Response to Papers Presented at the American Academy of Religion Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Papers presented on The Torah and the Continuity of Scripture in Jewish Christian Dialogue at the Christian Systematic Theology Section of the American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting in 2008 reveal creative attempts to depart from long-standing Christian views about the Torah.As the authors illustrate from decisions of church councils and statements of prominent theologians from antiquity through the present, the observance of the laws of the Torah has long been discouraged or flatly prohibited in Christianity.From an early date, many Christians said it was unacceptable to grant any binding status to (some of) the biblical commandments after the coming of Christ. 1 The contributors, while aware of this dominant tradition, directly challenge it.Provocatively, they reject, in their own distinctive ways, highly negative perceptions of the law, by creatively reinterpreting Paul"s writings, despite these writings having long been used to support precisely these perceptions.While the specifics and the implications of their essays vary, all seek to carve out some positive space for the observance of the law.David Rudolph, insisting on the continuing legitimacy of law-observant Christianity, emphatically challenges a millennia-old dominant tradition.2 Co-presenters Jodie Boyer Hatlem and Douglas Johnson Hatlem, 3 and Holly Taylor Coolman 4 argue as well that observance of the law is not mutually excluded by faith in Christ.All seek to recover what they see as an authentic (if neglected) and more accommodating view of the law.The harsh denunciations of it in the past are unacceptable for various reasons.Furthermore, all are aware of the dangers of Christian supersessionism, and the negative views of Judaism encouraged by this tradition.Though none focus on the stunning post-WWII / post-Holocaust changes in Christians" views of Judaism and the Torah, their critical readings of historic Christian hostility to the Torah reflect their awareness of them.5 I want to concentrate on these three authors" essays, and specifically on their readings of Paul, for they draw on his letters in questioning or even undermining a near-monolithic Christian tradition.Some engage seriously with other Christian writers, especially Aquinas (Coolman), which situates their readings in the broader Christian tradition.All propose alternative interpretations of their own, and, in some cases, their readings are insightful.However, they are more often unconvincing, and frequently strained.A few verses bear too much weight, without full consideration of context.Paul"s overriding concern with justifying the inclusion of Gentiles in an originally 1 For a helpful recent study see Ronald E. Heine, Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church: Exploring the Formation of Early Christian Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007). 2 "Paul"s "Rule in All the Congregations" (1 Cor 7:17-24) and God"s "Call" to Torah-defined Ecclesiological Variegation".3 "Unmuzzling the Ox: Why the Torah Should Be Normative for "Gentile" Christians".4 "The Christological Torah".5 Such changes have been encouraged by the work of scholars such as E. P.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.051 |
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".