UPDATE: I did gain acceptance to a top teir UK Ph.D. program with this proposal. Of course, the relationship I had established with my future supervisor was most crucial in shaping this proposal.
PREFACE: This is the 15th rewrite and for this version, I broadened the focus out quite a bit more than I originally intended because of direct feedback from faculty at the university I’m applying to. So I realize how unfocused this proposal is in general, but if you mind the footnotes, you will notice more precision in the direction. I’ll let you know if the Admissions committee found this acceptable or not when I know:
Systematic theology has too often engaged in mental and propositional epistemology, where the process and product navigate through belief sets and their articulable justification. Theology, as a science with subject/object distinctives, at its worst centers on propositional knowledge that regards the objects of study as its own teleology (e.g. God, His Kingdom, Inter-Trinitarian Economy, etc.). At best, this theology hopes for dispassionate objectivity of the subject.[i]
The end then becomes a clear and graspable domestication of something like ‘theological knowledge’. But if embodied persons are at all able to have an epistemically superior tack on reality, then we expect that epistemology to be fleshed out within the Christian canon, even more, subsumed into our theological prolegomena. Presuming that the Christian canon has some epistemically expressive accounts within its narratives, the proposed research will examine the possibility of a monolithic and robust epistemology undergirding and worked out in its narrative.
First, it may be monolithic in that it has some unified epistemological construction throughout the texts, even if the texts have diverse origins. And second, this epistemology will necessitate robustness in that the narrative itself demands something beyond propositional strategies to epistemology.[ii] Merely considering the semantic range of ‘know’ and the somatic concerns in Genesis 3:5, 4:1, 15:8 and 15:13 alone demands a fairly robust and embodied epistemology.[iii] Accordingly, narrative analysis and engagement with current theological method will be required with paradigmatic cases from the canon. Because of this mode of research, a principally canonical stance towards the text will be assumed that will allow for a unity in construct.[iv] This thesis will attempt to create an interface between the epistemological thrust being described in the Christian narratives and various epistemological models that reside in the prolegomena of contemporary Protestant (Evangelical) theology.[v]
Texts of interests will be those that flatly appear to describe a particular epistemological concern. The research will inquire if these texts, their Messianic focus, and God’s revelatory event in the Incarnation prescribe for us a particular epistemological concern? If this epistemology has unity of construct, then paradigmatic texts will extend from the Pentateuch forward. For instance, the ‘hand-leaning’ rite of Levitical Code appears to have particular emphasis toward what can be known of oneself and Yahweh, among various other epistemological proliferations.
The import of such an epistemic adjustment through a rite has direct implications for one’s Soteriology and Christology, much more sacramental theology. In other words, what one can ‘come to know’ through Levitical rite has direct import upon what one can know through broader sacramental participation. But from the Fall of humans (which was centered upon an epistemological crux) to the ‘reckoned belief of Abram’ to the απιστος of Thomas Didymus, some pervasive epistemology must either be meted out or abandoned. This will be one objective of the proposed research with particular emphasis on types and pretexts of an operating epistemology in the OT coming to fulfillment and fruition in the NT.[vi]
Hence, the revelation of Christ quaJesus of Nazareth will be investigated upon these same lines. Jesus makes it patent that the embodiment of his mission over and above propositional ascent will be the fundamental contribution toward a Christologically informed epistemology.[vii] Relevant questions for this pursuit then might be, “What epistemological adjustment is gained from laying my hand on a sacrificial animal,” and in turn, “Must one ingest bread and wine or care for the widow in order to know something about oneself and their relation to God?” What is going on, epistemologically speaking, in these accounts?
Because we find ourselves as embodied creatures in this Creation, this study will focus on something closer to Michael Polanyi’s effort at post-critical epistemology, while not ignoring the likes of Nietzsche’s attack on anti-somatic rationalistic theology (or Nietzsche’s anti-Alexandrianism.[viii] Polanyi and others have taken issue with the acutely focused epistemologies hinging on propositional accounts, among other deficiencies.[ix] Further, Polanyi distinctly gives well-argued accreditation to and explanation of the body’s role in knowing, the epistemic role of authority, and the social fabric of constructive scholarship, such as science or theology.
This study would proceed with a sincere affinity toward embodied knowing as it might be reflective of the Scriptures and come to its fullness in the life of Christ. Embodied knowing is both a historic[x] and symbolic[xi] epistemic act.[xii] This taciturn depiction alone begins to give shape to the meaning of terms like ‘robust epistemology’. But if the Scriptures prescribe an epistemology, then we would need to enfold these multiple aspects of knowing as constituent parts of any epistemological model prescribed in the sacred texts.
The present need for an exegetically reflective and somatically acculturated epistemology that accounts for the knower qua creature drives this proposed research. Accordingly, this thesis intends to engage the prolegomena of (Evangelical/Reformed) Protestant theology, especially its recent pursuit of a literary-canonical epistemology.[xiii] Because this study cuts across traditional boundaries (i.e. literary and biblical studies, theology and philosophy) it will require sensitivity to each and their respective histories of approaching the Tanakh and New Testament texts.[xiv]
An aptly developed methodology for examining the epistemological prescriptions of the Christian canon will undoubtedly have a trajectory beyond the scope of the current proposal with the hope of extending into fuller analyses of theological epistemology. Through this approach to scripture, prolegomena, and theology, new insight could be gleaned both exegetically and theologically into the connections between testaments, covenants, and sacraments, if not more.
