Eye v. Expert Witness

Expounding on the differences between explanation and narration, Craig Hovey ( To Share in the Body: A Theology of Martyrdom for Today’s Church ) connects them to two forms of witness: “If the eyewitness knows about the particular case and the character witness knows about the person, the expert witness knows neither of these things. Instead, she knows how cases like this usually work – whether this kind of gun could have made that kind of bullet hole, whether this kind of medication could have that kind of effect, whether this kind of act could be attributable to that kind of mental lapse.”

Being a “one-off,” Jesus has eye- rather than expert witnesses: “Just as the character witness is confounded by the identity of Jesus, so also the expert witness is immaterial, for Jesus’ uniqueness admits of no general appraisal. In perfect freedom from established ranks and divisions, Jesus will not be understood as a particular instance of something else.” No one can be an expert witness to Jesus, since what He is and does don’t “refer back to a more definitive body of knowledge, a more basic theory, or a more axiomatic truth.”

True, and a necessary reminder. Yet: precisely because Jesus is narrated rather than explained, He cannot be known outside the story of Israel. That doesn’t make Him a particular instance of a general category, or “just another episode.” But neither is He an isolated surd, a “Barthian” bolt without precedent or preparation. If the antitype gives the types their meaning, it is also true that there is a circularity such that the antitype is known only through the types.