Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Rabbi Dr. Neil Gillman died last November 23, having been ill for several years after treatment for cancer. Born in Quebec City, Canada, Gillman studied philosophy at McGill University in Montreal and then attended rabbinical school at the Jewish Theological Seminary, where he would spend his entire career, first as the dean of its Rabbinical School and later as a Professor of Jewish Philosophy. While raised in a traditional Jewish home, his path to the rabbinate and a career teaching Jewish theology was inspired by an encounter with Will Herberg, the noted Jewish social thinker and existentialist theologian, while at McGill. After completing his rabbinical studies, he continued working and teaching at JTS and completed a doctorate in Religious Studies at Columbia University, where he wrote his dissertation on Gabriel Marcel's religious epistemology, a subject that became his central philosophical concern.His early interest in religious existentialism and its emphasis on confrontation with personal belief and meaning became one of Gillman's core commitments as a theologian and as a teacher. Gillman insisted that modern Jews should clarify their own theological commitments in a personal way in order to connect to the teachings and practices of the Jewish tradition. The typical final assignment in almost any Neil Gillman class was the writing of a personal theological statement, a task to which he provided a guide in the final chapter of Sacred Fragments, the most significant statement of his theological approach. Under his influence the personal theological statement became and remains a standard part of the application to the Rabbinical School at JTS. The personal theological statement gave a generation of rabbis, cantors, educators, and lay students the opportunity to discuss their qualms and questions about classical Jewish theology, explore new possibilities, and renew their faith from the “sacred fragments” of traditional images of God.As a thought leader for Conservative Judaism, Gillman's theological work owed a debt to two of his teachers at JTS, Mordecai Kaplan and Abraham Joshua Heschel. Gillman followed Kaplan's theological naturalism because he did not think we could fully retrieve the pre-modern conception of God as a supernatural personal being. At the same time, he understood that for many, himself included, Kaplan's naturalistic theology did not capture the emotive or spiritual power of lived religious experience, both in traditional Jewish ritual and in the everyday world. Heschel's poetic writing and teaching taught him to appreciate the way that the images and metaphors for God in the tradition allowed us to experience the divine within the world, to “see God,” as Gillman often put in explaining his debt to Heschel.To strike a balance between these two aspects of his theology, Gillman drew on Paul Tillich's notion of religious language as a mythic, in the sense of a socio-linguistic pattern of thinking that expresses and shapes the commitments of a community. The concept of myth allowed him to weave the personal imagery for God of classical Jewish texts in his theology without the baggage of supernatural metaphysical commitments. He applied this approach the theological issue of resurrection of the dead, which he explored in his 1997 book, The Death of Death. Again driven by existentialist themes, Gillman noted that American Jews' discomfort with resurrection theology mirrored their difficulty discussing death itself. His own understanding of resurrection as a mythic concept sought to highlight the religious significance of the human body and return to an affirmation of divine power over life and death. As with all his teachings, he found ways to challenge a generation of American Jews and their spiritual leaders to grapple with, to use Tillich's phrase, matters of ultimate concern. His teachings live on in hundreds of students who learned with him and have responded to his invitation to find their own ways for speaking to God and about God.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,070 | 0,054 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».