Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there has been an upsurge in the publication of popular biblical criticisms, as exemplified by the popular works of scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar, as well as by theological thinkers such as Bishop John Shelby Spong. My paper draws upon two years of formal anthropological fieldwork conducted at five North American mainline liberal churches that feature reading and discussion groups involved in the study of biblical criticism at a lay or popular level. In offering an analysis of progressive Christianity that engages with the scholarly works of Pierre Bourdieu, I propose to do two things. First, I argue that the study of religion and biblical criticism by progressive Christians serves as an ideal venue in which they are able to construct, articulate and proudly assume an alternative, non-normative Christian identity. I suggest that this identity is one that is formed in opposition to an evangelical or fundamentalist representation of Christianity, which I term, following Jonathan Z. Smith, a ‘Protestant proximate other’ (Smith 2004: 253).
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".