[i]
More obvious instances of this propositional theology would be Thomism and its tendencies in the likes of Melancthon and Beza. But more recent versions can be seen in the Ramist theological consignments within the Westminster Confession tradition. See Wilson Benton, “Federal Theology: Review for Revision”, in Through Christ’s Word: A Festschrift for Philip E. Hughes. Ed. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes. In the more immediate past, the direct propositional approach to scripture and theology can be found in Carl Henry’s and similar theological projects.
[ii] I generally agree with the sentiment expressed by Peter Hicks in his “Six Theses” for an adequate epistemology where he tell us, “If our epistemology, then, is going to be adequate for human experience in the real world, it will need to be broad in its interests and application, covering as fully as possible the whole range of the epistemological data.” Evangelicals and Truth: A Creative Proposal for a Postmodern Age. Leicester: Apollos Press, 1998.
[iii] Not to mention issues surrounding ידע in the Septuagint and its iterations in the New Testament.
[iv] Source criticisms vary so intensely that analyzing epistemological presumptions from the Pentateuch would be quite unmanageable under a particular source-critical rubric. In order to accomplish a modestly reasonable narrative-canonical reading, such hypotheses and criticisms must be tabled. Re Brevard Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. . Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1989.
[v] It is no secret that much of twentieth century theology (if not before) could be characterized as appropriations of or reactions to movements in science, philology, archaeology, and their respective philosophical peers (E.g. The Traditional Analysis of Knowledge, Epistemology Naturalized, Reformed Epistemology, Rortian Pragmatism, etc.). However, serious interaction with the texts qua story has not always yielded a reciprocally serious engagement and/or fit with current epistemological projects. Biblical studies and epistemological models have not always looked to each other for reconciliation.
[vi] John Goldingay outlines an approach to Christian interpretation of the ‘Old Testament’ that both takes on the Apostle’s view of the Tanakh and allows the texts to speak without Christian anachronism. Approaches to Old Testatment Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990. This is part of the trick, to faithfully interpret texts full of anticipation without forcing anticipations into the text, to be faithful The Revelation of Christ, without presuming the fullness of that revelation to be ubiquitous in revelation.
[vii] For instance, hearing a parable was not epistemologically sufficient. Jesus tells his disciples that both hearing and following him will ‘reveal the secrets of the Kingdom of God’ (See Luke 8:9-10). Also consider Peter’s affirmation of Jesus as the Christ that appears epistemologically vacuous when confronted with the embodied actions that necessarily accompany the title ‘Messiah’ (See Matthew 16:13-23 and Mark 8:27-33).
[viii] Several available and fitting epistemologies residing on the boundaries of analytic thought could be appropriated in this pursuit. Nietzsche’s insistence on somatic epistemology also extends beyond rational dissection and could be partially accommodated for the present task. But whether or not Nietzsche is our ideal expositor, any thoroughly informed epistemology from the Pentateuch must take Nietzsche seriously and accommodate a rigorously somatic, yet justificatory account of knowing. In other words, the text appears to demand an explication as to why we creatures are so thoroughly embodied and how this creatureliness forms our knowing.
[ix] In his critique, he offered a substantive account of nonpropositional epistemology that comes to fruition in our ability to propositionally account for and socially interact with reality. See Personal Knowledge. But also, W.V.O. Quine even lends aid in the critique of the latter without a serious distancing from the former. He enlists the erudition of Goodman, Hempel, and Gödel against the Logical Positivist pursuits of Carnap. “Epistemology Naturalized” in Naturalizing Epistemology. 2nd edition, ed. Hilary Kornblith. Caimbridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.
[x] The use of ‘historical’ here is meant as a mere reference to creatures bound in a perspective who come to know in and through space and time. This is not to be confused with the history/historicity conflation. On that matter, I take Philip Long’s proposal seriously that historical narrative is fundamentally a ‘representational art’. The Art of Biblical History. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
[xi] ‘Symbolic’ is meant only to broach that there appears to be transcendency in many human interactions. The shape and limit of symbolism needs to be perspicuously delineated in such a study. See Karl Rahner for one such attempt at delineating reality as fundamentally symbolic. “Theology of Symbol” in Theological Investigations, Vol. IV.
[xii] Embodied knowing projects forward in a vector toward points of illumination and contact with a broader sense of reality (to borrow Polanyi’s terms).
[xiii] See Kevin VanHoozer’s Is There a Meaning in This Text? Also see the preface of David Rhoads & Donald Michie, Mark As Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1982). As well, James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005).
[xiv] For instance, Jacob Milgrom offers bountiful analysis on the particular significance in the ‘hand-leaning rite’. Yet Milgrom’s study proffers only a description of four possible meanings. This lacuna between the description and what might be epistemologically prescribed by ritual is the precise area this study intends to explore. The proposed research would seek to answer the immediate question of, “What do we know about reality (divine and phenomenal) through this rite that we could not have known otherwise?”
