We can know the truth about God, ourselves, and our world only in light of Jesus Christ. Epistemology begins with Jesus and Christology. (Hauerwas rightly separates these. To begin with Jesus is to begin with the person and teachings – themselves inseparable – of the (historical) Jesus witnessed to in the Gospels. To begin with Christology is to begin with the creeds and the theological tenets worked out by thinkers reflecting on the meaning of Jesus’ life/death and teachings.)
What does this mean? First, it means knowing begins with hearing Jesus’ words as true – and living as if they were. If we can’t do that, then we can’t know in the way he calls us to know.
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ (Jn. 8.31-32).
Obedience is the opener of the eyes” (George MacDonald).
It also means we begin with the theological/creedal assertion that Christ is the logos, the meaning, in whom reality coheres, and the revealer of the Triune God who is the “Ground of Being.” We work out from there. That is Christ-ian epistemology.
This may sound terribly inchoate (and it is), and hopelessly abstract. Nonetheless, I think this is similar to the apostles’ approach when they began to realize who Jesus in fact was and what he in fact meant for them to do and to be. They realized in him all things are changed. Their “eyes were opened,” which is to say they had a new epistemology.
This works itself out in their vision of the Scriptures, Israel, and the Temple cult. In light of Jesus Christ, they envisioned a (re)new(ed) Torah, a (re)new(ed) Israel, and a (re)new(ed) Temple cult. In Jesus, the Torah takes on (or gives out) meanings different from those available “outside” Jesus Christ. This is one of the meanings of that marvelous story of the three on Emmaus road: “He opened to them the Scriptures.” The “Torah of sin and death” becomes the “Torah of life,” the Israel “according to the flesh” is set over against the “true Israel,” and the Temple is now the Body of Christ, the gathered community of Jesus-followers. They began to see differently as they thought through the implications of Jesus’ claims. If Jesus is x, then that means, a, b, and c.
So if we are to start with our understanding of Jesus, including, as you said ‘historical Jesus” how do some of the ‘historical Jesus’ pictures fit into our Christology? Although I have mostly read N. T. Wright, and I almost always agree with him, there are of course dissenting opinions. Do we as Christians bring in interpretations from as far out there as Crossan?
Also, is it only the New Testament (especially the Gospels) that we take as authoritative? Is there room for “Thomas” or extra parables in documents such as Codex Bezae?
Would not a dogmatic approach to biblical understanding via historical orthodox Christology require a somewhat fundamentalists understanding of the Gospels and Ecumenical Councils? I am not saying that that would necessarily be bad, but it seems to move away from a fundamentalist approach to the whole of scripture only to one on the New Testament.
Help me understand, there are probably complexities that I am unaware of.
Let me have a go at your questions, reminding you, though I needn’t, that I admitted in my post this was only a “beginning” for me…
Q1. Which historical Jesus?
A1. Well, I would say the one born to Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, resurrected to “life after life after death” on the third day following. That, it seems to me, is the historical Jesus of historical orthodox Christianity. Schweitzer, Schillebeeckx, Schliermacher, Borg, Crossan, and the many others who hold to a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are outside that realm. Admittedly, they may be correct in their distinction. But if they are, then are faith is vain. Helpful perhaps, but vain.
Q2. Which texts are authoritative?
A1. That is notoriously difficult, and I don’t pretend to have a good answer for it. I don’t think I personally get to decide which texts are authoritative. That was decided for me, at least to a large degree. Admitting that the canonicity of many texts remains in question, I accept that the canon as we have received it is authoritative.
That being said, I think that whatever text – and I mean that exactly – which speaks truth, is authoritative. Isn’t this what the Augustinian formula “all truth is God’s truth” means? Certainly, there is some distinction between the canonical texts and all the others. But it isn’t a distinction between true and false texts.
Q3. Must we read the Gospels and Councils uncritically?
A3. Hell, no. At no point must we squelch our questions. We don’t have to choose between a hermeneutic of charity and a hermeneutic of suspicion. Always, always we must be critical – but critical in the right way. We have always to be suspicious of the meaning we give to the biblical witness, whether that is the Hebrew Bible or the Apostolic writings. And the same goes for the creeds. (Notice that I’m making a disctinction between being suspicious of the meanings we give to the texts and being suspicious of the texts themselves.)