Rendering the Word in Theological Hermeneutics: Mapping Divine and Human Agency. By MARK ALAN BOWALD.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mark Bowald, of Redeemer University College, Canada, traces the absence of references to the divine agency of the Bible to the Enlightenment and to Kant. The purpose of the book, he states, is ‘to challenge a misleading legacy of Enlightenment epistemology’ (p. 19). This legacy, he claims, produced ‘confused’ readings of Scripture, which failed to take account of divine agency in the inspiration of Scripture. He argues that hermeneutics since the Enlightenment marginalizes divine agency. It concentrates on the reader and the act of reading. Bowald blames especially Kant's epistemology, which turns, he argues, on the distinction between opinion, belief, and knowledge. Notions about God, according to Kant, can never be more than beliefs, in that they proceed from a subjective awareness rooted in the world and one's moral nature, but do not proceed from an ‘objective’ demonstration. Kant, Bowald argues, suffers from two limitations among others. First, potential knowledge of God can never be ‘true’ or ‘pure’ knowledge; second, we cannot rise above ‘faith’ as the medium of knowledge of God. This excludes our taking account of others’ knowledge of God, or their prior judgements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".