“In the Shadow of Biblical Work:” Barth and Bonhoeffer on Reading the Bible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two things at least are clear about the relationship of Barth and Bonhoeffer: that disentangling the history of their relation is of considerable importance for making sense of Bonhoeffer, if not of Barth; and that the disentangling is a rather delicate operation which involves some discriminating interpretation of the writings of two complex theologians. Much, for example, hangs on what we are to make of Bonhoeffer's scattered remarks on Barth, revelation and non-religious interpretation in the prison writings, and of Barth's puzzled response to them. Bonhoeffer experts will no doubt put me straight, but my own-highly corrigible-judgment is that the prison texts do not contain the most important or interesting things which Bonhoeffer had to say: there is much more theological good sense on questions of the presentation of the gospel to be found in the Finkenwalde homiletics lectures, for example. The common attempt to display the coherence of these writings from the end of Bonhoeffer's life with more developed aspects of his thought-his appropriation of Barth's early critique of religion, Bonhoeffer's fondness for the Old Testament and his concern with the gospel as moral and social reality-is only partially successful, and the fragmentary state of the remarks leaves them perilously exposed to abuse by interpreters invoking Bonhoeffer's shade for modish theological or ecclesiastical projects. Again, a good deal in clarifying Bonhoeffer's relation to Barth hangs on pondering Bonhoeffer's worry that Barth gave insufficient weight to the ethical. Barth was, I believe, quite right when he pointed out in his letter to Bethge that Bonhoeffer's emphasis on the ethical was in fact "just the outlook which I presupposed"; indeed, Barth was from the beginning no less a moral theologian than Bonhoeffer, and his Ethics deserves at least the same kind of serious study that has been devoted to Bonhoeffer's work of the same title
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".