 2:3b, 113 1 John 2:4, 113, 125, 137, 149 1 John 2:5, 113, 137 1 John 2:13, 113, 116n111 1 John 2:14, 103, 111, 116n111 1 John 2:14b, 116n111 1 John 3:1b, 113 1 John 3:6, 113, 116n111, 125 1 John 3:16, 113, 116n111, 126 1 John 3:24, 113

287

288 

SCRIPTURE INDEX

1 John 4:2, 114 1 John 4:6a, 114 1 John 4:6b, 114 1 John 4:7, 113 1 John 4:8, 113, 125 1 John 4:13, 113 1 John 4:16, 113 1 John 5:20, 114

J 2 John 1, 113 R Rev 2:23, 115, 116n111 Rev 3:3, 116n111 Rev 3:9, 115, 116n111

Subject Index1

NUMBERS AND SYMBOLS ‫ידע‬, 70–121, 123, 124, 128, 159–227, 251–253 γινώσκω, 70–121, 123, 124, 128, 229–230, 239–250 οἶδα and, 101n89, 101n90, 112n103 A Acquaintance awareness by a. with, 87, 89–98, 100, 111–116, 115n110, 118–120, 124, 126, 138 knowledge by, 23, 29 Affections, 18–20, 45, 46, 55 Assumption epistemological, 6–7, 9–10, 34–37, 45, 55–65, 138–147 hermeneutical, 10–12, 12n71 ontological, 6, 34–37, 45–48, 55–59, 139–147

1

Atemporal relation, 76, 76n30, 81, 83, 83n59, 100, 101, 103, 119 Awareness, 87, 89–97, 99, 101, 112, 115, 117, 124 by acquaintance with, 87, 89–98, 100, 111–116, 115n110, 118–120, 124, 126, 138 communitarian, 133, 138 direct, 17 embodied, 98, 116, 120, 123–125, 131, 137, 138, 142, 147, 151 by instruction, 91–97, 111–113, 113n106, 115, 124 internal, 31 sensory, 98, 118, 125 B Being analogy of, 38, 41 being-as-knowledge, 63

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D.-A. Petre, Knowing God as an Evangelical, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3

289

290 

SUBJECT INDEX

Being (cont.) contingent, 38, 40, 41 necessary, 34n145, 38–41 Belief basic or self-evident, 2, 30, 36, 65, 65n360, 66, 129n37, 147, 148, 150 Christian, 2–4, 24, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42–44, 46, 50, 50n250, 52–54, 60, 62, 65, 150, 152 is a mental representation, 29 justified true, 2, 29, 30, 37, 44 non-basic, 30 perceptual, 46, 47, 51, 52, 65n363, 66 theistic, 2, 3, 26, 34–37, 39, 40, 42, 45–47, 50–53, 53n269, 60, 65, 66, 148–150, 152, 156 true, 2, 20, 29n118, 30, 31, 33n140, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44, 46–50, 54, 149 Bible authority of the, 58 has preeminence over communal tradition, 141 Spirit-produced document, 58 as theology of history, 130 C Canon biblical, 4, 5, 7, 12, 68, 69, 71, 77–80, 121, 127, 147, 157 canonical approach, 4–5, 12, 67–69, 132n55, 155 canonical-epistemological, 4, 8–13, 156 Categorization, schema-instance relation as, 74

Cognitive analysis, 7, 71, 75–120, 123, 138, 155–157 Cognitive grammar, 72, 72n7 Cognitive linguistics cognitive commitment, 73 as cognitive relational approach, 76 explores the embodied experience, 73 generalization commitment, 73 Cognitive powers, 3, 46–50, 52, 54, 148 Cognitive semantics, 72, 72n7 Coherence, 3, 8, 12, 30, 30n125, 34, 39, 147 Communitarian, 3, 55, 57, 59–61, 63, 98, 118, 118n113, 121, 130–134, 138, 140, 141, 144, 146, 150, 152, 156 Community of believers as visible embodiment of divine historical purpose, 130 created by God’s interventions, 132 divine historical telos is creation of, 61 God as, 60, 61, 63, 64, 64n355, 130, 132, 133, 136 impacts individuals in various ways, 133 as persons-in-relationship, 64 Contingency, 8, 9, 38, 40 Cosmic conflict, 134, 135, 157 Cosmological argument, 24, 34n145, 37, 40–42, 140, 148 Covenant, 86, 91–93, 91n73, 91n74, 92n75, 93n76, 93n77, 97, 100, 101, 114, 114n108, 116, 129, 130, 132, 134–137, 134n61, 134n63 Culture as epistemic source for Grenz, 3, 58, 59, 62, 63n344 the Spirit of God has cultural dimensions, 59

