Page History

...

It occurs to me that Marxsen's denial of any control, or touchstone, for testing Jesus' claim may mean only that, wherever what is put in question by a certain claim is what really is the explicit primal source of authority, there cannot be, in the nature of the case, any such control or touchstone, Lei.e., any authority, properly so-called, by reference to which the validity of the claim can be tested.

But if this clarifies the nature of Jesus' claim -– as a claim to be the explicit primal ontic source of authority, as distinct from merely an, or even the, authority--it still fails to do justice to the uniquely authoritative function of experience and reason even in cases such as this. "So," Marxsen infers, "there was no possibility of testing the truth of Jesus' claim. One could only risk accepting Jesus' words" (ET: 217). But, surely, the whole point of Jn 7:17, which he proceeds to cite, is that there is not just one way of experiencing the truth of Jesus' assertion (that his teaching is not his, but the One's who sent him), but two. Not only the one who risks accepting Jesus' words, but also the one who wills to do God's will shall know that Jesus' teaching is from God.

Even so, I need to think through more carefully what is, and is not, involved in the whole notion of "the risk of faith." I perhaps especially need to retrieve certain insights expressed in some of my earlier work but not apparent in the more recent.

...