Knowledge and Testimony

We propose, rather, that reliance on testimony is fundamental to knowing about reality in general – as fundamental as perception, memory, inference, and so on. (Provan, Long, Longman, A Biblical History of Israel.)

knowingThis book is easily the best thing that I’ve read so far at college. It starts with a literature review of the current state of thinking in the area of Biblical History. Not the most engaging way to draw in the general reader but I was impressed with the rigor and quality of the writing style, as well as a sense of authorial humility that isn’t often found in modern work (we are far to casual with our use of the personal pronoun in scholarly writing – probably cause everyone’s been blogging).

The authors then turn to a brief history of historiography in general, looking at the rise of the ‘scientific’ method in historiography and its effects on our belief in what we can know of the past. After showing the great failure of the ‘scientific’ approach, not merely in history but in the broad question of ‘how we know’, the authors state that what is needed is a brand new approach to epistemology. At this point I would expect the next sentence to read something like, “but we don’t have time for that now”. Generally when you’re meant to be writing a history of Israel, you don’t just decide to go off on a tangent which involves the fundamental questions of human knowledge.
But I was wonderfully disappointed…
Instead the authors turn to the idea of Testimony, that is, belief in the witness of others, as a fundamental element of knowing anything at all. This bears serious thinking about.
In favour is the fact that our actual experience of life bears this out, as children we rely on the words of our parents, as adults, the vast majority of things that we claim to know are really things we have learned from others. We rely on testimony. We are not (and never were) islands of dispassionate, empirical investigation. Our knowledge is the weaving together of testimonies about our world.
Against the theory is the fact that testimony is a complex concept. There are any number of more basic concepts that need to be explained which lie behind testimony – right down to the mechanics of communication and truth.
But just maybe, this analytical emphasis (the breaking down of complexities) is what got us into trouble with our theories of knowledge in the first place. We don’t think from the simple to the complex. In our experience, Complex ideas don’t rest on simple ones (though they do have this logical relation). Rather, our complex and simple ideas are received, and then perceived to be such through their relationship to each other within the whole structure of our knowledge.

Now, I can see through my screen that you’ve glazed over. (sorry Trisho).
What it boils down to is this: we sometimes feel that if the sole basis for believing something is because we’ve been told, we’re on shaky ground. That’s what might be called ‘blind faith’. Our ‘scientific’ world view tells us that this kind of knowing should be subordinate to ‘real’ knowledge – the kind tested by experiment and experience. But the truth is: trusting another person’s story is fundamental to knowing anything – there isn’t a knowledge more ‘real’ than this.
This is a profound insight when it comes to our thinking about the Bible as the story of the human witnesses to the revealing of God. They tell us their testimony, and we trust their testimony. This is not a secondary, weak, kind of knowledge.

It’s fundamental to what it means to be Human and to know.

Show Comments