  SUBJECT INDEX 

D Design plan, 44, 49, 149 Discernment, 87, 89–91, 93, 95–98, 118, 124, 137 Divine love, holy love as, 29, 135 Divine name ontological implications of, 62 results from divine self-naming, 62 as Trinitarian noetic act, 63 Divine revelation general-special separation, 128 special r. as prototypical manifestation of the divine realm, 128 Domain, 74, 74n22, 75, 75n23, 75n24, 75n25, 77, 80–88, 87n66, 90–98, 94n79, 95n80, 100, 102–116, 118, 120, 121, 130, 131, 134, 134n60, 175–227, 239–250, 239n2 Domain matrix, 75, 75n24, 97, 115 E Embodiment, 61, 73n12, 123, 130, 150 Epistemology of theology, 4, 9, 9n53 Eschatological realism, 56 Evangelical definition of, 1, 7–8 epistemology, 1–13 evangelicalism, 1, 2, 4–8, 15–25, 24n73, 27, 32, 32n134, 55, 155 Evidentialist foundationalism, 2, 6, 15, 33–44, 60, 65, 66, 123, 139, 141, 155, 156 Experience collective, 28

291

as communitarian warrant of God’s reality, Christian, 60 doxastic, 52, 53, 149 nonsensory, 47 personal, 28, 60, 120, 142 sensory, 47, 98, 118, 125, 156 F Faith collaborates with reason, 23 is divinely implanted knowledge, 23 First cause, 40, 41 Formation of theological knowledge entails embodied awareness, 120, 123–125, 137, 138, 142, 151 is both communitarian and individual, 121, 132–134, 138 is fostered by covenantal obedience, 121, 135–138, 146, 156, 157 is fostered by mission, 134–136, 138, 157 is relational-participative, 120, 126–128, 138, 142, 144, 151, 152, 156, 157 is revelational, 110, 121, 128–130 is temporal-historical, 130–131, 138, 157 Foundationalism classical, 10, 25, 30, 32, 57 modest, 30, 30n123, 30n125, 32, 147, 153, 156 strong, 30, 30n123, 45 G God biblical, 34n142, 40, 42, 60–62, 64, 129, 139, 140, 148, 149 as community, 60, 61, 63, 64, 64n355, 130, 132, 133, 136 as epistemic subject, 126, 144, 150

292 

SUBJECT INDEX

God (cont.) is knowable, 10 self-disclosure is partial, 61 theistic, 34, 40, 41, 52, 148 H Holy Spirit, 3, 19, 20, 23, 28, 47, 52, 54–56, 65, 66, 141n102, 143–145, 152, 152n160 I Imago Dei, 18–20, 35, 53, 64, 65, 65n357, 143 Intellect, 18, 19, 45, 53 Intuition, 35, 47, 141 J Jesus, 22, 37n164, 42, 44, 62, 110n101, 111, 113–115, 114n108, 114n109, 116n111, 118, 119, 119n114, 126, 131, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138n85, 143, 145, 150 authority of, 44, 150 divinity of, 44, 150 Judgment, 22, 31, 86, 87, 87n66, 90, 91, 91n73, 93, 93n76, 97, 115, 116, 126, 129, 134, 134n63, 135, 151 Justification of Christian belief, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44 condition that makes true belief knowledge, 30, 34 epistemic, 3, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 42, 52, 54, 66 externalist account of, 31, 31n126 grounds for accepting a belief as true, 2, 30

internalist account of, 31, 31n126 of theistic belief, 34, 39, 40, 42, 50, 51, 60, 150 K Knowledge by acquaintance, 23, 29, 120, 121, 126, 138 as communitarian, theological k., 63, 98, 118n113, 132–134, 140, 144, 152, 156 intuitive, 17, 25, 37n168 of God, 2, 9, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29, 29n114, 44, 51, 52, 60, 62, 81, 102, 130 personal, 9, 28, 29, 67 procedural, 29 propositional, 28, 29, 32, 63, 155 rational, 2, 19, 20n36 religious, 9, 9n50, 86 spiritual, 18–20, 20n36, 28, 100n85 theological, 2–7, 9, 9n50, 9n53, 10, 13, 15–121, 123–153, 155–157 theory of, 6, 16, 30, 139 L Landmark, 74n22, 75, 79, 81, 87, 95, 98, 100, 102, 114n109, 115, 118–120 Language collection of meaningful categories, 73 construes reality, 73 symbolizes concepts, 7, 71, 73, 77–80, 101 Law of causality, 38, 40 Law of identity, 35n152, 38 Law of noncontradiction, 35n152, 38

