Understanding as a Liturgy of the Whole Church: The Critical Hermeneutics of Karl Barth's <i>Church Dogmatics</i>, Volume 1, Part 2
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: As a re-examination of Karl Barth's hermeneutic, this article argues that while Werner Jeanrond's identification of Barth with Gadamer may be appropriate, his blindness to Barth's provision of a critical element, which Jeanrond believed Bultmann alone provides, reveals a general hermeneutical prejudice. The work first contrasts the hermeneutical methods of Barth and Bultmann, identifying where Jeanrond believes Bultmann's critical hermeneutic progresses beyond Barth. Then, through comparison with the method Gadamer employs, it gives evidence that Barth both acknowledges and addresses the need Jeanrond believes only Bultmann addresses. Finally, it shows how, when followed to its proper conclusion, Barth's hermeneutic provides the critical element Jeanrond believes lacking in Barth. Where Barth differs is in his identification of the critical element with the dogmatic task, a task to which he believed all believers contributed and is in that sense a liturgical work; leitourgeo, from which liturgy is derived, being a derivative of laos (people) and ergon (work). That the methodology Barth employs is what truly distinguishes his hermeneutic from Bultmann's is defended, and that Barth believed it the true solution to the hermeneutical problem Jeanrond identifies. Thus, it is argued that Barth takes the problem much more seriously. The work concludes with an outline of some of the implications of Barth's account, in which it is argued to be both ecumenical and emancipative and thus politically charged. It is also proven instructive for a correct understanding of his commitment to the principle semper reformanda.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it