Comparative Christian Hermeneutical Approaches to the Land Promises to Abraham
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Comparative Christian Hermeneutical Approaches to the Land Promises to Abraham Adam Gregerman While formerly inflammatory topics such as the deicide charge have waned in Jewish–Christian relations, disputes over the land and State of Israel provoke intense controversy and disagreement. Decades ago, in the Christian world, this topic was already widely said to be especially divisive, and today, it remains so. It is not surprising that an issue that provokes intense geopolitical interest and touches on territory of nearly unsurpassed religious significance would be so provocative. The nexus of politics and religion is especially volatile. Among Christians, church organizations and individual theologians in the west (North America, Europe) join diverse religious claims and biblical interpretations to their foreign policy statements and arguments. Sometimes, it seems that the political views trump the religious. For example, Christian disputes over the State of Israel often can be mapped onto existing deep divisions in the American churches over domestic policies or military action, with left and right presenting predictable arguments. It is understandably tempting to see appeals to Scripture and theology as tools to buttress pre‐existing political views. However, a sympathetic reader should also recognize the presence of serious theological reflections on this contested and fraught sacred space. Christians who grapple with the land and State of Israel do so in the wake of highly complex millennia‐old Christian theological traditions about Jews and Judaism, sacred space generally, and the land of Israel in particular. There are profound religious issues at stake that go beyond politics, for the State of Israel as a “Jewish state” inevitably raises religious questions for Christians, especially for those rethinking largely negative historical views of Jews and Judaism. For many centuries, nearly all Christians believed that Jewish powerlessness and exile were divine punishment for Jews’ refusal to believe in and/or murder of Jesus. The ejection of many Jews from the biblical land of Israel and the end to Jewish sovereignty there were proofs of the truth of Christianity. Not surprisingly, then, in the wake of the 1948 creation of the State of Israel, the ingathering of (some) Jews to the land, and the (partial) end of Jewish subordination to Gentile rulers, many Christians struggled to make sense of this event not just politically but theologically. The difficult theological questions raised by this event, and for some subsequent events, such as the Israeli capture of all of Jerusalem in 1967, include as follows: Does the creation of the state—though a result of a United Nations vote—have any religious significance for Christians, as a contemporary act of God in history or manifestation of God's will? Need it prompt changes in Christians’ views about Jewish landedness or landlessness, and if so, how broad might these changes be? Are the policies of the state to be evaluated by Christians using religious criteria different from those used when evaluating other countries? Because these questions rest on underlying (and changing) Christian theological views about Jews and Judaism, they should be situated in a broader context: how do widespread contemporary Christian efforts to understand Judaism in theologically positive ways influence Christian views of the land and State of Israel specifically? This last question provides the context for addressing this topic. Since many western Christian groups and thinkers now reject supersessionism and affirm the ongoing legitimacy of the Jews’ covenant, the biblical promises concerning the land are an unavoidable topic. Even those who deny any contemporary religious significance to the State of Israel must face it, if only to make this separation between biblical promises and the modern nation‐state clear. There have been studies on contemporary Christian views of the religious significance or lack of religious significance of the land and State of Israel. Most have focused on one group or one perspective, such as liberal Christians, Catholics, evangelical/conservative Christians, and even British churches or Canadian churches. Other studies—fewer in number—survey a variety of perspectives. Much attention has been paid in particular to church/Christian activism, such as support for or opposition to Israel and its policies. Surprisingly, less attention has been paid to the underlying religious issues of the covenant between God and the Israelites/Jews and...
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».