In reference to the structuralist interpretive school among those who have agreed with the dichotomy between absolute objective knoweldge, and radical skepticism.
For it is not enough to fill our minds with biblical ideas, vocabulary, and images, unless we think that by ddoing so we are being led to think true thoughts about what is actually there – that the Bible actually refers to peope, events and even God himself, as living outside the Bible, and that the Bible bears true witness to them (even though, transparently, it cannot bear exhustive witness to them, or produce ominscient knowledge of these extra-biblical realities among those who read about them in the Bible’s pages). We are not saved by biblical ideas: this is a narrowly intellectualist approach. We are saved by the God and the biblical events to which the Bible refers, bearing true witness.
Pg 65, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed., Carson and Moo.
The usage of witness and testimony in the NT, especially John, is prolific. It seems to stand as a symbol of a godly epistemology: a humble but trustworthy approach. I am becoming more and more interested in the sort of knowledge the Bible expects us to have, and expects us to gain by believing; its not exhaustive, and its not skeptical.