  SUBJECT INDEX 

Law of the excluded middle, 35n152, 38 Linguistic unit, 7, 71–73, 75–80, 79n49, 97, 98, 101, 102, 116, 118, 120, 124, 128 M Meaning access to theological m. is through remembrance and ritual re-enactment, 130 in cognitive perspective, 71 comprises conceptualization and construal, 72, 72n6, 74 in language-internal perspective, 71, 72 in language-world perspective, 71 schematic, 77, 80, 81, 98–102, 116–119 Memory, history mediated by, 130 Mental representation, 7, 29, 74 Methodology, canonical-­ epistemological, 4, 8–13, 156 Miracles, 42, 43, 95, 115, 116, 149, 150, 156 Mission, 110–113, 110–111n101, 116, 118, 121, 129, 130, 132, 134–136, 138, 149, 157 Model Aquinas/Calvin, 45, 45n209, 45n213, 50, 51, 53, 54, 142, 142n112, 149 biblically based, 4 definition of, 5, 143 extended Aquinas/Calvin, 50, 53, 54, 142, 142n112 a minimal epistemological, 71 representatives of theological, 5, 156

293

N Noetic structure, 10, 35, 45, 47, 51 Nominal profile, 75 O Obedience, 20, 28, 90n71, 91n74, 110, 112, 113, 116, 121, 125, 130, 134–138, 146, 149, 156, 157 Objection to theistic belief de facto, 50, 50n250, 148, 149, 156 de jure, 50, 50n250, 148, 149 Objectivity, historical, 42, 43, 150 Onto-theology, 62, 62n335, 63 P Perception, 3, 16, 20, 25, 31n128, 34, 35, 46, 47, 52, 52n262, 53, 67, 73, 83n59, 87, 91, 94, 125, 138, 141, 142, 145 Postfoundationalism, 3, 4, 6, 6n36, 15, 55–66, 123, 139, 140, 146, 155, 156 Principle of contingency, 38 Principle of existential causality, 38, 40 Principle of existential contingency, 38 Principle of existential necessity, 38 Principle of modality negative, 38 positive, 38 Profile-base relation, semantic value of linguistic unit as, 75 Proper basicality, 51 Proper function, 46, 48, 49, 141, 149, 155 Proper functionalism, 3, 6, 15, 31, 32, 44–55, 65, 66, 66n365, 123, 139, 141, 152, 155, 156

294 

SUBJECT INDEX

Propositions, 2, 17, 25, 26, 30, 30n119, 33, 36, 38, 39, 39n177, 45–47, 47n226, 47n227, 50–52, 54, 56, 59, 67, 144, 146 Prototype, 74n20, 78, 78n45, 79n49, 128 Prototypical scenario, 77, 80, 97–99, 102, 109, 110, 116, 117, 120, 128 R Rationality external, 46, 143 internal, 46 Reality divine r. is different from contingent created r., 128 first principles of, 33, 35, 37, 38, 139 human r. is contingent, 40, 128, 148 Reason cannot produce faith, hope, or love, 23 judges self-evident beliefs, 148 Recognition, 87, 90, 90n72, 92n75, 93, 98, 100n85, 118, 136, 147, 149, 156 Reformed epistemology, 27, 32 Relational profile, 75, 77n40, 79, 81, 83n59, 89, 95–97, 97n83, 100, 101n87, 113, 118–120, 124, 126, 127n26 self, 63, 64 Reliability, 42–44, 49, 145, 150, 151 reliability of the New Testament, 42, 43, 150

Rituals as illocutionary, 126 participating in r. as epistemic activity, 126 Sabbath-keeping, 126 S Semantics-pragmatics divide, 72 Sensory imagery, 46, 141 Sensus divinitatis, 3, 45, 47, 51–54, 148 Sin, impact of, 53 Sola scriptura, 1, 4, 5, 12n70, 155 Systematic consistency, 38–40, 42, 150 T Temporal relation, 76, 76n30, 83n59, 100, 119 Testimony Holy Spirit’s, 23, 145, 152 personal, 23 Theo-ontology, 62 Tradition as hermeneutical context, 58 as hermeneutical trajectory, 58 not opposed to Scripture for Grenz, 58 Trajector, 58, 74n22, 75, 79, 81, 87, 90–94, 98, 100, 102, 111–115, 118–120 Truth coherence theory of, 30 communal, 57 correspondence theory of, 30, 36 narrative, 4, 57 participatory, 57, 146 pragmatic theory of, 30 self-evident, 29, 33, 36, 65, 65n363 socially-constructed, 57

  SUBJECT INDEX 

test for, 33, 33n140, 37, 38, 40, 42 Truth-orientation, 49 U Undeniability definitional, 39 direct, 38 existential, 39 indirect, 39 Understanding, 89–93, 96, 97, 99, 111–115, 117, 124 entails experience, 98, 118 historical, 11 for Jonathan Edwards, 15 pre-understanding, 11–13

295

V Virtue theory reliabilism, 32 responsibilism, 31 W Warrant, 3, 44, 45, 48–53, 60, 61, 66n365, 66n366, 125, 129, 139, 145–147, 150, 152 Will, 18–20, 28, 45, 53–56, 87n67, 137, 144, 145, 152 Worldview, 4, 13, 33, 33n140, 37, 38n169, 39, 40, 40n180, 42, 43, 61, 146, 148, 150–152